OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp attributed:

rwp@1Timothy:1:3 @{As I exhorted} (\kaths parekalesa\). There is an ellipse of the principal clause in verse 4| ({so do I now} not being in the Greek). {To tarry} (\prosmeinai\). First aorist active infinitive of \prosmen\, old verb, attributed by Luke to Paul in strkjv@Acts:13:43|. {That thou mightest charge} (\hina paraggeilis\). Subfinal clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \paraggell\, old verb, to transmit a message along (\para\) from one to another. See strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:4,6,10|. Lock considers this idiom here an elliptical imperative like strkjv@Ephesians:4:29; strkjv@5:33|. {Certain men} (\tisin\). Dative case. Expressly vague (no names as in strkjv@1:20|), though Paul doubtless has certain persons in Ephesus in mind. {Not to teach a different doctrine} (\m heterodidaskalein\). Earliest known use of this compound like \kakodidaskalein\ of Clement of Rome. Only other N.T. example in strkjv@6:3|. Eusebius has \heterodidaskalos\. Same idea in strkjv@Galatians:1:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:4; strkjv@Romans:16:17|. Perhaps coined by Paul.

rwp@1Timothy:6:10 @{The love of money} (\h philarguria\). Vulgate, _avaritia_. Common word (from \philarguros\, strkjv@2Timothy:3:12|, and that from \philos, arguros\), only here in N.T. Refers to verse 9| (\boulomenoi ploutein\). {A root of all kinds of evil} (\riza pantn tn kakn\). A root (\riza\). Old word, common in literal (Matthew:3:10|) and metaphorical sense (Romans:11:11-18|). Field (_Ot. Norv_.) argues for "the root" as the idea of this predicate without saying that it is the only root. Undoubtedly a proverb that Paul here quotes, attributed to Bion and to Democritus (\tn philargurian einai mtropolin pantn tn kakn\), where "metropolis" takes the place of "root." Surely men today need no proof of the fact that men and women will commit any sin or crime for money. {Reaching after} (\oregomenoi\). Present middle participle of \oreg\ (see strkjv@3:1|) with genitive \hs\ (which). {Have been led astray} (\apeplanthsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \apoplana\, old compound verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:13:22|. {Have pierced themselves through} (\heautous periepeiran\). First aorist active (with reflexive pronoun) of late compound \peripeir\, only here in N.T. Perfective use of \peri\ (around, completely to pierce). {With many sorrows} (\odunais pollais\). Instrumental case of \odun\ (consuming, eating grief). In N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:9:2|.

