OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp Advocates:

rwp@1Corinthians:3:11 @{Other foundation} (\themelion allon\). The gender of the adjective is here masculine as is shown by \allon\. If neuter, it would be \allo\. It is masculine because Paul has Christ in mind. It is not here \heteron\ a different kind of gospel (\heteron euaggelion\, strkjv@Galatians:1:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:4|) which is not another (\allo\, strkjv@Galatians:1:7|) in reality. But another Jesus (2Corinthians:11:4|, \allon Isoun\) is a reflection on the one Lord Jesus. Hence there is no room on the platform with Jesus for another Saviour, whether Buddha, Mahomet, Dowie, Eddy, or what not. Jesus Christ is the one foundation and it is gratuitous impudence for another to assume the role of Foundation. {Than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus} (\para ton keimenon, hos estin Isous Christos\). Literally, "alongside (\para\) the one laid (\keimenon\)," already laid (present middle participle of \keimai\, used here as often as the perfect passive of \tithmi\ in place of \tetheimenon\). Paul scouts the suggestion that one even in the interest of so-called "new thought" will dare to lay beside Jesus another foundation for religion. And yet I have seen an article by a professor in a theological seminary in which he advocates regarding Jesus as a landmark, not as a goal, not as a foundation. Clearly Paul means that on this one true foundation, Jesus Christ, one must build only what is in full harmony with the Foundation which is Jesus Christ. If one accuses Paul of narrowness, it can be replied that the architect has to be narrow in the sense of building here and not there. A broad foundation will be too thin and unstable for a solid and abiding structure. It can be said also that Paul is here merely repeating the claim of Jesus himself on this very subject when he quoted strkjv@Psalms:118:22f.| to the members of the Sanhedrin who challenged his authority (Mark:11:10f.; strkjv@Matthew:21:42-45; strkjv@Luke:20:17f.|). Apostles and prophets go into this temple of God, but Christ Jesus is the chief corner stone (\akrognaios\, strkjv@Ephesians:2:20|). All believers are living stones in this temple (1Peter:2:5|). But there is only one foundation possible.

rwp@2Peter:2:19 @{Liberty} (\eleutherian\). Promising "personal liberty," that is license, after the fashion of advocates of liquor today, not the freedom of truth in Christ (John:8:32; strkjv@Galatians:5:1,13|). {Themselves bondservants} (\autoi douloi\). "Themselves slaves" of corruption and sin as Paul has it in strkjv@Romans:6:20|. {Of whom} (\hi\). Instrumental case, but it may mean "of what." {Is overcome} (\htttai\). Perfect passive indicative of \htta\ (from \httn\, less) old verb, in N.T. only here, verse 20; strkjv@2Corinthians:12:13|. {Of the same} (\touti\). "By this one (or thing)." {Is brought into bondage} (\dedoultai\). Perfect passive indicative of \doulo\. Like Paul again (Romans:6:16,18; strkjv@8:21|).

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:2 @{To the end that} (\eis to\). One of Paul's favourite idioms for purpose, \eis to\ and the infinitive. {Ye be not quickly shaken} (\m taches saleuthnai humas\). First aorist passive infinitive of \saleu\, old verb to agitate, to cause to totter like a reed (Matthew:11:7|), the earth (Hebrews:12:26|). Usual negative \m\ and accusative of general reference \humas\ with the infinitive. {From your mind} (\apo tou noos\). Ablative case of nous, mind, reason, sober sense, "from your witte" (Wyclif), to "keep their heads." {Nor yet be troubled} (\mde throeisthai\). Old verb \throe\, to cry aloud (from \throos\, clamour, tumult), to be in a state of nervous excitement (present passive infinitive, as if it were going on), "a continued state of agitation following the definite shock received (\saleuthnai\)" (Milligan). {Either by spirit} (\mte dia pneumatos\). By ecstatic utterance (1Thessalonians:5:10|). The nervous fear that the coming was to be at once prohibited by \mde\ Paul divides into three sources by \mte, mte, mte\. No individual claim to divine revelation (the gift of prophecy) can justify the statement. {Or by word} (\mte dia logou\). Oral statement of a conversation with Paul (Lightfoot) to this effect {as from us}. An easy way to set aside Paul's first Epistle by report of a private remark from Paul. {Or by epistle as from us} (\mte di' epistols hs di' hmn\). In strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:13-5:3| Paul had plainly said that Jesus would come as a thief in the night and had shown that the dead would not be left out in the rapture. But evidently some one claimed to have a private epistle from Paul which supported the view that Jesus was coming at once, {as that the day of the Lord is now present} (\hs hoti enestken h hmera tou kuriou\). Perfect active indicative of \enistmi\, old verb, to place in, but intransitive in this tense to stand in or at or near. Songs:"is imminent" (Lightfoot). The verb is common in the papyri. In strkjv@1Corinthians:3:22; strkjv@Romans:8:38| we have a contrast between \ta enestta\, the things present, and \ta mellonta\, the things future (to come). The use of \hs hoti\ may be disparaging here, though that is not true in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:19|. In the _Koin_ it comes in the vernacular to mean simply "that" (Moulton, _Proleg_., p. 212), but that hardly seems the case in the N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1033). Here it means "to wit that," though "as that" or "as if" does not miss it much. Certainly it flatly denies that by conversation or by letter he had stated that the second coming was immediately at hand. "It is this misleading assertion that accounts both for the increased discouragement of the faint-hearted to encourage whom Paul writes strkjv@1:3-2:17|, and for the increased meddlesomeness of the idle brethren to warn whom Paul writes strkjv@3:1-18|" (Frame). It is enough to give one pause to note Paul's indignation over this use of his name by one of the over-zealous advocates of the view that Christ was coming at once. It is true that Paul was still alive, but, if such a "pious fraud" was so common and easily condoned as some today argue, it is difficult to explain Paul's evident anger. Moreover, Paul's words should make us hesitate to affirm that Paul definitely proclaimed the early return of Jesus. He hoped for it undoubtedly, but he did not specifically proclaim it as so many today assert and accuse him of misleading the early Christians with a false presentation.

