Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp condemn:


rwp@1Corinthians:1:23 @{But we preach Christ crucified} (\hˆmeis de kˆrussomen Christon estaur“menon\). Grammatically stated as a partial result (\de\) of the folly of both Jews and Greeks, actually in sharp contrast. We proclaim, "we do not discuss or dispute" (Lightfoot). Christ (Messiah) as crucified, as in strkjv@2:2; strkjv@Galatians:3:1|, "not a sign-shower nor a philosopher" (Vincent). Perfect passive participle of \stauro“\. {Stumbling-block} (\skandalon\). Papyri examples mean trap or snare which here tripped the Jews who wanted a conquering Messiah with a world empire, not a condemned and crucified one (Matthew:27:42; strkjv@Luke:24:21|). {Foolishness} (\m“rian\). Folly as shown by their conduct in Athens (Acts:17:32|).

rwp@1Corinthians:3:21 @{Wherefore let no one glory in men} (\h“ste mˆdeis kauchasth“ en anthr“pois\). The conclusion (\h“ste\) from the self-conceit condemned. This particle here is merely inferential with no effect on the construction (\h“s+te\ = and so) any more than \oun\ would have, a paratactic conjunction. There are thirty such examples of \h“ste\ in the N.T., eleven with the imperative as here (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 999). The spirit of glorying in party is a species of self-conceit and inconsistent with glorying in the Lord (1:31|).

rwp@1Corinthians:5:3 @{For I verily} (\eg“ men gar\). Emphatic statement of Paul's own attitude of indignation, \eg“\ in contrast with \humeis\. He justifies his demand for the expulsion of the man. {Being absent} (\ap“n\) Although absent (concessive participle) and so of \par“n\ though present. Each with locative case (\t“i s“mati, t“i pneumati\). {Have already judged} (\ˆdˆ kekrika\). Perfect active indicative of \krin“\. I have already decided or judged, as though present (\h“s par“n\). Paul felt compelled to reach a conclusion about the case and in a sentence of much difficulty seems to conceive an imaginary church court where the culprit has been tried and condemned. There are various ways of punctuating the clauses in this sentence in verses 3-5|. It is not merely Paul's individual judgment. The genitive absolute clause in verse 4|, {ye being gathered together} (\sunachthent“n hum“n\, first aorist passive participle of \sunag“\, in regular assembly) {and my spirit} (\kai tou emou pneumatos\) with the assembly (he means) {and meeting in the name of our Lord Jesus} (\en t“i onomati tou Kuriou [hˆm“n] Iˆsou\) with the power of the Lord Jesus (\sun tˆi dunamei tou Kuriou hˆm“n Iˆsou\), though this clause can be taken with the infinitive to deliver (\paradounai\). It makes good syntax and sense taken either way. The chief difference is that, if taken with "gathered together" (\sunachthent“n\) Paul assumes less apostolic prerogative to himself. But he did have such power and used it against Elymas (Acts:13:8ff.|) as Peter did against Ananias and Sapphira (Acts:5:1ff.|).

rwp@1Corinthians:6:12 @{Lawful} (\exestin\). Apparently this proverb may have been used by Paul in Corinth (repeated in strkjv@10:23|), but not in the sense now used by Paul's opponents. The "all things" do not include such matters as those condemned in chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:5; strkjv@6:1-11|. Paul limits the proverb to things not immoral, things not wrong _per se_. But even here liberty is not license. {But not all things are expedient} (\all' ou panta sumpherei\). Old word \sumpherei\, bears together for good and so worthwhile. Many things, harmless in themselves in the abstract, do harm to others in the concrete. We live in a world of social relations that circumscribe personal rights and liberties. {But I will not be brought under the power of any} (\all ouk eg“ exousiasthˆsomai hupo tinos\). Perhaps a conscious play on the verb \exestin\ for \exousiaz“\ is from \exousia\ and that from \exestin\. Verb from Aristotle on, though not common (Dion. of Hal., LXX and inscriptions). In N.T. only here, strkjv@7:4; strkjv@Luke:22:25|. Paul is determined not to be a slave to anything harmless in itself. He will maintain his self-control. He gives a wholesome hint to those who talk so much about personal liberty.

rwp@1Corinthians:8:8 @{Will not commend} (\ou parastˆsei\). Future active indicative of \paristˆmi\, old word to present as in strkjv@Acts:1:3; strkjv@Luke:2:22; strkjv@Colossians:1:28|. Food (\br“ma\) will not give us an entree to God for commendation or condemnation, whether meat-eaters or vegetarians. {Are we the worse} (\husteroumetha\). Are we left behind, do we fall short. Both conditions are of the third class (\ean mˆ, ean\) undetermined. {Are we the better} (\perisseuometha\). Do we overflow, do we have excess of credit. Paul here disposes of the pride of knowledge (the enlightened ones) and the pride of prejudice (the unenlightened). Each was disposed to look down upon the other, the one in scorn of the other's ignorance, the other in horror of the other's heresy and daring.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:5 @{With her head unveiled} (\akatakalupt“i tˆi kephalˆi\). Associative instrumental case of manner and the predicative adjective (compound adjective and feminine form same as masculine), "with the head unveiled." Probably some of the women had violated this custom. "Amongst Greeks only the \hetairai\, so numerous in Corinth, went about unveiled; slave-women wore the shaven head--also a punishment of the adulteress" (Findlay). Cf. strkjv@Numbers:5:18|. {One and the same thing as if she were shaven} (\hen kai to auto tˆi exurˆmenˆi\). Literally, "One and the same thing with the one shaven" (associative instrumental case again, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 530). Perfect passive articular participle of the verb \xura“\, later form for the old \xure“\. It is public praying and prophesying that the Apostle here has in mind. He does not here condemn the act, but the breach of custom which would bring reproach. A woman convicted of adultery had her hair shorn (Isaiah:7:20|). The Justinian code prescribed shaving the head for an adulteress whom the husband refused to receive after two years. Paul does not tell Corinthian Christian women to put themselves on a level with courtesans.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:18 @{First of all} (\pr“ton men\). There is no antithesis (\deuteron de\, secondly, or \epeita de\, in the next place) expressed. This is the primary reason for Paul's condemnation and the only one given. {When ye come together in the church} (\sunerchomen“n hˆm“n en ekklˆsiƒi\). Genitive absolute. Here \ekklˆsia\ has the literal meaning of assembly. {Divisions} (\schismata\). Accusative of general reference with the infinitive \huparchein\ in indirect discourse. Old word for cleft, rent, from \schiz“\. Example in papyri for splinter of wood. See on strkjv@1:10|. Not yet formal cleavages into two or more organizations, but partisan divisions that showed in the love-feasts and at the Lord's Supper. {Partly} (\meros ti\). Accusative of extent (to some part) like \panta\ in strkjv@10:33|. He could have said \ek merous\ as in strkjv@13:9|. The rumours of strife were so constant (I keep on hearing, \akou“\).

rwp@1Corinthians:13:2 @The ecstatic gifts (verse 1|) are worthless. Equally so are the teaching gifts (prophecy, knowledge of mysteries, all knowledge). Crasis here in \kan=kai ean\. Paul is not condemning these great gifts. He simply places love above them and essential to them. Equally futile is wonder-working faith "so as to remove mountains" (\h“ste orˆ methistanein\) without love. This may have been a proverb or Paul may have known the words of Jesus (Matthew:17:20; strkjv@21:21|). {I am nothing} (\outhen eimi\). Not \outheis\, nobody, but an absolute zero. This form in \th\ rather than \d\ (\ouden\) had a vogue for a while (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 219).

rwp@1John:3:18 @{In word, neither with the tongue} (\log“i mˆde tˆi gl“ssˆi\). Either instrumental or locative makes sense. What John means is "not merely by word or by the tongue." He does not condemn kind words which are comforting and cheering, but warm words should be accompanied by warm deeds to make real "in deed and in truth" (\en erg“i kai alˆtheiƒi\). Here is a case where actions do speak louder than mere words.

rwp@1John:3:20 @{Whereinsoever our heart condemn us} (\hoti ean katagin“skˆi hˆm“n hˆ kardia\). A construction like \hoti an\, whatever, in strkjv@John:2:5; strkjv@14:13|. \Katagin“sk“\ occurs only three times in the N.T., here, verse 21; strkjv@Galatians:2:11|. It means to know something against one, to condemn. {Because God is greater than our heart} (\hoti meiz“n estin tˆs kardias hˆm“n\). Ablative \kardias\ after the comparative \meiz“n\. {And knoweth all things} (\kai gin“skei panta\). Just so Peter replied to Jesus in spite of his denials (John:21:17|). God's omniscience is linked with his love and sympathy. God knows every secret in our hearts. This difficult passage strikes the very centre of Christian truth (Brooke).

rwp@1John:3:21 @{If our heart condemn us not} (\ean hˆ kardia mˆ katagin“skˆi\). Condition of third class with \ean mˆ\ and present active subjunctive. The converse of the preceding, but not a claim to sinlessness, but the consciousness of fellowship in God's presence. {Boldness toward God} (\parrˆsian pros ton theon\). Even in prayer (Hebrews:4:16|). See also strkjv@2:28|.

