OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp Arrayed:

rwp@Acts:17:18 @{And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him} (\tines de kai tn Epikourin kai Stikn philosophn suneballon auti\). Imperfect active of \sunball\, old verb, in the N.T. only by Luke, to bring or put together in one's mind (Luke:2:19|), to meet together (Acts:20:14|), to bring together aid (18:27|), to confer or converse or dispute as here and already strkjv@4:15| which see. These professional philosophers were always ready for an argument and so they frequented the agora for that purpose. Luke uses one article and so groups the two sects together in their attitude toward Paul, but they were very different in fact. Both sects were eager for argument and both had disdain for Paul, but they were the two rival practical philosophies of the day, succeeding the more abstruse theories of Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had turned men's thought inward (\Gnthi Seauton\, Know Thyself) away from the mere study of physics. Plato followed with a profound development of the inner self (metaphysics). Aristotle with his cyclopaedic grasp sought to unify and relate both physics and metaphysics. Both Zeno and Epicurus (340-272 B.C.) took a more practical turn in all this intellectual turmoil and raised the issues of everyday life. Zeno (360-260 B.C.) taught in the \Stoa\ (Porch) and so his teaching was called Stoicism. He advanced many noble ideas that found their chief illustration in the Roman philosophers (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). He taught self-mastery and hardness with an austerity that ministered to pride or suicide in case of failure, a distinctly selfish and unloving view of life and with a pantheistic philosophy. Epicurus considered practical atheism the true view of the universe and denied a future life and claimed pleasure as the chief thing to be gotten out of life. He did not deny the existence of gods, but regarded them as unconcerned with the life of men. The Stoics called Epicurus an atheist. Lucretius and Horace give the Epicurean view of life in their great poems. This low view of life led to sensualism and does today, for both Stoicism and Epicureanism are widely influential with people now. "Eat and drink for tomorrow we die," they preached. Paul had doubtless become acquainted with both of these philosophies for they were widely prevalent over the world. Here he confronts them in their very home. He is challenged by past-masters in the art of appealing to the senses, men as skilled in their dialectic as the Pharisaic rabbis with whom Paul had been trained and whose subtleties he had learned how to expose. But, so far as we know, this is a new experience for Paul to have a public dispute with these philosophical experts who had a natural contempt for all Jews and for rabbis in particular, though they found Paul a new type at any rate and so with some interest in him. "In Epicureanism, it was man's sensual nature which arrayed itself against the claims of the gospel; in Stoicism it was his self-righteousness and pride of intellect" (Hackett). Knowling calls the Stoic the Pharisee of philosophy and the Epicurean the Sadducee of philosophy. Socrates in this very agora used to try to interest the passers-by in some desire for better things. That was 450 years before Paul is challenged by these superficial sophistical Epicureans and Stoics. It is doubtful if Paul had ever met a more difficult situation. {What would this babbler say?} (\Ti an theloi ho spermologos houtos legein?\). The word for "babbler" means "seed-picker" or picker up of seeds (\sperma\, seed, \leg\, to collect) like a bird in the agora hopping about after chance seeds. Plutarch applies the word to crows that pick up grain in the fields. Demosthenes called Aeschines a \spermologos\. Eustathius uses it of a man hanging around in the markets picking up scraps of food that fell from the carts and so also of mere rhetoricians and plagiarists who picked up scraps of wisdom from others. Ramsay considers it here a piece of Athenian slang used to describe the picture of Paul seen by these philosophers who use it, for not all of them had it ("some," \tines\). Note the use of \an\ and the present active optative \theloi\, conclusion of a fourth-class condition in a rhetorical question (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). It means, What would this picker up of seeds wish to say, if he should get off an idea? It is a contemptuous tone of supreme ridicule and doubtless Paul heard this comment. Probably the Epicureans made this sneer that Paul was a charlatan or quack. {Other some} (\hoi de\). But others, in contrast with the "some" just before. Perhaps the Stoics take this more serious view of Paul. {He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods} (\zenn daimonin dokei kataggeleus einai\). This view is put cautiously by \dokei\ (seems). \Kataggeleus\ does not occur in the old Greek, though in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 99) gives an example of the word "on a marble stele recording a decree of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus," where it is the herald of the games. Here alone in the N.T. \Daimonion\ is used in the old Greek sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad, not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this word and \kataggeleus\ are used from the Athenian standpoint. \Xenos\ is an old word for a guest-friend (Latin _hospes_) and then host (Romans:16:23|), then for foreigner or stranger (Matthew:25:31; strkjv@Acts:17:21|), new and so strange as here and strkjv@Hebrews:13:9; strkjv@1Peter:4:12|, and then aliens (Ephesians:2:12|). This view of Paul is the first count against Socrates: Socrates does wrong, introducing new deities (\adikei Skrats, kaina daimonia eisphern\, Xen. _Mem_. I). On this charge the Athenians voted the hemlock for their greatest citizen. What will they do to Paul? This Athens was more sceptical and more tolerant than the old Athens. But Roman law did not allow the introduction of a new religion (_religio illicita_). Paul was walking on thin ice though he was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Colossians:1:12-20|), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him. But these men are mocking him. {Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection} (\hoti ton Isoun kai tn anastasin euggelizato\). Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of \euaggeliz\, to "gospelize." Apparently these critics considered \anastasis\ (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (verse 32|). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely.