rwp@3John:1:15 This is a note attributed to verse 15. The KJV verse numbering

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ THE REASON FOR HIS EPISTLES In a real sense Paul's Epistles are tracts for the times, not for the age in general, but to meet real emergencies. He wrote to a particular church or group of churches or persons to meet immediate needs brought to his attention by messengers or letters. Dr. Deissmann contends strongly for the idea of calling Paul's Epistles "letters" rather than "Epistles." He gives a studied literary character to "epistles" as more or less artificial and written for the public eye rather than for definite effect. Four of Paul's Epistles are personal (those to Philemon, Titus, and Timothy) beyond a doubt, but in these which can properly be termed personal letters there are the principles of the gospel applied to personal, social, and ecclesiastical problems in such a pungent fashion that they possess permanent value. In the earliest group of Paul's Epistles, he reminds the Thessalonians of the official character of the Epistle which was meant for the church as a whole (1Thessalonians:5:27|). He says also: "But if any one does not obey our word by the epistle, mark this one, not to associate with him, that he may be put to shame" (2Thessalonians:3:14|). He calls attention to his signature as proof of the genuineness of every epistle (2Thessalonians:3:17|). He gave directions for the public reading of his epistles (Colossians:4:16|). He regarded them as the expression of God's will through the life of the churches and he put his whole heart into them. Two great controversies stirred Paul's life. That with the Judaizers called forth the great doctrinal group (I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans). That with the Gnostics occasioned the Epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians (Laodiceans) and this controversy ran on into the Pastoral Epistles. Each Epistle had its particular occasion which will be pointed out in due season. But even in the short ones like Philippians, Colossians and Ephesians Paul deals with the sublimest of all themes, the Person of Christ, with a masterfulness never equalled elsewhere. Even in I Corinthians, which deals so largely with church problems in Corinth, two great chapters rise to the heights of real eloquence (Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:13| on Love and Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:15| on the Resurrection). Romans, the greatest of his Epistles, has the fullest discussion of Paul's gospel of grace and Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:8| has a sweep of imagination and a grasp of faith unsurpassed. Hence, while denying to Paul the artificial rules of the rhetoricians attributed to him by Blass, I cannot agree that Paul's church Epistles are mere incidental letters. It is not a question whether Paul was writing for posterity or for the present emergency. He wrote for the present emergency in the most effective possible way. He brought the whole gospel message to bear upon the varied and pressing problems of the early Christians in the power of the Holy Spirit with the eloquence of a mind all ablaze with the truth and with a heart that yearned for their souls for Christ. They are not literary epistles, but they are more than personal letters. They are thunderbolts of passion and power that struck centre and that strike fire now for all who will take the trouble to come to them for the mind of Christ that is here.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE AUTHOR Origen bluntly wrote: "Who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly" as quoted by Eusebius. Origen held that the thoughts were Paul's while Clement of Rome or Luke may have written the book. Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius says) thought that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. No early writer apparently attributed the Greek text to Paul. Eusebius thought it was originally written in Hebrew whether by Paul or not and translated by Clement of Rome. But there is no certainty anywhere in the early centuries. It was accepted first in the east and later in the west which first rejected it. But Jerome and Augustine accepted it. When the Renaissance came Erasmus had doubts, Luther attributed it to Apollos, Calvin denied the Pauline authorship. In North Africa it was attributed to Barnabas. In modern times Harnack has suggested Priscilla, but the masculine participle in strkjv@Hebrews:11:32| (\me digoumenon\) disposes of that theory. The oldest Greek MSS. (Aleph A B) have simply \Pros Hebraious\ as the title, but they place it before the Pastoral Epistles, while the Textus Receptus puts it after the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon. In the light of all the facts one can only make a guess without a sense of certainty. For myself I should with Luther guess Apollos as the most likely author of this book which is full of the Spirit of God.

rwp@Mark:13:4 @{Tell us, when shall these things be?} (\Eipon hmin pote tauta estai;\). The Revised Version punctuates it as a direct question, but Westcott and Hort as an indirect inquiry. They asked about the {when} (\pote\) and the {what sign} (\ti smeion\). strkjv@Matthew:24:3| includes "the sign of thy coming and the end of the world," showing that these tragic events are brought before Jesus by the disciples. See discussion of the interpretation of this discourse on ¯Matthew:24:3|. This chapter in Mark is often called "The Little Apocalypse" with the notion that a Jewish apocalypse has been here adapted by Mark and attributed to Jesus. Many of the theories attribute grave error to Jesus or to the Gospels on this subject. The view adopted in the discussion in Matthew is the one suggested here, that Jesus blended in one picture his death, the destruction of Jerusalem within that generation, the second coming and end of the world typified by the destruction of the city. The lines between these topics are not sharply drawn in the report and it is not possible for us to separate the topics clearly. This great discourse is the longest preserved in Mark and may be due to Peter. Mark may have given it in order "to forewarn and forearm" (Bruce) the readers against the coming catastrophe of the destruction of Jerusalem. Both Matthew (Matthew:24|) and Luke (Luke:21:5-36|) follow the general line of Mark 13 though strkjv@Matthew:24:43-25:46| presents new material (parables).

rwp@Matthew:12:31 @{But the blasphemy against the Spirit} (\h de tou pneumatos blasphmia\). Objective genitive. This is the unpardonable sin. In 32| we have \kata tou pneumatos tou hagiou\ to make it plainer. What is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? These Pharisees had already committed it. They had attributed the works of the Holy Spirit by whose power Jesus wrought his miracles (12:28|) to the devil. That sin was without excuse and would not be forgiven in their age or in the coming one (12:32|). People often ask if they can commit the unpardonable sin. Probably some do who ridicule the manifest work of God's Spirit in men's lives and attribute the Spirit's work to the devil.