rwp@1Peter:3:19 @{In which also} (\en h“i kai\). That is, in spirit (relative referring to \pneumati\). But, a number of modern scholars have followed Griesbach's conjecture that the original text was either \N“e kai\ (Noah also), or \En“ch kai\ (Enoch also), or \en h“i kai En“ch\ (in which Enoch also) which an early scribe misunderstood or omitted \En“ch kai\ in copying (\homoioteleuton\). It is allowed in Stier and Theile's _Polyglott_. It is advocated by J. Cramer in 1891, by J. Rendel Harris in _The Expositor_ (1901), and _Sidelights on N.T. Research_ (p. 208), by Nestle in 1902, by Moffatt's New Translation of the New Testament. Windisch rejects it as inconsistent with the context. There is no manuscript for the conjecture, though it would relieve the difficulty greatly. Luther admits that he does not know what Peter means. Bigg has no doubt that the event recorded took place between Christ's death and his resurrection and holds that Peter is alluding to Christ's _Descensus ad Inferos_ in strkjv@Acts:2:27| (with which he compares strkjv@Matthew:27:52f.; strkjv@Luke:23:34; strkjv@Ephesians:4:9|). With this Windisch agrees. But Wohlenberg holds that Peter means that Christ in his preexistent state preached to those who rejected the preaching of Noah who are now in prison. Augustine held that Christ was in Noah when he preached. Bigg argues strongly that Christ during the time between his death and resurrection preached to those who once heard Noah (but are now in prison) and offered them another chance and not mere condemnation. If so, why did Jesus confine his preaching to this one group? Songs:the theories run on about this passage. One can only say that it is a slim hope for those who neglect or reject Christ in this life to gamble with a possible second chance after death which rests on very precarious exegesis of a most difficult passage in Peter's Epistle. Accepting the text as we have, what can we make of it? {He went and preached} (\poreutheis ekˆruxen\). First aorist passive (deponent) participle of \poreuomai\ and first aorist active indicative of \kˆruss“\, the verb commonly used of the preaching of Jesus. Naturally the words mean personal action by Christ "in spirit" as illustration of his "quickening" (verse 18|) whether done before his death or afterwards. It is interesting to observe that, just as the relative \en h“i\ here tells something suggested by the word \pneumati\ (in spirit) just before, so in verse 21| the relative \ho\ (which) tells another illustration of the words \di' hudatos\ (by water) just before. Peter jumps from the flood in Noah's time to baptism in Peter's time, just as he jumped backwards from Christ's time to Noah's time. He easily goes off at a word. What does he mean here by the story that illustrates Christ's quickening in spirit? {Unto the spirits in prison} (\tois en phulakˆi pneumasin\). The language is plain enough except that it does not make it clear whether Jesus did the preaching to spirits in prison at the time or to people whose spirits are now in prison, the point of doubt already discussed. The metaphorical use of \en phulakˆi\ can be illustrated by strkjv@2Peter:2:4; strkjv@Jude:1:6; strkjv@Revelation:20:7| (the final abode of the lost). See strkjv@Hebrews:12:23| for the use of \pneumata\ for disembodied spirits.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:11 @{That ye study to be quiet} (\philotimeisthai hˆsuchazein\). First infinitive dependent on \parakaloumen\ (verse 10|, we exhort you), the second on \philotimeisthai\ (old verb from \philotimos\, fond of honour, \philos, timˆ\). The notion of ambition appears in each of the three N.T. examples (1Thessalonians:4:11; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:9; strkjv@Romans:5:20|), but it is ambition to do good, not evil. The word ambition is Latin (_ambitio_ from _ambo, ire_), to go on both sides to accomplish one's aims and often evil). A preacher devoid of ambition lacks power. There was a restless spirit in Thessalonica because of the misapprehension of the second coming. Songs:Paul urges an ambition to be quiet or calm, to lead a quiet life, including silence (Acts:11:18|). {To do your own business} (\prassein ta idia\). Present infinitive like the others, to have the habit of attending to their own affairs (\ta idia\). This restless meddlesomeness here condemned Paul alludes to again in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:11| in plainer terms. It is amazing how much wisdom people have about other people's affairs and so little interest in their own. {To work with your own hands} (\ergazesthai tais chersin hum“n\). Instrumental case (\chersin\). Paul gave a new dignity to manual labour by precept and example. There were "pious" idlers in the church in Thessalonica who were promoting trouble. He had commanded them when with them.

rwp@1Thessalonians:5:15 @{See to it that no one render unto any one evil for evil} (\horate mˆ tis kakon anti kakou apod“i\). Note \mˆ\ with the aorist subjunctive (negative purpose) \apod“i\ from \apodid“mi\, to give back. Retaliation, condemned by Jesus (Matthew:5:38-42|) and by Paul in strkjv@Romans:12:17|, usually takes the form of "evil for evil," rather than "good for good" (\kalon anti kalou\). Note idea of exchange in \anti\. {Follow after} (\di“kete\). Keep up the chase (\di“k“\) after the good.

rwp@1Timothy:3:6 @{Not a novice} (\mˆ neophuton\). Our "neophyte." Vernacular word from Aristophanes on, in LXX, and in papyri in the original sense of "newly-planted" (\neos, phu“\). Only here in N.T. {Lest} (\hina mˆ\). "That not." {Being puffed up} (\tuph“theis\). First aorist passive participle of \tupho“\, old word (from \tuphos\, smoke, pride), to raise a smoke or mist (a smoke-screen of pride). In N.T. only here; strkjv@6:4; strkjv@2Timothy:3:4|. {He fall into} (\empesˆi eis\). Second aorist active subjunctive with \hina mˆ\, negative purpose, of \empipt“\, old verb, to fall into. Note both \en\ and \eis\ as in strkjv@Matthew:12:11; strkjv@Luke:10:36|. {The condemnation of the devil} (\krima tou diabolou\). See strkjv@Romans:3:8| for \krima\. Best to take \tou diabolou\ as objective genitive, though subjective in verse 7|, "the condemnation passed on or received by the devil" (not just "the slanderer," any slanderer).

rwp@1Timothy:4:3 @{Forbidding to marry} (\k“luont“n gamein\). Present active participle of common verb \k“lu“\, to hinder, genitive case agreeing with \pseudolog“n\. See strkjv@Colossians:2:16,21f.|, where Paul condemns the ascetic practices of the Gnostics. The Essenes, Therapeutae and other oriental sects forbade marriage. In strkjv@1Corinthians:7| Paul does not condemn marriage. {To abstain from meats} (\apechesthai br“mat“n\). Infinitive dependent, not on \k“luont“n\, but on the positive idea \keleuont“n\ (implied, not expressed). Ablative case of \br“mat“n\ after \apechesthai\ (present direct middle, to hold oneself away from). See strkjv@1Corinthians:8-10; strkjv@Romans:14; 15| for disputes about "meats offered to idols" and Co strkjv@1:22f.| for the Gnostic asceticism. {Which God created} (\ha ho theos ektisen\). First active indicative of \ktiz“\ (Co strkjv@1:16|). Cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:10:25|. {To be received} (\eis metalˆmpsin\). "For reception." Old word, only here in N.T. {By them that believe and know} (\tois pistois kai epegn“kosi\). Dative case, "for the believers and those who (one article unites closely) have known fully" (perfect active participle of \epigin“sk“\), a Pauline use of the word (Colossians:1:6|).

rwp@1Timothy:5:12 @{Condemnation} (\krima\). See strkjv@3:6|. {They have rejected} (\ˆthetˆsan\). First aorist passive of \athete“\, late verb (first in LXX and Polybius), to reject, set aside (from \athetos\). See strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:8; strkjv@Galatians:2:21|. {Their first faith} (\tˆn pr“tˆn pistin\). "Their first pledge" (promise, contract) to Christ. It is like breaking the marriage contract. Evidently one of the pledges on joining the order of widows was not to marry. Parry suggests a kind of ordination as with deacons and bishops (technical use of \krima\ and \pistis\).

rwp@1Timothy:5:24 @{Evident} (\prodˆloi\). "Openly plain," "plain before all." Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:7:24|. {Going before unto judgment} (\proagousai eis krisin\). See strkjv@1:18| for \proag“\. The sins are so plain that they receive instant condemnation. {And some men also they follow after} (\tisin de kai epakolouthousin\). Associative instrumental case \tisin\ with \epakolouthousin\ for which verb see verse 10|, "dog their steps" (Parry) like strkjv@1Peter:2:21|, not clearly manifest at first, but come out plainly at last. How true that is of secret sins.

rwp@2Corinthians:1:15 @{Confidence} (\pepoithˆsei\). This late word (LXX Philo, Josephus) is condemned by the Atticists, but Paul uses it a half dozen times (3:4| also). {I was minded to come} (\eboulomˆn elthein\). Imperfect, I was wishing to come, picturing his former state of mind. {Before unto you} (\proteron pros humas\). This was his former plan (\proteron\) while in Ephesus to go to Achaia directly from Ephesus. This he confesses in verse 16| "and by you to pass into Macedonia." {That ye might have a second benefit} (\hina deuteran charin schˆte\). Or second "joy" if we accept \charan\ with Westcott and Hort. This would be a real second blessing (or joy) if they should have two visits from Paul.

rwp@2Corinthians:3:9 @{Of condemnation} (\tˆs katakrise“s\). Genitive, that brings condemnation because unable to obey the law. {Is glory} (\doxa\). No copula, but makes the figure bolder. Paul freely admits the glory for the old dispensation. {Of righteousness} (\tˆs dikaiosunˆs\). Marked by and leading to righteousness. See strkjv@11:15|. {Much more} (\poll“i mallon\). Instrumental case, by much more. {Exceed} (\perisseuei\). Overflow.

rwp@2Corinthians:5:1 @{If--be dissolved} (\ean--kataluthˆi\). Third class condition, \ean\ and first aorist passive subjunctive. The very word used (\katalu“\) for striking down a tent. {The earthly house of our tabernacle} (\hˆ epigeios hˆm“n oikia tou skˆnous\). Rather, "If our earthly (see on ¯1Corinthians:15:40| for \epigeios\) house of the tent (\skˆnos\, another form of \skˆnˆ\, tent, from root \ska\, to cover)." Appositive genitive, the house (\oikia\) is the tent. {We have} (\echomen\). Present indicative. We possess the title to it now by faith. "Faith is the title-deed (\hupostasis\) to things hoped for" (Hebrews:11:7|). {A building from God} (\oikodomˆn ek theou\). This \oikodomˆ\ (found in Aristotle, Plutarch, LXX, etc., and papyri, though condemned by Atticists) is more substantial than the \skˆnos\. {Not made with hands} (\acheiropoiˆton\). Found first in strkjv@Mark:14:58| in charge against Jesus before the Sanhedrin (both the common verbal \cheiropoiˆton\ and the newly made vernacular \acheiropoiˆton\, same verbal with \a\ privative). Elsewhere only here and strkjv@Colossians:2:11|. Spiritual, eternal home.