rwp@John:19:1 @{Took and scourged} (\elaben kai emastigsen\). First aorist active indicative of \lamban\ and \mastigo\ (from \mastix\, whip). For this redundant use of \lamban\ see also verse 6|. It is the causative use of \mastigo\, for Pilate did not actually scourge Jesus. He simply ordered it done, perhaps to see if the mob would be satisfied with this penalty on the alleged pretender to royalty (Luke:23:22|) whom Pilate had pronounced innocent (John:18:38|), an illegal act therefore. It was a preliminary to crucifixion, but Jesus was not yet condemned. The Sanhedrin had previously mocked Jesus (Mark:14:65; strkjv@Matthew:26:67f.; strkjv@Luke:22:63ff.|) as the soldiers will do later (Mark:15:16-19; strkjv@Matthew:27:27-30|). This later mock coronation (Mark and Matthew) was after the condemnation. {Plaited a crown of thorns} (\plexantes stephanon ex akanthn\). Old verb \plek\, to weave, in the N.T. only here, strkjv@Mark:15:17; strkjv@Matthew:27:19|. Not impossible for the mock coronation to be repeated. {Arrayed him} (\periebalon auton\). "Placed around him" (second aorist active indicative of \periball\). {In a purple garment} (\himation porphuroun\). Old adjective \porphureos\ from \porphura\, purple cloth (Mark:15:17,20|), dyed in purple, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:18:16|. Jesus had been stripped of his outer garment \himation\ (Matthew:27:28|) and the scarlet cloak of one of the soldiers may have been put on him (Matthew:27:28|).

rwp@Matthew:6:29 @{Was not arrayed} (\oude periebaleto\). Middle voice and so "did not clothe himself," "did not put around himself."

rwp@Revelation:3:5 @{Shall be arrayed} (\peribaleitai\). Future middle indicative of \periball\, to fling around one, here and in strkjv@4:4| with \en\ and the locative, but usually in this book with the accusative of the thing, retained in the passive or with the middle (7:9,13; strkjv@10:1; strkjv@11:3; strkjv@12:1; strkjv@17:4; strkjv@18:16; strkjv@19:8,13|). {In white garments} (\en himatiois leukois\). Apparently the spiritual bodies in the risen life as in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:1,4| and often in Revelation (3:4,5; strkjv@6:11; strkjv@7:9,13f.; strkjv@19:8|). {I will in no wise blot out} (\ou m exaleips\). Strong double negative \ou m\ and the first aorist active (or future) of \exaleiph\, old word, to wipe out (Acts:3:19|). {Of the book of life} (\ek ts biblou ts zs\). Ablative case with \ek\. This divine register first occurs in strkjv@Exodus:32:32f.| and often in the O.T. See strkjv@Luke:10:20; strkjv@Phillipians:4:3; strkjv@Revelation:13:8; strkjv@20:15; strkjv@21:27|. The book is in Christ's hands (13:8; strkjv@21:27|). {His name} (\to onoma autou\). The name of the one who overcomes (\ho nikn\). Clear reminiscence of the words of Christ about confessing to the Father those who confess him here (Matthew:10:32; strkjv@Mark:8:38; strkjv@Luke:9:26; strkjv@12:8|). Whether John knew the Synoptic Gospels (and why not?) he certainly knew such sayings of Jesus.