rwp@Acts:16:6 @{The region of Phrygia and Galatia} (\tn Phrugian kai Galatikn chran\). This is probably the correct text with one article and apparently describes one "Region" or District in The Province of Galatia which was also Phrygian (the old-ethnographic name with which compare the use of Lycaonia in strkjv@14:6|). Strictly speaking Derbe and Lystra, though in the Province of Galatia, were not Phrygian, and so Luke would here be not resumptive of the record in verses 1-5|; but a reference to the country around Iconium and Antioch in Pisidia in North Galatia is not included. This verse is hotly disputed at every point by the advocates of the North Galatian theory as represented by Chase and the South Galatian theory by Ramsay. Whatever is true in regard to the language of Luke here and in strkjv@18:23|, it is still possible for Paul in strkjv@Galatians:1:2| to use the term Galatia of the whole province of that name which could, in fact, apply to either South or North Galatia or to both. He could, of course, use it also in the ethnographic sense of the real Gauls or Celts who dwelt in North Galatia. Certainly the first tour of Paul and Barnabas was in the Province of Galatia though touching only the Regions of Pisidia, Phrygia, and Lycaonia, which province included besides the Gauls to the north. In this second tour Lycaonia has been already touched (Derbe and Lystra) and now Phrygia. The question arises why Luke here and in strkjv@18:23| adds the term "of Galatia" (\Galatikn\) though not in strkjv@13:14| (Pisidian Antioch) nor in strkjv@14:6| (cities of Lycaonia). Does Luke mean to use "of Galatia" in the same ethnographic sense as "of Phrygia" or does he here add the province (Galatia) to the name of the Region (Phrygia)? In itself either view is possible and it really matters very little except that the question is raised whether Paul went into the North Galatian Region on this occasion or later (18:23|). He could have done so and the Epistle be addressed to the churches of South Galatia, North Galatia, or the province as a whole. But the Greek participle \kluthentes\ ("having been forbidden") plays a part in the argument that cannot be overlooked whether Luke means to say that Paul went north or not. This aorist passive participle of \klu\, to hinder, can only express simultaneous or antecedent action, not subsequent action as Ramsay argues. No example of the so-called subsequent use of the aorist participle has ever been found in Greek as all Greek grammarians agree (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 860-63, 1112-14). The only natural meaning of \kluthentes\ is that Paul with Silas and Timothy "passed through the region of Phrygia and Galatia" because they were hindered by the Holy Spirit from speaking the word in Asia (the Province of Asia of which Ephesus was the chief city and west of Derbe and Lystra). This construction implies that the country called "the region of Phrygia and Galatia" is not in the direct line west toward Ephesus. What follows in verse 7| throws further light on the point.

rwp@Colossians:1:5 @{Because of the hope} (\dia tn elpida\). See strkjv@Romans:8:24|. It is not clear whether this phrase is to be linked with \eucha istoumen\ at the beginning of verse 3| or (more likely) with \tn agapn\ just before. Note also here \pistis\ (faith), \agap\ (love), \elpis\ (hope), though not grouped together so sharply as in strkjv@1Corinthians:13:13|. Here hope is objective, the goal ahead. {Laid up} (\apokeimeinn\). Literally, "laid away or by." Old word used in strkjv@Luke:19:20| of the pound laid away in a napkin. See also \apothsauriz\, to store away for future use (1Timothy:6:19|). The same idea occurs in strkjv@Matthew:6:20| (treasure in heaven) and strkjv@1Peter:1:4| and it is involved in strkjv@Philemon:3:20|. {Ye heard before} (\prokousate\). First aorist indicative active of this old compound \proakou\, though only here in the N.T. Before what? Before Paul wrote? Before the realization? Before the error of the Gnostics crept in? Each view is possible and has advocates. Lightfoot argues for the last and it is probably correct as is indicated by the next clause. {In the word of the truth of the gospel} (\en ti logi ts altheias tou euaggeliou\). "In the preaching of the truth of the gospel" (Galatians:2:5,14|) which is come (\parontos\, present active participle agreeing with \euaggeliou\, being present, a classical use of \pareimi\ as in strkjv@Acts:12:20|). They heard the pure gospel from Epaphras before the Gnostics came.