rwp@2Corinthians:7:3 @{Not to condemn you} (\pros katakrisin ou\). "Not for condemnation." Late word from \katakrin“\, found in Vettius Valens, and here only in N.T. {To die together and live together} (\eis to sunapothanein kai sunzˆin\). "For the dying together (second aorist ingressive active infinitive of \sunapothnˆsk“\) and living together (present active infinitive)." One article (\to\) with both infinitives. You are in our hearts to share death and life.

rwp@2Peter:2:6 @{Turning into ashes} (\tephr“sas\). First aorist participle of \tephro“\, late word from \tephra\, ashes (in Dio Cassius of an eruption of Vesuvius, Philo), here alone in N.T. {The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah} (\poleis Sodom“n kai Gomorrƒs\). Genitive of apposition after \poleis\ (cities), though it makes sense as possessive genitive, for strkjv@Jude:1:7| speaks of the cities around these two. The third example, the cities of the plain. See strkjv@Genesis:19:24f|. {Condemned them} (\katekrinen\). First aorist active indicative of \katakrin“\, still part of the protasis with \ei\. {With an overthrow} (\katastrophˆi\). Instrumental case or even dative like \thanat“i\ with \katakrin“\ in strkjv@Matthew:20:18|. But Westcott and Hort reject the word here because not in B C Coptic. {Having made them} (\tetheik“s\). Perfect active participle of \tithˆmi\. {An example} (\hupodeigma\). For which see strkjv@James:5:10; strkjv@John:13:15|. Cf. strkjv@1Peter:2:21|. {Unto those that should live ungodly} (\mellont“n asebesin\). Rather, "unto ungodly men of things about to be" (see strkjv@Hebrews:11:20| for this use of \mellont“n\). But Aleph A C K L read \asebein\ (present active infinitive) with \mellont“n\=\asebˆsont“n\ (future active participle of \asebe“\), from which we have our translation.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:12 @{That they all might be judged} (\hina krith“sin pantes\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \krin“\, to sift, to judge, with \hina\. Ultimate purpose, almost result, of the preceding obstinate resistance to the truth and "the judicial infatuation which overtakes them" (Lightfoot), now final punishment. Condemnation is involved in the fatal choice made. These victims of the man of sin did not believe the truth and found pleasure in unrighteousness.

rwp@3John:1:9 @{I wrote somewhat unto the church} (\egrapsa ti tˆi ekklˆsiƒi\). A few MSS. add \an\ to indicate that he had not written (conclusion of second-class condition), clearly spurious. Not epistolary aorist nor a reference to II John as Findlay holds, but an allusion to a brief letter of commendation (Acts:18:27; strkjv@2Corinthians:3:1; strkjv@Colossians:4:10|) sent along with the brethren in verses 5-7| or to some other itinerant brethren. Westcott wrongly thinks that \ti\ is never used of anything important in the N.T. (Acts:8:9; strkjv@Galatians:6:3|), and hence that this lost letter was unimportant. It may have been brief and a mere introduction. \Diotrephes\ (\Dios\ and \treph“\, nourished by Zeus). This ambitious leader and sympathiser with the Gnostics would probably prevent the letter referred to being read to the church, whether it was II John condemning the Gnostics or another letter commending Demetrius and John's missionaries. Hence he sends Gaius this personal letter warning against Diotrephes. {Who loveth to have the preeminence among them} (\ho philopr“teu“n aut“n\). Present active articular participle of a late verb, so far found only here and in ecclesiastical writers (the example cited by Blass being an error, Deissmann, _Light_ etc., p. 76), from \philopr“tos\, fond of being first (Plutarch), and made like \philopone“\ (papyri), to be fond of toil. This ambition of Diotrephes does not prove that he was a bishop over elders, as was true in the second century (as Ignatius shows). He may have been an elder (bishop) or deacon, but clearly desired to rule the whole church. Some forty years ago I wrote an article on Diotrephes for a denominational paper. The editor told me that twenty-five deacons stopped the paper to show their resentment against being personally attacked in the paper. {Receiveth us not} (\ouk epidechetai hˆmƒs\). Present active indicative of this old compound, in N.T. only here and verse 10|. Diotrephes refused to accept John's authority or those who sided with him, John's missionaries or delegates (cf. strkjv@Matthew:10:40|).

rwp@Acts:1:26 @{He was numbered} (\sunkatepsˆphisthˆ\). To the Jews the lot did not suggest gambling, but "the O.T. method of learning the will of Jehovah" (Furneaux). The two nominations made a decision necessary and they appealed to God in this way. This double compound \sunkatapsˆphiz“\ occurs here alone in the N.T. and elsewhere only in Plutarch (_Them_. 21) in the middle voice for condemning with others. \Sunpsˆphiz“\ occurs in the middle voice in strkjv@Acts:19:19| for counting up money and also in Aristophanes. \Psˆphiz“\ with \dapanˆn\ occurs in strkjv@Luke:14:28| for counting the cost and in strkjv@Revelation:13:18| for "counting" the number of the beast. The ancients used pebbles (\psˆphoi\) in voting, black for condemning, white (Revelation:2:17|) in acquitting. Here it is used in much the same sense as \katarithme“\ in verse 17|.

rwp@Acts:8:30 @{Understandest thou what thou readest?} (\Ara ge gin“skeis ha anagin“skeis?\) The interrogative particle \ara\ and the intensive particle \ge\ indicate doubt on Philip's part. The play (\paranomasia\) upon the words in the Greek is very neat: {Do you know what you know again (read)?} The verb for read (\anagin“sko\) means to know the letters again, recognize, read. The famous comment of Julian about the Christian writings is often quoted: \Anegn“n, egn“n, kategn“n\ (I read, I understood, I condemned). The keen retort was: \Anegn“s, all'ouk egn“s, ei gar egn“s, ouk an kategn“s\ (You read, but did not understand; for if you had understood, you would not have condemned).

rwp@Acts:13:27 @{Because they knew him not} (\touton agnoˆsantes\). First aorist active participle (causal) of \agnoe“\, old verb, not to know. Peter gives "ignorance" (\agnoia\) as the excuse of the Jews in the death of Christ (3:17|) and Paul does the same about his conduct before his conversion (1Timothy:1:13|). This ignorance mitigated the degree of their guilt, but it did not remove it, for it was willing ignorance and prejudice. {The voices of the prophets which are read} (\tas ph“nas t“n prophˆt“n tas anagin“skomenas\). Object also of \agnoˆsantes\, though it could be the object of \eplˆr“san\ (fulfilled) if \kai\ is taken as "also". The "voices" were heard as they were read aloud each Sabbath in the synagogue. In their ignorant condemnation they fulfilled the prophecies about the suffering Messiah.

rwp@Acts:16:37 @{Unto them} (\pros autous\). The lictors by the jailor. The reply of Paul is a marvel of brevity and energy, almost every word has a separate indictment showing the utter illegality of the whole proceeding. {They have beaten us} (\deirantes hˆmas\). First aorist active participle of \der“\, old verb to flay, to skin, to smite. The _Lex Valeria_ B.C. 509 and the _Lex Poscia_ B.C. 248 made it a crime to inflict blows on a Roman citizen. Cicero says, "To fetter a Roman citizen was a crime, to scourge him a scandal, to slay him--parricide." Claudius had "deprived the city of Rhodes of its freedom for having crucified some citizen of Rome" (Rackham). {Publicly} (\dˆmosiƒi\). This added insult to injury. Common adverb (\hod“i\) supplied with adjective, associative instrumental case, opposed to \idiƒi\ or \kat' oikous\, strkjv@Acts:20:20|) {Uncondemned} (\akatakritous\). This same verbal adjective from \kata-krin“\ with \a\ privative is used by Paul in strkjv@22:25| and nowhere else in the N.T. Rare in late Greek like \akatagn“stos\, but in late _Koin‚_ (papyri, inscriptions). The meaning is clearly "without being tried." Paul and Silas were not given a chance to make a defence. They were sentenced unheard (25:16|). Even slaves in Roman law had a right to be heard. {Men that are Romans} (\anthr“pous Romaious huparchontas\). The praetors did not know, of course, that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens any more than Lysias knew it in strkjv@Acts:22:27|. Paul's claim is not challenged in either instance. It was a capital offence to make a false claim to Roman citizenship. {Have cast us into prison} (\ebalan eis phulakˆn\). Second aorist active indicative of \ball“\, old verb, with first aorist ending as often in the _Koin‚_ (\-an\, not \-on\). This was the climax, treating them as criminals. {And now privily} (\kai nun lathrƒi\). Paul balances their recent conduct with the former. {Nay verily, but} (\ou gar, alla\). No indeed! It is the use of \gar\ so common in answers (\ge+ara\) as in strkjv@Matthew:27:23|. \Alla\ gives the sharp alternative. {Themselves} (\autoi\). As a public acknowledgment that they had wronged and mistreated Paul and Silas. Let them come themselves and lead us out (\exagaget“san\, third person plural second aorist active imperative of \exag“\). It was a bitter pill to the proud praetors.

rwp@Acts:22:25 @{When they had tied him up} (\hos proeteinan auton\). First aorist active indicative of \protein“\, old verb to stretch forward, only here in the N.T. Literally, "When they stretched him forward." {With the thongs} (\tois himasin\). If the instrumental case of \himas\, old word for strap or thong (for sandals as strkjv@Mark:1:7|, or for binding criminals as here), then Paul was bent forward and tied by the thongs to a post in front to expose his back the better to the scourges. But \tois himasin\ may be dative case and then it would mean "for the lashes." In either case it is a dreadful scene of terrorizing by the chiliarch. {Unto the centurion that stood by} (\pros ton hest“ta hekatontarchon\). He was simply carrying out the orders of the chiliarch (cf. strkjv@Matthew:27:54|). Why had not Paul made protest before this? {Is it lawful?} (\ei exestin?\). This use of \ei\ in indirect questions we have had before (1:6|). {A Roman and uncondemned} (\Romaion kai akatakriton\). Just as in strkjv@16:37| which see. Blass says of Paul's question: _Interrogatio subironica est confidentiae plena_.