rwp@Revelation:4:4 @{Round about the throne} (\kuklothen tou thronou\). Here as a preposition with the genitive, though only adverb in strkjv@4:8| (only N.T. examples save Textus Rec. in strkjv@5:11|). {Four and twenty thrones} (\thronoi eikosi tessares\). Songs:P Q, but Aleph A have accusative \thronous\ (supply \eidon\ from strkjv@4:1|) and \tessares\ (late accusative in \-es\). This further circle of thrones beyond the great throne. {I saw four and twenty elders} (\eikosi tessaras presbuterous\). No \eidon\ in the text, but the accusative case calls for it. Twenty-four as a symbolic number occurs only in this book and only for these elders (4:4,10; strkjv@5:8; strkjv@11:16; strkjv@19:4|). We do not really know why this number is chosen, perhaps two elders for each tribe, perhaps the twelve tribes and the twelve apostles (Judaism and Christianity), perhaps the twenty-four courses of the sons of Aaron (1Chronicles:24:1-19|), perhaps some angelic rank (Colossians:1:16|) of which we know nothing. Cf. strkjv@Ephesians:2:6|. {Sitting} (\kathmenous\). Upon their thrones. {Arrayed} (\peribeblmenous\). Perfect passive participle of \periball\ (to throw around). {In white garments} (\himatiois leukois\). Locative case here as in strkjv@3:5| (with \en\), though accusative in strkjv@7:9,13|. {Crowns of gold} (\stephanous chrusous\). Accusative case again like \presbuterous\ after \eidon\ (4:1|), not \idou\. In strkjv@19:14| \echn\ (having) is added. John uses \diadma\ (diadem) for the kingly crown in strkjv@12:3; strkjv@13:1; strkjv@19:12|, but it is not certain that the old distinction between \diadem\ as the kingly crown and \stephanos\ as the victor's wreath is always observed in late Greek.

rwp@Revelation:10:1 @{Another strong angel} (\allon aggelon ischuron\). But the seventh trumpet does not sound till strkjv@11:15|. This angel is not one of the seven or of the four, but like the other strong angel in strkjv@5:2; strkjv@18:21| or the other angel in strkjv@14:6,15|. The sixth trumpet of strkjv@9:13| ends in strkjv@9:21|. The opening of the seventh seal was preceded by two visions (chapter strkjv@Revelation:7|) and so here the sounding of the seventh trumpet (11:15|) is preceded by a new series of visions (10:1-11:14|). {Coming down out of heaven} (\katabainonta ek tou ouranou\). Present active participle of \katabain\ picturing the process of the descent as in strkjv@20:1| (cf. strkjv@3:12|). {Arrayed with a cloud} (\peribeblmenon nepheln\). Perfect passive participle of \periball\ with accusative case retained as in strkjv@7:9,13|. Not proof that this angel is Christ, though Christ will come on the clouds (1:7|) as he ascended on a cloud (Acts:1:9|). God's chariot is in the clouds (Psalms:104:3|), but this angel is a special messenger of God's. {The rainbow} (\h iris\). See strkjv@4:3| for this word. The construction here is changed from the accusative to the nominative. {As the sun} (\hs ho hlios\). The very metaphor applied to Christ in strkjv@1:16|. {As pillars of fire} (\hs stuloi puros\). Somewhat like the metaphor of Christ in strkjv@1:15|, but still no proof that this angel is Christ. On \stulos\ see strkjv@3:12; strkjv@Galatians:2:9|.