rwp@Revelation:11:1 @{A reed} (\kalamos\). Old word for a growing reed (Matthew:11:7|) which grew in immense brakes in the Jordan valley, a writer's reed (3John:1:7|), a measuring-rod (here, strkjv@21:15f.; strkjv@Ezekiel:40:3-6; strkjv@42:16-19|). {Like a rod} (\homoios rabdi\). See strkjv@2:27; strkjv@Mark:6:8| for \rabdos\. {And one said} (\legn\). "Saying" (present active masculine participle of \leg\) is all that the Greek has. The participle implies \edken\ (he gave), not \edoth\, a harsh construction seen in strkjv@Genesis:22:20; strkjv@38:24|, etc. {Rise and measure} (\egeire kai metrson\). Present active imperative of \egeir\ (intransitive, exclamatory use as in strkjv@Mark:2:11|) and first aorist active imperative of \metre\. In strkjv@Ezekiel:42:2ff.| the prophet measures the temple and that passage is probably in mind here. But modern scholars do not know how to interpret this interlude (11:1-13|) before the seventh trumpet (11:15|). Some (Wellhausen) take it to be a scrap from the Zealot party before the destruction of Jerusalem, which event Christ also foretold (Mark:13:2; strkjv@Matthew:24:2; strkjv@Luke:21:6|) and which was also attributed to Stephen (Acts:6:14|). Charles denies any possible literal interpretation and takes the language in a wholly eschatological sense. There are three points in the interlude, however understood: the chastisement of Jerusalem or Israel (verses 1,2|), the mission of the two witnesses (3-12|), the rescue of the remnant (13|). There is a heavenly sanctuary (7:15; strkjv@11:19; strkjv@14:15|, etc.), but here \naos\ is on earth and yet not the actual temple in Jerusalem (unless so interpreted). Perhaps here it is the spiritual (3:12; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:4; strkjv@1Corinthians:3:16f.; strkjv@2Corinthians:6:16; strkjv@Ephesians:2:19ff.|). For altar (\thusiastrion\) see strkjv@8:3|. Perhaps measuring as applied to "them that worship therein" (\tous proskunountas en auti\) implies a word like numbering, with an allusion to the 144,000 in chapter 7 (a zeugma).

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE REVELATION OF JOHN ABOUT A.D. 95 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION DIFFICULTY IN THE PROBLEM Perhaps no single book in the New Testament presents so many and so formidable problems as the Apocalypse of John. These difficulties concern the authorship, the date, the apocalyptic method, the relation to the other Johannine books, the purpose, the historical environment, the reception of the book in the New Testament canon, the use and misuse of the book through the ages, etc. In the eastern churches the recognition of the Apocalypse of John was slower than in the west, since it was not in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Caius of Rome attributed the book to Cerinthus the Gnostic, but he was ably answered by Hippolytus, who attributed it to the Apostle John. The Council of Laodicea (about A.D. 360) omitted it, but the third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) accepted it. The dispute about millenarianism led Dionysius of Alexandria (middle of the third century, A.D.) to deny the authorship to the Apostle John, though he accepted it as canonical. Eusebius suggested a second John as the author. But finally the book was accepted in the east as Hebrews was in the west after a period of doubt.

rwp@Romans:3:8 @{And why not} (\kai m\). We have a tangled sentence which can be cleared up in two ways. One is (Lightfoot) to supply \gentai\ after \m\ and repeat \ti\ (\kai ti m gentai\, deliberative subjunctive in a question): And why should it not happen? The other way (Sanday and Headlam) is to take \m\ with \poismen\ and make a long parenthesis of all in between. Even so it is confusing because \hoti\ also (recitative \hoti\) comes just before \poismen\. The parenthesis is necessary anyhow, for there are two lines of thought, one the excuse brought forward by the unbeliever, the other the accusation that Paul affirms that very excuse that we may do evil that good may come. Note the double indirect assertion (the accusative and the infinitive \hms legein\ after \phasin\ and then the direct quotation with recitative \hoti\ after \legein\, a direct quotation dependent on the infinitive in indirect quotation. {Let us do evil that good may come} (\poismen ta kaka hina elthi ta agatha\). The volitive aorist subjunctive (\poismen\) and the clause of purpose (\hina\ and the aorist subjunctive \elthi\). It sounds almost uncanny to find this maxim of the Jesuits attributed to Paul in the first century by Jews. It was undoubtedly the accusation of Antinomianism because Paul preached justification by faith and not by works.