rwp@Acts:23:6 @{But when Paul perceived} (\gnous de ho Paulos\). Perceiving (second aorist ingressive of \gin“sk“\). Paul quickly saw that his cause was ruined before the Sanhedrin by his unwitting attack on the high priest. It was impossible to get a fair hearing. Hence, Vincent says, "Paul, with great tact, seeks to bring the two parties of the council into collision with each other." Songs:Alford argues with the motto "divide and conquer." Farrar condemns Paul and takes strkjv@24:21| as a confession of error here, but that is reading into Paul's word about the resurrection more than he says. Page considers Luke's report meagre and unsatisfactory. Rackham thinks that the trial was already started and that Paul repeated part of his speech of the day before when "the Sadducees received his words with ostentatious scepticism and ridicule: this provoked counter-expressions of sympathy and credulity among the Pharisees." But all this is inference. We do not have to adopt the Jesuitical principle that the end justifies the means in order to see shrewdness and hard sense in what Paul said and did. Paul knew, of course, that the Sanhedrin was nearly evenly divided between Pharisees and Sadducees, for he himself had been a Pharisee. {I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees} (\Eg“ Pharisaios eimi huios Pharisai“n\). This was strictly true as we know from his Epistles (Phillipians:3:5|). {Touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question} (\peri elpidos kai anastase“s nekr“n krinomai\). This was true also and this is the point that Paul mentions in strkjv@24:21|. His failure to mention again the fact that he was a Pharisee throws no discredit on Luke's report here. The chief point of difference between Pharisees and Sadducees was precisely this matter of the resurrection. And this was Paul's cardinal doctrine as a Christian minister. It was this fact that convinced him that Jesus was the Messiah and was "the very centre of his faith" (Page) and of his preaching. It was not a mere trick for Paul to proclaim this fact here and so divide the Sanhedrin. As a matter of fact, the Pharisees held aloof when the Sadducees persecuted Peter and the other apostles for preaching resurrection in the case of Jesus and even Gamaliel threw cold water on the effort to punish them for it (Acts:5:34-39|). Songs:then Paul was really recurring to the original cleavage on this point and was able to score a point against the Sadducees as Gamaliel, his great teacher, had done before him. Besides, "Paul and Pharisaism seem to us such opposite ideas that we often forget that to Paul Christianity was the natural development of Judaism" (Page). Paul shows this in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11|.

rwp@Acts:25:9 @{Desiring to gain favour with the Jews} (\thel“n tois Ioudaiois charin katathesthai\). Precisely the expression used of Felix by Luke in strkjv@24:27| which see. Festus, like Felix, falls a victim to fear of the Jews. {Before me} (\ep' emou\). Same use of \epi\ with the genitive as in strkjv@23:30; strkjv@24:19,21|. Festus, seeing that it was unjust to condemn Paul and yet disadvantageous to absolve him (Blass), now makes the very proposal to Paul that the rulers had made to him in Jerusalem (verse 3|). He added the words "\ep' emou\" (before me) as if to insure Paul of justice. If Festus was unwilling to give Paul justice in Caesarea where his regular court held forth, what assurance was there that Festus would give it to him at Jerusalem in the atmosphere of intense hostility to Paul? Only two years ago the mob, the Sanhedrin, the forty conspirators had tried to take his life in Jerusalem. Festus had no more courage to do right than Felix, however plausible his language might sound. Festus also, while wanting Paul to think that he would in Jerusalem "be judged of these things before me," in reality probably intended to turn Paul over to the Sanhedrin in order to please the Jews, probably with Festus present also to see that Paul received justice (\me presente\). Festus possibly was surprised to find that the charges were chiefly against Jewish law, though one was against Caesar. It was not a mere change of venue that Paul sensed, but the utter unwillingness of Festus to do his duty by him and his willingness to connive at Jewish vengeance on Paul. Paul had faced the mob and the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, two years of trickery at the hands of Felix in Caesarea, and now he is confronted by the bland chicanery of Festus. It is too much, the last straw.

rwp@Acts:25:15 @{Informed} (\enephanisan\). Same word as in strkjv@23:15,22; strkjv@25:2| which see. {Asking for sentence against him} (\aitoumenoi kat' autou katadikˆn\). Only N.T. example of this old word (penalty, fine, condemnation) from \kata\ and \dikˆ\ (justice against).

rwp@Acts:26:10 @{I both shut up many} (\pollous te katekleisa\). Effective aorist active of \kataklei“\, old word to shut down like a trap door, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:3:20|. Double use of \te\ (both--and). {Having received authority from the chief priests} (\tˆn para t“n archiere“n exousian lab“n\). "The authority," he says. Paul was the official persecutor of the saints under the direction of the Sanhedrin. He mentions "chief priests" (Sadducees), though a Pharisee himself. Both parties were co-operating against the saints. {And when they were put to death} (\anairoumen“n te aut“n\). Genitive absolute with present passive participle of \anaire“\. {I gave my vote against them} (\katˆnegka psˆphon\). "I cast down my pebble" (a black one). The ancient Greeks used white pebbles for acquittal (Revelation:2:17|), black ones for condemnation as here (the only two uses of the word in the N.T.). Paul's phrase (not found elsewhere) is more vivid than the usual \katapsˆphiz“\ for voting. They literally cast the pebbles into the urn. Cf. \sumpsˆphiz“\ in strkjv@Acts:19:19|, \sugkatapsephizo\ in strkjv@Acts:1:26|. If Paul's language is taken literally here, he was a member of the Sanhedrin and so married when he led the persecution. That is quite possible, though he was not married when he wrote strkjv@1Corinthians:7:7f.|, but a widower. It is possible to take the language figuratively for approval, but not so natural.

rwp@Acts:27:1 @{That we should sail} (\tou apoplein hˆmas\). This genitive articular infinitive with \ekrithˆ\ like the LXX construction translating the Hebrew infinitive construct is awkward in Greek. Several similar examples in strkjv@Luke:17:1; strkjv@Acts:10:25; strkjv@20:3| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1068). Luke alone uses this old verb in N.T. He uses nine compounds of \ple“\, to sail. Note the reappearance of "we" in the narrative. It is possible, of course, that Luke was not with Paul during the series of trials at Caesarea, or at least, not all the time. But it is natural for Luke to use "we" again because he and Aristarchus are travelling with Paul. In Caesarea Paul was the centre of the action all the time whether Luke was present or not. The great detail and minute accuracy of Luke's account of this voyage and shipwreck throw more light upon ancient seafaring than everything else put together. Smith's _Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul_ is still a classic on the subject. Though so accurate in his use of sea terms, yet Luke writes like a landsman, not like a sailor. Besides, the character of Paul is here revealed in a remarkable fashion. {They delivered} (\paredidoun\). Imperfect active \“mega\ form rather than the old \-mi\ form \paredidosan\ as in strkjv@4:33|, from \paradid“mi\. Perhaps the imperfect notes the continuance of the handing over. {Certain other prisoners} (\tinas heterous desm“tas\). Bound (\desm“tas\) like Paul, but not necessarily appellants to Caesar, perhaps some of them condemned criminals to amuse the Roman populace in the gladiatorial shows, most likely pagans though \heterous\ does not have to mean different kind of prisoners from Paul. {Of the Augustan band} (\speirˆs Sebastˆs\). Note Ionic genitive \speirˆs\, not \speiras\. See on ¯Matthew:27:1; strkjv@Acts:10:1|. \Cohortis Augustae\. We do not really know why this cohort is called "Augustan." It may be that it is part of the imperial commissariat (_frumentarii_) since Julius assumes chief authority in the grain ship (verse 11|). These legionary centurions when in Rome were called _peregrini_ (foreigners) because their work was chiefly in the provinces. This man Julius may have been one of them.

rwp@Colossians:2:8 @{Take heed} (\blepete\). Present active imperative second person plural of \blep“\, common verb for warning like our "look out," "beware," "see to it." {Lest there shall be any one} (\mˆ tis estai\). Negative purpose with the future indicative, though the aorist subjunctive also occurs as in strkjv@2Corinthians:12:6|. {That maketh spoil of you} (\ho sulag“g“n\). Articular present active participle of \sulag“ge“\, late and rare (found here first) verb (from \sulˆ\, booty, and \ag“\, to lead, to carry), to carry off as booty a captive, slave, maiden. Only here in N.T. Note the singular here. There was some one outstanding leader who was doing most of the damage in leading the people astray. {Through his philosophy} (\dia tˆs philosophias\). The only use of the word in the N.T. and employed by Paul because the Gnostics were fond of it. Old word from \philosophos\ (\philos, sophos\, one devoted to the pursuit of wisdom) and in N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:17:18|. Paul does not condemn knowledge and wisdom (see verse 2|), but only this false philosophy, "knowledge falsely named" (\pseud“numos gn“sis\, strkjv@1Timothy:6:20|), and explained here by the next words. {And vain deceit} (\kai kenˆs apatˆs\). Old word for trick, guile, like riches (Matthew:13:22|). Descriptive of the philosophy of the Gnostics. {Tradition} (\paradosin\). Old word from \paradid“mi\, a giving over, a passing on. The word is colourless in itself. The tradition may be good (2Thessalonians:2:15; strkjv@3:6|) or bad (Mark:7:3|). Here it is worthless and harmful, merely the foolish theories of the Gnostics. {Rudiments} (\stoicheia\). Old word for anything in a \stoichos\ (row, series) like the letters of the alphabet, the materials of the universe (2Peter:3:10,12|), elementary teaching (Hebrews:5:12|), elements of Jewish ceremonial training (Acts:15:10; Gal strkjv@4:3,9|), the specious arguments of the Gnostic philosophers as here with all their aeons and rules of life. {And not after Christ} (\kai ou kata Christon\). Christ is the yardstick by which to measure philosophy and all phases of human knowledge. The Gnostics were measuring Christ by their philosophy as many men are doing today. They have it backwards. Christ is the measure for all human knowledge since he is the Creator and the Sustainer of the universe.