rwp@Revelation:12:1 @{A great sign} (\smeion mega\). The first of the visions to be so described (13:3; strkjv@15:1|), and it is introduced by \phth\ as in strkjv@11:19; strkjv@12:3|, not by \meta tauto\ or by \eidon\ or by \eidon kai idou\ as heretofore. This "sign" is really a \teras\ (wonder), as it is so by association in strkjv@Matthew:24:24; strkjv@John:4:48; strkjv@Acts:2:22; strkjv@5:12|. The element of wonder is not in the word \smeion\ as in \teras\, but often in the thing itself as in strkjv@Luke:21:11; strkjv@John:9:16; strkjv@Revelation:13:13ff.; strkjv@15:1; strkjv@16:14; strkjv@19:20|. {A woman} (\gun\). Nominative case in apposition with \smeion\. "The first 'sign in heaven' is a Woman--the earliest appearance of a female figure in the Apocalyptic vision" (Swete). {Arrayed with the sun} (\peribeblmen ton hlion\). Perfect passive participle of \periball\, with the accusative retained as so often (9 times) in the Apocalypse. Both Charles and Moffatt see mythological ideas and sources behind the bold imagery here that leave us all at sea. Swete understands the Woman to be "the church of the Old Testament" as "the Mother of whom Christ came after the flesh. But here, as everywhere in the Book, no sharp dividing line is drawn between the Church of the Old Testament and the Christian Society." Certainly she is not the Virgin Mary, as verse 17| makes clear. Beckwith takes her to be "the heavenly representative of the people of God, the _ideal_ Zion, which, so far as it is embodied in concrete realities, is represented alike by the people of the Old and the New Covenants." John may have in mind strkjv@Isaiah:7:14| (Matthew:1:23; strkjv@Luke:1:31|) as well as strkjv@Micah:4:10; strkjv@Isaiah:26:17f.; strkjv@66:7| without a definite picture of Mary. The metaphor of childbirth is common enough (John:16:21; strkjv@Galatians:4:19|). The figure is a bold one with the moon "under her feet" (\hupokat tn podn auts\) and "a crown of twelve stars" (\stephanos astern ddeka\), a possible allusion to the twelve tribes (James:1:1; strkjv@Revelation:21:12|) or to the twelve apostles (Revelation:21:14|).

rwp@Revelation:15:6 @{There came out} (\exlthan\). Second aorist active indicative of \exerchomai\ with \-an\ rather than \-on\. Proleptic and prophetic aorist. {The seven angels} (\hoi hepta aggeloi\). Those in verse 1|. {The seven plagues} (\tas hepta plgas\). The bowls are not given them till verse 7|. {Arrayed} (\endedumenoi\). Perfect passive participle of \endu\. {With precious stone pure and bright} (\lithon katharon lampron\). Accusative case retained with verb of clothing as so often, literally "with a stone pure bright." For both adjectives together see strkjv@19:8,14|. Some MSS. read \linon\ (linen). For \lithon\ see strkjv@17:4; strkjv@18:16; strkjv@Ezekiel:28:13|. {Girt} (\periezsmenoi\). Perfect passive participle of \periznnu\. See strkjv@1:13| for both participles. For \stthos\ (breast) see strkjv@Luke:18:13|. {With golden girdles} (\znas chruss\). Accusative case after the perfect passive participle \periezsmenoi\ as in strkjv@1:13|.