rwp@Colossians:2:21 @{Handle not, nor taste, nor touch} (\mˆ hapsˆi mˆde geusˆi mˆde thigˆis\). Specimens of Gnostic rules. The Essenes took the Mosaic regulations and carried them much further and the Pharisees demanded ceremonially clean hands for all food. Later ascetics (the Latin commentators Ambrose, Hilary, Pelagius) regard these prohibitions as Paul's own instead of those of the Gnostics condemned by him. Even today men are finding that the noble prohibition law needs enlightened instruction to make it effective. That is true of all law. The Pharisees, Essenes, Gnostics made piety hinge on outward observances and rules instead of inward conviction and principle. These three verbs are all in the aorist subjunctive second person singular with \mˆ\, a prohibition against handling or touching these forbidden things. Two of them do not differ greatly in meaning. \Hapsˆi\ is aorist middle subjunctive of \hapt“\, to fasten to, middle, to cling to, to handle. \Thigˆis\ is second aorist active subjunctive of \thiggan“\, old verb, to touch, to handle. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:11:28; strkjv@12:20|. \Geusˆi\ is second aorist middle subjunctive of \geu“\, to give taste of, only middle in N.T. to taste as here.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Pastorial @ The external evidence for the Pauline authorship is strong and conclusive (Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Theophilus, the Muratorian Canon). "Traces of their circulation in the church before Marcion's time are clearer than those which can be found for Romans and II Corinthians" (Zahn, _Introduction to the N.T._, tr. II, p. 85). Marcion and Tatian rejected them because of the condemnation of asceticism by Paul.

rwp@Galatians:2:11 @{I resisted him to the face} (\kata pros“pon aut“i antestˆn\). Second aorist active indicative (intransitive) of \anthistˆmi\. "I stood against him face to face." In Jerusalem Paul faced Peter as his equal in rank and sphere of work. In Antioch he looked him in the eye as his superior in character and courage. {Because he stood condemned} (\hoti kategn“smenos ˆn\). Periphrastic past perfect passive of \kataginosk“\, old verb to know against, to find fault with. In N.T. only here and strkjv@1John:3:20f|.

rwp@Galatians:2:12 @{For before that certain came from James} (\pro tou gar elthein tinas apo Iak“bou\). The reason (\gar\) for Paul's condemnation of Peter. Articular infinitive in the genitive after \pro\ with the accusative of general reference (\tinas\), "for before the coming as to some from James." Does Paul mean to say that these "certain" ones had been sent by James to Antioch to inspect the conduct of Peter and the other Jewish brethren? Some scholars think so. No doubt these brethren let the idea get out that they were emissaries "from James." But that idea is inconsistent with the position of James as president of the conference and the author of the resolution securing liberty to the Gentile Christians. No doubt these brethren threatened Peter to tell James and the church about his conduct and they reminded Peter of his previous arraignment before the Jerusalem Church on this very charge (Acts:11:1-18|). As a matter of fact the Jerusalem Conference did not discuss the matter of social relations between Jews and Gentiles though that was the charge made against Peter (Acts:11:1ff.|). {He did eat with the Gentiles} (\meta t“n ethn“n sunˆsthien\). It was his habit (imperfect tense). {He drew back} (\hupestellen\). Imperfect tense, inchoative action, "he began to draw himself (\heauton\) back." Old word \hupostell“\. See middle voice to dissemble (Acts:20:20,27|), to shrink (Hebrews:10:38|). {Separated himself} (\aph“rizen heauton\). Inchoative imperfect again, "began to separate himself" just like a Pharisee (see on ¯1:15|) and as if afraid of the Judaizers in the Jerusalem Church, perhaps half afraid that James might not endorse what he had been doing. {Fearing them that were of the circumcision} (\phoboumenos tous ek peritomˆs\). This was the real reason for Peter's cowardice. See strkjv@Acts:11:2| for "\hoi ek peritomˆs\" (they of the circumcision), the very phrase here. It was not that Peter had changed his views from the Jerusalem resolutions. It was pure fear of trouble to himself as in the denials at the trial of Christ.

rwp@Info_James @ THE DATE If the Epistle is genuine and James was put to death about A.D. 62, it was clearly written before that date. There are two theories about it, one placing it about A.D. 48, the other about A.D. 58. To my mind the arguments of Mayor for the early date are conclusive. There is no allusion to Gentile Christians, as would be natural after A.D. 50. If written after A.D. 70, the tone would likely be different, with some allusion to that dreadful calamity. The sins condemned are those characteristic of early Jewish Christians. The book itself is more like the Sermon on the Mount than the Epistles. The discussion of faith and works in chapter strkjv@James:2| reveals an absence of the issues faced by Paul in strkjv@Romans:4; strkjv@Galatians:3| after the Jerusalem Conference (A.D. 49). Hence the date before that Conference has decidedly the better of the argument. Ropes in his Commentary denies the genuineness of the Epistle and locates it between A.D. 75 and 125, but Hort holds that the evidence for a late date rests "on very slight and intangible grounds." Songs:we place the book before A.D. 49. It may indeed be the earliest New Testament book.

rwp@James:2:1 @{My brethren} (\adelphoi mou\). Transition to a new topic as in strkjv@1:19; strkjv@2:5,14; strkjv@3:1; strkjv@5:7|. {Hold not} (\mˆ echete\). Present active imperative of \ech“\ with negative \mˆ\, exhortation to stop holding or not to have the habit of holding in the fashion condemned. {The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ} (\tˆn pistin tou kuriou hˆm“n Iˆsou Christou\). Clearly objective genitive, not subjective (faith of), but "faith in our Lord Jesus Christ," like \echete pistin theou\ (Mark:11:22|), "have faith in God." See the same objective genitive with \pistis\ in strkjv@Acts:3:6; strkjv@Galatians:2:16; strkjv@Romans:3:22; strkjv@Revelation:14:12|. Note also the same combination as in strkjv@1:1| "our Lord Jesus Christ" (there on a par with God). {The Lord of Glory} (\tˆs doxˆs\). Simply "the Glory." No word for "Lord" (\kuriou\) in the Greek text. \Tˆs doxˆs\ clearly in apposition with \tou kuriou Iˆsou Christou\. James thus terms "our Lord Jesus Christ" the Shekinah Glory of God. See strkjv@Hebrews:9:5| for "the cherubim of Glory." Other New Testament passages where Jesus is pictured as the Glory are strkjv@Romans:9:4; strkjv@2Corinthians:4:6; strkjv@Ephesians:1:17; strkjv@Hebrews:1:3|. Cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. {With respect of persons} (\en pros“polˆmpsiais\). A Christian word, like \pros“polˆmptˆs\ (Acts:10:34|) and \pros“polˆmpteite\ (James:2:9|), not in LXX or any previous Greek, but made from \pros“pon lambanein\ (Luke:20:21; strkjv@Galatians:2:6|), which is \a\ Hebrew idiom for _panim nasa_, "to lift up the face on a person," to be favorable and so partial to him. See \pros“polˆmpsia\ in this sense of partiality (respect of persons) in strkjv@Romans:2:11; strkjv@Colossians:3:25; strkjv@Ephesians:6:9| (nowhere else in N.T.). Do not show partiality.

rwp@James:2:9 @{But if ye have respect of persons} (\ei de pros“polˆmpteite\). Condition of first class by contrast with that in verse 8|. For this verb (present active indicative), formed from \pros“pon lamban“\, here alone in the N.T., see in strkjv@2:1|. A direct reference to the partiality there pictured. {Ye commit sin} (\hamartian ergazesthe\). "Ye work a sin." A serious charge, apparently, for what was regarded as a trifling fault. See strkjv@Matthew:7:23|, \hoi ergazomenoi tˆn anomian\ (ye that work iniquity), an apparent reminiscence of the words of Jesus there (from strkjv@Psalms:6:8|). {Being convicted} (\elegchomenoi\). Present passive participle of \elegch“\, to convict by proof of guilt (John:3:20; strkjv@8:9,46; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:24|). {As transgressors} (\h“s parabatai\). For this word from \parabain“\, to step across, to transgress, see strkjv@Galatians:2:18; strkjv@Romans:2:25,27|. See this very sin of partiality condemned in strkjv@Leviticus:19:15; strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:17; strkjv@16:19|. To the law and to the testimony.

rwp@James:2:11 @{He that said} (\ho eip“n\) {--said also} (\eipen kai\). The unity of the law lies in the Lawgiver who spoke both prohibitions (\mˆ\ and the aorist active subjunctive in each one, \moicheusˆis, phoneusˆis\). The order here is that of B in strkjv@Exodus:20| (Luke:18:20; strkjv@Romans:13:9|), but not in strkjv@Matthew:5:21,27| (with \ou\ and future indicative). {Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest} (\ei de ou moicheueis, phoneueis de\). Condition of first class with \ou\ (not \mˆ\) because of the contrast with \de\, whereas \ei mˆ\ would mean "unless," a different idea. Songs:\ou\ in strkjv@1:23|. {A transgressor of the law} (\parabatˆs nomou\) as in verse 9|. Murder springs out of anger (Matthew:5:21-26|). People free from fleshly sins have often "made their condemnation of fleshly sins an excuse for indulgence towards spiritual sins" (Hort).

rwp@James:2:14 @{What doth it profit?} (\ti ophelos;\). Rhetorical question, almost of impatience. Old word from \ophell“\, to increase, in N.T. only here, verse 16; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:32|. "\Ti ophelos\ was a common expression in the vivacious style of a moral diatribe" (Ropes). {If a man say} (\ean legˆi tis\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and the present active subjunctive of \leg“\, "if one keep on saying." {He hath faith} (\pistin echein\). Infinitive in indirect assertion after \legˆi\. {But have not works} (\erga de mˆ echˆi\). Third-class condition continued, "but keeps on not having (\mˆ\ and present active subjunctive \echˆi\) works." It is the spurious claim to faith that James here condemns. {Can that faith save him?} (\mˆ dunatai hˆ pistis s“sai auton;\). Negative answer expected (\mˆ\). Effective aorist active infinitive \s“sai\ (from \s“z“\). The article \hˆ\ here is almost demonstrative in force as it is in origin, referring to the claim of faith without works just made.

rwp@James:3:1 @{Be not many teachers} (\mˆ polloi didaskaloi ginesthe\). Prohibition with \mˆ\ and present middle imperative of \ginomai\. "Stop becoming many teachers" (so many of you). There is thus a clear complaint that too many of the Jewish Christians were attempting to teach what they did not clearly comprehend. There was a call for wise teachers (verses 13f.|), not for foolish ones. This soon became an acute question, as one can see in I Cor. 12 to 14. They were not all teachers (1Corinthians:12:28f.; strkjv@14:26|). The teacher is here treated as the wise man (3:13-18|) as he ought to be. The rabbi was the teacher (Matthew:23:7f.; strkjv@John:1:38; strkjv@3:10; strkjv@20:16|). Teachers occupied an honourable position among the Christians (Ephesians:4:11; strkjv@Acts:13:1|). James counts himself a teacher (we shall receive, strkjv@3:1|) and this discussion is linked on with strkjv@1:19-27|. Teachers are necessary, but incompetent and unworthy ones do much harm. {Heavier judgment} (\meizon krima\). "Greater sentence." See strkjv@Mark:12:40; strkjv@Luke:20:47| for \perrisoteron krima\ (the sentence from the judge, strkjv@Romans:13:2|). The reason is obvious. The pretence of knowledge adds to the teacher's responsibility and condemnation.

rwp@James:5:6 @{Ye have condemned} (\katedikasate\). First aorist active indicative of \katadikaz“\, old verb (from \katadikˆ\, condemnation, strkjv@Acts:25:15|). The rich controlled the courts of justice. {Ye have killed the righteous one} (\ephoneusate ton dikaion\). First aorist active indicative of \phoneu“\ (2:11; strkjv@4:2|). "The righteous one" (\t“n dikaion\) is the generic use of the singular with article for the class. There is probably no direct reference to one individual, though it does picture well the death of Christ and also the coming death of James himself, who was called the Just (Eus. _H.E_. ii. 23). Stephen (Acts:7:52|) directly accuses the Sanhedrin with being betrayers and murderers (\prodotai kai phoneis\) of the righteous one (\tou dikaiou\). {He doth not resist you} (\ouk antitassetai humin\). It is possible to treat this as a question. Present middle indicative of \antitass“\, for which see strkjv@James:4:6|. Without a question the unresisting end of the victim (\ton dikaion\) is pictured. With a question (\ouk\, expecting an affirmative answer) God or Lord is the subject, with the final judgment in view. There is no way to decide definitely.

rwp@Info_John @ NO EARLY MARTYRDOM FOR THE APOSTLE JOHN In 1862 a fragment of the Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus, a Byzantine monk of the ninth century, was published. It is the _Codex Coislinianus_, Paris, 305, which differs from the other manuscripts of this author in saying that John according to Papias was slain by the Jews (\hupo Ioudai“n anˆirethˆ\) while the other manuscripts say that John rested in peace (\en eirˆnˆi anepausato\). The passage also quotes Eusebius to the effect that John received Asia as his sphere of work and lived and died in Ephesus. This same George the Sinner misquotes Origen about the death of John for Origen really says that the Roman king condemned him to the Isle of Patmos, not to death. Another fragment of Philip of Side, apparently used by Georgius, makes the same erroneous reference to Papias. It is therefore a worthless legend growing out of the martyrdom promised James and John by Jesus (Mark:10:39; strkjv@Matthew:20:23|) and realized by James first of all (Acts:12:1f.|). John drank the cup in the exile to Patmos. The correction to Peter in strkjv@John:21:20-23| would have no meaning if the Apostle John had already been put to death.

rwp@John:3:17 @{For God sent not the Son} (\ou gar apesteilen ho theos ton huion\). Explanation (\gar\) of God's sending the Son into the world. First aorist active indicative of \apostell“\. John uses both \apostell“\ from which comes \apostolos\ (3:34; strkjv@5:36,38|, etc.) and \pemp“\ (4:34; strkjv@5:23,24,30|, etc.) for God's sending the Son and \pemp“\ more frequently, but with no real difference in meaning. All the Gospels use \ho huios\ in the absolute sense in contrast with the Father (Mark:13:32; strkjv@Matthew:11:27; strkjv@Luke:10:22|). {To judge} (\hina krinˆi\). Final clause with \hina\ and the present (or aorist) active subjunctive of \krin“\. The Messiah does judge the world as Jesus taught (Matthew:25:31f.; strkjv@John:5:27|), but this was not the primary or the only purpose of his coming. See on ¯Matthew:7:1| for \krin“\, to pick out, select, approve, condemn, used so often and in so many varying contexts in the N.T. {But that the world should be saved through him} (\all hina s“thˆi ho kosmos di' autou\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \s“z“\, the common verb to save (from \s“s\, safe and sound), from which \s“tˆr\ (Saviour) comes (the Saviour of the world, strkjv@4:42; strkjv@1John:4:14|) and \s“tˆria\ (salvation, strkjv@4:22| here only in John). The verb \s“z“\ is often used for physical health (Mark:5:28|), but here of the spiritual salvation as in strkjv@5:34|.

rwp@John:3:18 @{Is not judged} (\ou krinetai\). Present passive indicative. Trust in Christ prevents condemnation, for he takes our place and pays the penalty for sin for all who put their case in his hands (Romans:8:32f.|). The believer in Christ as Saviour does not come into judgment (John:5:24|). {Hath been judged already} (\ˆdˆ kekritai\). Perfect passive indicative of \krin“\. Judgment has already been passed on the one who refuses to believe in Christ as the Saviour sent by the Father, the man who is not willing to come to Christ for life (5:40|). {Because he hath not believed} (\hoti mˆ pepisteuken\). Perfect active indicative of \pisteu“\, has taken a permanent attitude of refusal. Here \hoti mˆ\ states the reason subjectively as the judgment of the Judge in any such case (\ho mˆ pisteu“n\ already mentioned) while in strkjv@1John:5:10| \hoti ou pepisteuken\ gives the reason objectively (\ou\ instead of \mˆ\) conceived as an actual case and no longer hypothetical. See strkjv@1:12| for \eis to onoma\ with \pisteu“\ (believing on the name) and strkjv@1:14| for \monogenous\ (only begotten) and also strkjv@3:16|.

rwp@John:7:50 @{Nicodemus} (\Nikodˆmos\). Not heard from since chapter 3 when he timidly came to Jesus by night. Now he boldly protests against the injustice of condemning Jesus unheard. He appears once more (and only in John) in strkjv@19:39| with Joseph of Arimathea as a secret disciple of Jesus. He is a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin and his present act is courageous. {Saith} (\legei\). Dramatic present active indicative as in strkjv@2:3|. {Before} (\proteron\). This is genuine, a reference to the visit in chapter 3, but \nuktos\ (by night) is not genuine here. {Being one of them} (\heis “n ex aut“n\). As a member of the Sanhedrin he takes up the challenge in verse 48|. He is both ruler and Pharisee.

rwp@John:8:10 @{Lifted up himself} (\anakupsas\). First aorist active participle of \anakupt“\ as in verse 7|. {Where are they?} (\Pou eisin;\). Jesus had kept on writing on the ground as the accusers had slipped away one by one. {Did no man condemn thee?} (\oudeis se katekrinen;\). First aorist active indicative of \katakrin“\, old and common verb to give judgment against (down on) one, but not in John. No one dared to cast a stone at the woman on Christ's terms.

rwp@John:8:11 @{No man, Lord} (\Oudeis, Kurie\). "No one, Sir." She makes no excuse for her sin. Does she recognize Jesus as "Lord"? {Neither do I condemn thee} (\Oude eg“ se katakrin“\). Jesus does not condone her sin. See strkjv@8:15| for "I do not judge (condemn) any one." But he does give the poor woman another chance. {Henceforth sin no more} (\apo tou nun mˆketi hamartane\). See also strkjv@5:14| where this same language is used to the impotent man. It literally means (prohibition with present active imperative): "Henceforth no longer go on sinning." One can only hope that the woman was really changed in heart and life. Jesus clearly felt that even a wicked woman can be saved.

rwp@John:19:1 @{Took and scourged} (\elaben kai emastig“sen\). 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 akanth“n\). 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@John:19:7 @{Because he made himself the Son of God} (\hoti huion theou heauton epoiˆsen\). Here at last the Sanhedrin give the real ground for their hostility to Jesus, one of long standing for probably three years (John:5:18|) and the one on which the Sanhedrin voted the condemnation of Jesus (Mark:14:61-64; strkjv@Matthew:27:23-66|), but even now they do not mention their own decision to Pilate, for they had no legal right to vote Christ's death before Pilate's consent which they now have secured.

rwp@John:19:17 @{Bearing the cross for himself} (\bastaz“n haut“i ton stauron\). Cf. strkjv@Luke:14:27| for this very picture in the words of Jesus. The dative case of the reflexive pronoun \haut“i\ "for himself" is in strict accord with Roman custom. "A criminal condemned to be crucified was required to carry his own cross" (Bernard). But apparently Jesus under the strain of the night before and the anguish of heart within him gave out so that Simon of Cyrene was impressed to carry it for Jesus (Mark:15:21f.; strkjv@Matthew:27:32f.; strkjv@Luke:23:26|). See strkjv@Mark:15:22f.; strkjv@Matthew:27:33f.; strkjv@Luke:23:33| for the meaning of "place of a skull" or Calvary and Golgotha in Hebrew (Aramaic). Luke has simply \Kranion\ (Skull), a skull-looking place.

rwp@John:19:19 @{Pilate wrote a title also} (\egrapsen kai titlon ho Peilatos\). Only John tells us that Pilate himself wrote it and John alone uses the technical Latin word _titlon_ (several times in inscriptions), for the board with the name of the criminal and the crime in which he is condemned; Mark (Mark:15:26|) and Luke (Luke:23:28|) use \epigraphˆ\ (superscription). Matthew (Matthew:27:37|) has simply \aitian\ (accusation). The inscription in John is the fullest of the four and has all in any of them save the words "this is" (\houtos estin\) in strkjv@Matthew:27:37|.

rwp@John:19:22 @{What I have written I have written} (\ho gegrapha gegrapha\). With emphasis on the permanence of the accusation on the board. Pilate has a sudden spirit of stubbornness in this detail to the surprise of the chief priests. Technically he was correct, for he had condemned Jesus on this charge made by the chief priests.