rwp@Revelation:17:4 @{Was arrayed} (\n peribeblmen\). Periphrastic past perfect indicative of \periball\, to fling round one. {In purple and scarlet} (\porphuroun kai kokkinon\). Accusative retained after this passive verb of clothing, as so often. \Porphurous\ is old adjective for purple (from \porphura\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@John:19:2,5|. See preceding verse for \kokkinos\. {Decked} (\kechrusmen\). Perfect passive participle of \chruso\, old verb, to gild, to adorn with gold, here alone in N.T. {With gold and precious stone and pearls} (\chrusii kai lithi timii kai margaritais\). Instrumental case. \Chrusii\ is cognate with the participle. \Lithi timii\ is collective (18:12,16; strkjv@21:19|). There is a \zeugma\ also with \margaritais\ (18:12,16; strkjv@21:21|), for which word see strkjv@Matthew:7:6|. Probably John is thinking of the finery of the temple prostitutes in Asia Minor. {Full of abominations} (\gemon bdelugmatn\). Agreeing with \potrion\, "cup" (neuter singular accusative). Some MSS. read \gemn\ (nominative masculine like \echn\ in verse 3|, quite irregular). For \bdelugmatn\ (genitive after \gemon\) see strkjv@Matthew:24:15|; (Mark:13:14|), common in the LXX for idol worship and its defilements (from \bdeluss\, to render foul), both ceremonial and moral. See strkjv@Jeremiah:15:7|. {Even the unclean things of her fornication} (\kai ta akatharta ts porneias auts\). Either the accusative after \gemon\ as in verse 3| (and full of the unclean things of her fornication) or the object of \echousa\, like \potrion\.

rwp@Revelation:19:13 @{Arrayed} (\peribeblmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \periball\, to clothe, often in this book. {In a garment} (\himation\). Accusative case after the passive participle \peribeblmenos\. {Sprinkled} (\rerantismenon\). Perfect passive participle of \rantiz\, in the predicate accusative case agreeing with \himation\. A Q here read \bebammenon\ (perfect passive participle of \bapt\, to dip). Probably \rerantismenon\ (sprinkled) is correct, because the picture comes from strkjv@Isaiah:63:3|, where Aquila and Symmachus use \rantiz\. The use of \bebammenon\ (dipped) is a bolder figure and Charles considers it correct. In either case it is the blood of Christ's enemies with which his raiment (\himation\, perhaps a \chlamus\ strkjv@Matthew:27:28,31|) is sprinkled or dipped as the case may be, not his own blood on Calvary (1:5; strkjv@5:9; strkjv@7:14; strkjv@12:11|), but proleptically and prophetically the blood of Christ's enemies. \Haimati\ can be either locative case with \bebammenon\ (dipped in blood) or instrumental with \rerantismenon\ (sprinkled with blood). {The Word of God} (\ho Logos tou theou\). Some scholars hold this addition inconsistent with verse 12|, but it may be merely the explanation of the secret name or still another name besides that known only to himself. The personal use of the Logos applied to Christ occurs only in the Johannine writings unless that is the idea in strkjv@Hebrews:4:12|. In strkjv@John:1:1,14| it is merely \ho Logos\ (the Word), in strkjv@1John:1:1| \ho Logos ts zs\ (the Word of Life), while here it is \ho Logos tou theou\ (the Word of God), one of the strongest arguments for identity of authorship. The idiom here is one common in Luke and Paul for the teaching of Christ (Luke:5:1; strkjv@8:11|, etc.; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:36; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:17|, etc.). Jesus is himself the final and perfect revelation of God to men (Hebrews:1:1f.|).

rwp@Romans:6:13 @{Neither present} (\mde paristanete\). Present active imperative in prohibition of \paristan\, late form of \paristmi\, to place beside. Stop presenting your members or do not have the habit of doing so, "do not go on putting your members to sin as weapons of unrighteousness." {Instruments} (\hopla\). Old word for tools of any kind for shop or war (John:18:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:6:7; strkjv@10:4; strkjv@Romans:13:12|). Possibly here figure of two armies arrayed against each other (Galatians:5:16-24|), and see \hopla dikaiosuns\ below. The two sets of \hopla\ clash. {But present yourselves unto God} (\alla parastsate heautous ti thei\). First aorist active imperative of \paristmi\, same verb, but different tense, do it now and completely. Our "members" (\mel\) should be at the call of God "as alive from the dead."