rwp@Luke:1:2 @{Even as} (\kath“s\). This particle was condemned by the Atticists though occurring occasionally from Aristotle on. It is in the papyri. Luke asserts that the previous narratives had their sound basis. {Delivered unto us} (\pared“san hˆmin\). Second aorist active indicative of \paradid“mi\. Luke received this tradition along with those who are mentioned above (the many). That is he was not one of the "eyewitnesses." He was a secondary, not a primary, witness of the events. Tradition has come to have a meaning of unreliability with us, but that is not the idea here. Luke means to say that the handing down was dependable, not mere wives' fables. Those who drew up the narratives had as sources of knowledge those who handed down the data. Here we have both written and oral sources. Luke had access to both kinds. {Which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word} (\hoi ap' archˆs autoptai kai hupˆretai genomenoi tou logou\). "Who" is better than "which" for the article here. The word for {eyewitnesses} (\autoptai\) is an old Greek word and appears in the papyri also. It means seeing with one's own eyes. It occurs here only in the N.T. We have the very word in the medical term _autopsy_. Greek medical writers often had the word. It is a different word from \epoptai\ (eyewitness) in strkjv@2Peter:1:16|, a word used of those who beheld heavenly mysteries. The word for "ministers" (\hupˆretai\), under rowers or servants we have had already in strkjv@Matthew:5:25; strkjv@26:58; strkjv@Mark:14:54,65|, which see. We shall see it again in strkjv@Luke:4:20| of the attendant in the synagogue. In the sense of a preacher of the gospel as here, it occurs also in strkjv@Acts:26:16|. Here "the word" means the gospel message, as in strkjv@Acts:6:4; strkjv@8:4|, etc. {From the beginning} apparently refers to the beginning of the ministry of Jesus as was true of the apostles (Acts:1:22|) and of the early apostolic preaching (Acts:10:37-43|). The Gospel of Mark follows this plan. The Gospel of Luke goes behind this in chapters 1 and 2 as does Matthew in chapters 1 and 2. But Luke is not here referring to himself. The matters about the childhood of Jesus Christ would not form part of the traditional preaching for obvious reasons.

rwp@Luke:12:33 @{Sell that ye have} (\P“lˆsate ta huparchonta hum“n\). Not in Matthew. Did Jesus mean this literally and always? Luke has been charged with Ebionism, but Jesus does not condemn property as inherently sinful. "The attempt to keep the letter of the rule here given (Acts:2:44,45|) had disastrous effects on the church of Jerusalem, which speedily became a church of paupers, constantly in need of alms (Romans:15:25,26; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:4; strkjv@9:1|)" (Plummer). {Purses which wax not old} (\ballantia mˆ palaioumena\). Songs:already \ballantion\ in strkjv@Luke:10:4|. Late verb \palaio“\ from \palaios\, old, to make old, declare old as in strkjv@Hebrews:8:13|, is passive to become old as here and strkjv@Hebrews:1:11|. {That faileth not} (\anekleipton\). Verbal from \a\ privative and \ekleip“\, to fail. Late word in Diodorus and Plutarch. Only here in the N.T. or LXX, but in papyri. "I prefer to believe that even Luke sees in the words not a mechanical rule, but a law for the spirit" (Bruce). {Draweth near} (\eggizei\). Instead of strkjv@Matthew:6:19| "dig through and steal." {Destroyeth} (\diaphtheirei\). Instead of "doth consume" in strkjv@Matthew:6:19|.

rwp@Luke:14:7 @{A parable for those which were bidden} (\pros tous keklˆmenous parabolˆn\). Perfect passive participle of \kale“\, to call, to invite. This parable is for the guests who were there and who had been watching Jesus. {When he marked} (\epech“n\). Present active participle of \epech“\ with \ton noun\ understood, holding the mind upon them, old verb and common. {They chose out} (\exelegonto\). Imperfect middle, were picking out for themselves. {The chief seats} (\tas pr“toklisias\). The first reclining places at the table. Jesus condemned the Pharisees later for this very thing (Matthew:23:6; strkjv@Mark:12:39; strkjv@Luke:20:46|). On a couch holding three the middle place was the chief one. At banquets today the name of the guests are usually placed at the plates. The place next to the host on the right was then, as now, the post of honour.

rwp@Luke:14:12 @{A dinner or a supper} (\ariston ˆ deipnon\). More exactly, a breakfast or a dinner with distinction between them as already shown. This is a parable for the host as one had just been given for the guests, though Luke does not term this a parable. {Call not} (\mˆ ph“nei\). \Mˆ\ and the present imperative active, prohibiting the habit of inviting only friends. It is the _exclusive_ invitation of such guests that Jesus condemns. There is a striking parallel to this in Plato's _Phaedrus_ 233. {Recompense} (\antapodoma\). In the form of a return invitation. Like \anti\ in "bid thee again" (\antikales“sin\).

rwp@Luke:15:7 @{Over one sinner that repenteth} (\epi heni hamart“l“i metanoounti\). The word sinner points to verse 1|. Repenting is what these sinners were doing, these lost sheep brought to the fold. The joy in heaven is in contrast with the grumbling Pharisees and scribes. {More than over} (\ˆ epi\). There is no comparative in the Greek. It is only implied by a common idiom like our "rather than." {Which need no repentance} (\hoitines ou chreian echousin metanoias\). Jesus does not mean to say that the Pharisees and the scribes do not need repentance or are perfect. He for the sake of argument accepts their claims about themselves and by their own words condemns them for their criticism of his efforts to save the lost sheep. It is the same point that he made against them when they criticized Jesus and the disciples for being at Levi's feast (Luke:5:31f.|). They posed as "righteous." Very well, then. That shuts their mouths on the point of Christ's saving the publicans and sinners.

rwp@Mark:4:11 @{Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God} (\Humin to mustˆrion dedotai tˆs basileias tou theou\). See on ¯Matthew:13:11| for word \mustˆrion\. Here (Mark:4:11; strkjv@Matthew:13:11; strkjv@Luke:8:10|) alone in the Gospels, but in Paul 21 times and in the Revelation 4 times. It is frequent in Daniel and O.T. Apocrypha. Matthew and Luke use it here in the plural. Matthew and Luke add the word {to know} (\gn“nai\), but Mark's presentation covers a wider range than growing knowledge, the permanent possession of the mystery even before they understand it. The secret is no longer hidden from the initiated. Discipleship means initiation into the secret of God's kingdom and it will come gradually to these men. {But unto them that are without} (\ekeinois de tois ex“\). Peculiar to Mark, those outside our circle, the uninitiated, the hostile group like the scribes and Pharisees, who were charging Jesus with being in league with Beelzebub. strkjv@Luke:8:10| has "to the rest" (\tois loipois\), strkjv@Matthew:13:11| simply "to them" (\ekeinois\). Without the key the parables are hard to understand, for parables veil the truth of the kingdom being stated in terms of another realm. Without a spiritual truth and insight they are unintelligible and are often today perverted. The parables are thus a condemnation on the wilfully blind and hostile, while a guide and blessing to the enlightened. {That} (\hina\). Mark has the construction of the Hebrew "lest" of strkjv@Isaiah:6:9f|. with the subjunctive and so strkjv@Luke:8:10|, while strkjv@Matthew:13:13| uses causal \hoti\ with the indicative following the LXX. See on ¯Matthew:13:13| for the so-called causal use of \hina\. Gould on strkjv@Mark:4:12| has an intelligent discussion of the differences between Matthew and Mark and Luke. He argues that Mark here probably "preserves the original form of Jesus' saying." God ironically commands Isaiah to harden the hearts of the people. If the notion of purpose is preserved in the use of \hina\ in Mark and Luke, there is probably some irony also in the sad words of Jesus. If \hina\ is given the causative use of \hoti\ in Matthew, the difficulty disappears. What is certain is that the use of parables on this occasion was a penalty for judicial blindness on those who will not see.

rwp@Mark:4:12 @{Lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them} (\mˆpote epistreps“sin kai aphethˆi autois\). Luke does not have these difficult words that seem in Isaiah to have an ironical turn, though strkjv@Matthew:13:15| does retain them even after using \hoti\ for the first part of the quotation. There is no way to make \mˆpote\ in strkjv@Mark:4:12| and strkjv@Matthew:13:15| have a causal sense. It is the purpose of condemnation for wilful blindness and rejection such as suits the Pharisees after their blasphemous accusation against Jesus. Bengel says: _iam ante non videbant, nunc accedit iudicium divinum_. Jesus is pronouncing their doom in the language of Isaiah. It sounds like the dirge of the damned.

rwp@Mark:9:47 @{With one eye} (\monophthalmon\). Literally one-eyed. See also strkjv@Matthew:18:9|. Vernacular _Koin‚_ and condemned by the Atticists. See strkjv@Matthew:18:8f|. Mark has here "kingdom of God" where strkjv@Matthew:18:9| has "life."

rwp@Mark:12:40 @{Devour widows' houses} (\hoi katesthontes tƒs oikias t“n chˆr“n\). New sentence in the nominative. Terrible pictures of civil wrong by graft grabbing the homes of helpless widows. They inveigled widows into giving their homes to the temple and took it for themselves. {For a pretence make long prayers} (\prophasei makra proseuchomenoi\). \Prophasei\ instrumental case of the same word (\prophˆmi\) from which prophet comes, but here pretext, pretence of extra piety while robbing the widows and pushing themselves to the fore. Some derive it from \prophain“\, to show forth. {Greater} (\perissoteron\). More abundant condemnation. Some comfort in that at any rate.

rwp@Matthew:5:39 @{Resist not him that is evil} (\me antistˆnai t“i ponˆr“i\). Here again it is the infinitive (second aorist active) in indirect command. But is it "the evil man" or the "evil deed"? The dative case is the same form for masculine and neuter. Weymouth puts it "not to resist a (the) wicked man," Moffatt "not to resist an injury," Goodspeed "not to resist injury." The examples will go with either view. Jesus protested when smitten on the cheek (John:18:22|). And Jesus denounced the Pharisees (Matthew:23|) and fought the devil always. The language of Jesus is bold and picturesque and is not to be pressed too literally. Paradoxes startle and make us think. We are expected to fill in the other side of the picture. One thing certainly is meant by Jesus and that is that personal revenge is taken out of our hands, and that applies to "lynch-law." Aggressive or offensive war by nations is also condemned, but not necessarily defensive war or defence against robbery and murder. Professional pacifism may be mere cowardice.

rwp@Matthew:6:7 @{Use not vain repetitions} (\mˆ battalogˆsˆte\). Used of stammerers who repeat the words, then mere babbling or chattering, empty repetition. The etymology is uncertain, but it is probably onomatopoetic like "babble." The worshippers of Baal on Mount Carmel (1Kings:8:26|) and of Diana in the amphitheatre at Ephesus who yelled for two hours (Acts:19:34|) are examples. The Mohammedans may also be cited who seem to think that they "will be heard for their much speaking" (\en tˆi polulogiƒi\). Vincent adds "and the Romanists with their _paternosters_ and _avast_." The Syriac Sinaitic has it: "Do not be saying idle things." Certainly Jesus does not mean to condemn all repetition in prayer since he himself prayed three times in Gethsemane "saying the same words again" (Matthew:26:44|). "As the Gentiles do," says Jesus. "The Pagans thought that by endless repetitions and many words they would inform their gods as to their needs and weary them ('_fatigare deos_') into granting their requests" (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:13:18 @{Hear then ye the parable} (\humeis oun akousate tˆn parabolˆn\). Jesus has given in strkjv@13:13| one reason for his use of parables, the condemnation which the Pharisees have brought on themselves by their spiritual dulness: "Therefore I speak to them in parables" (\dia touto en parab“lais antois lal“\). He can go on preaching the mysteries of the kingdom without their comprehending what he is saying, but he is anxious that the disciples really get personal knowledge (\gn“nai\, verse 11|) of these same mysteries. Songs:he explains in detail what he means to teach by the Parable of the Sower. He appeals to them (note position of \h–meis\) to listen as he explains.

rwp@Matthew:15:16 @{Are ye also even yet without understanding?} (\Akmˆn kai h–meis asunetoi este\). \Akmˆn\ is an adverbial accusative (classic \aichmˆ\, point (of a weapon)=\akmˆn chronou\ at this point of time, just now=\eti\. It occurs in papyri and inscriptions, though condemned by the old grammarians. "In spite of all my teaching, are ye also like the Pharisees without spiritual insight and grasp?" One must never forget that the disciples lived in a Pharisaic environment. Their religious world-outlook was Pharisaic. They were lacking in spiritual intelligence or sense, "totally ignorant" (Moffatt).

rwp@Matthew:22:16 @{Their disciples} (\tous mathˆtas aut“n\). Students, pupils, of the Pharisees as in strkjv@Mark:2:18|. There were two Pharisaic theological seminaries in Jerusalem (Hillel, Shammai). {The Herodians} (\t“n Her“idian“n\). Not members of Herod's family or Herod's soldiers, but partisans or followers of Herod. The form in \-ianos\ is a Latin termination like that in \Christianos\ (Acts:11:26|). Mentioned also in strkjv@Mark:3:6| combining with the Pharisees against Jesus. {The person of men} (\pros“pon anthr“p“n\). Literally, face of men. Paying regard to appearance is the sin of partiality condemned by James (James:2:1,9|) when \pros“polˆmpsia, pros“polˆmptein\ are used, in imitation of the Hebrew idiom. This suave flattery to Jesus implied "that Jesus was a reckless simpleton" (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:23:9 @{Call no man your father} (\patera mˆ kalesˆte h–m“n\). Jesus meant the full sense of this noble word for our heavenly Father. "Abba was not commonly a mode of address to a living person, but a title of honour for Rabbis and great men of the past" (McNeile). In Gethsemane Jesus said: "Abba, Father" (Mark:14:36|). Certainly the ascription of "Father" to pope and priest seems out of harmony with what Jesus here says. He should not be understood to be condemning the title to one's real earthly father. Jesus often leaves the exceptions to be supplied.

rwp@Matthew:23:23 @{Ye tithe} (\apodekatoute\). The tithe had to be paid upon "all the increase of thy seed" (Deuteronomy:14:22; strkjv@Leviticus:27:30|). The English word tithe is tenth. These small aromatic herbs, mint (\to hˆduosmon\, sweet-smelling), anise or dill (\anˆthon\), cummin (\kuminon\, with aromatic seeds), show the Pharisaic scrupulous conscientiousness, all marketable commodities. "The Talmud tells of the ass of a certain Rabbi which had been so well trained as to refuse corn of which the tithes had not been taken" (Vincent). {These ye ought} (\tauta edei\). Jesus does not condemn tithing. What he does condemn is doing it to the neglect of the {weightier matters} (\ta barutera\). The Pharisees were externalists; cf. strkjv@Luke:11:39-44|.

rwp@Matthew:26:52 @{Put up again thy sword} (\apostrepson tˆn machairan sou\). Turn back thy sword into its place. It was a stern rebuke for Peter who had misunderstood the teaching of Jesus in strkjv@Luke:22:38| as well as in strkjv@Matthew:5:39| (cf. strkjv@John:18:36|). The reason given by Jesus has had innumerable illustrations in human history. The sword calls for the sword. Offensive war is here given flat condemnation. The Paris Pact of 1928 (the Kellogg Treaty) is certainly in harmony with the mind of Christ. The will to peace is the first step towards peace, the outlawing of war. Our American cities are often ruled by gangsters who kill each other off.

rwp@Matthew:27:1 @{Now when morning was come} (\pr“ias de genomenˆs\). Genitive absolute. After dawn came the Sanhedrin held a formal meeting to condemn Jesus and so ratify the illegal trial during the night (Mark:15:1; strkjv@Luke:22:66-71|). Luke gives the details of this second ratification consultation. The phrase used, {took counsel} (\sumboulion elabon\) is a Latin idiom (_consilium ceperunt_) for \sunebouleusanto\.

rwp@Matthew:27:2 @{Delivered him up to Pilate the governor} (\pared“kan Peilat“i t“i hˆgemoni\). What they had done was all a form and a farce. Pilate had the power of death, but they had greatly enjoyed the condemnation and the buffeting of Jesus now in their power bound as a condemned criminal. He was no longer the master of assemblies in the temple, able to make the Sanhedrin cower before him. He had been bound in the garden and was bound before Annas (John:18:12,24|), but may have been unbound before Caiaphas.

rwp@Matthew:27:3 @{Repented himself} (\metamelˆtheis\). Probably Judas saw Jesus led away to Pilate and thus knew that the condemnation had taken place. This verb (first aorist passive participle of \metamelomai\) really means to be sorry afterwards like the English word _repent_ from the Latin _repoenitet_, to have pain again or afterwards. See the same verb \metamelˆtheis\ in strkjv@Matthew:21:30| of the boy who became sorry and changed to obedience. The word does not have an evil sense in itself. Paul uses it of his sorrow for his sharp letter to the Corinthians, a sorrow that ceased when good came of the letter (2Corinthians:7:8|). But mere sorrow avails nothing unless it leads to change of mind and life (\metanoia\), the sorrow according to God (2Corinthians:7:9|). This sorrow Peter had when he wept bitterly. It led Peter back to Christ. But Judas had only remorse that led to suicide.

rwp@Matthew:27:17 @{Barabbas or Jesus which is called Christ?} (\Barabbƒn ˆ Iˆsoun ton legomenon Christon;\). Pilate was catching at straws or seeking any loophole to escape condemning a harmless lunatic or exponent of a superstitious cult such as he deemed Jesus to be, certainly in no political sense a rival of Caesar. The Jews interpreted "Christ" for Pilate to be a claim to be King of the Jews in opposition to Caesar, "a most unprincipled proceeding" (Bruce). Songs:he bethought him of the time-honoured custom at the passover of releasing to the people "a prisoner whom they wished" (\desmion hon ˆthelon\). No parallel case has been found, but Josephus mentions the custom (_Ant_. xx. 9,3). Barabbas was for some reason a popular hero, a notable (\episˆmon\), if not notorious, prisoner, leader of an insurrection or revolution (Mark:15:7|) probably against Rome, and so guilty of the very crime that they tried to fasten on Jesus who only claimed to be king in the spiritual sense of the spiritual kingdom. Songs:Pilate unwittingly pitted against each other two prisoners who represented the antagonistic forces of all time. It is an elliptical structure in the question, "whom do you wish that I release?" (\tina thelete apolus“;\), either two questions in one (asyndeton) or the ellipse of \hina\ before \apolus“\. See the same idiom in verse 21|. But Pilate's question tested the Jews as well as himself. It tests all men today. Some manuscripts add the name Jesus to Barabbas and that makes it all the sharper. Jesus Barabbas or Jesus Christ?

rwp@Matthew:27:22 @{What then shall I do unto Jesus which is called Christ?} (\ti oun poiˆs“ Iˆsoun ton legomenon Christon;\). They had asked for Barabbas under the tutelage of the Sanhedrin, but Pilate pressed home the problem of Jesus with the dim hope that they might ask for Jesus also. But they had learned their lesson. Some of the very people who shouted "Hosannah" on the Sunday morning of the Triumphal Entry now shout {Let him be crucified} (\staur“thˆt“\). The tide has now turned against Jesus, the hero of Sunday, now the condemned criminal of Friday. Such is popular favour. But all the while Pilate is shirking his own fearful responsibility and trying to hide his own weakness and injustice behind popular clamour and prejudice.

rwp@Matthew:27:26 @{Scourged} (\phragell“sas\). The Latin verb _flagellare_. Pilate apparently lost interest in Jesus when he discovered that he had no friends in the crowd. The religious leaders had been eager to get Jesus condemned before many of the Galilean crowd friendly to Jesus came into the city. They had apparently succeeded. The scourging before the crucifixion was a brutal Roman custom. The scourging was part of the capital punishment. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 269) quotes a Florentine papyrus of the year 85 A.D. wherein G. Septimius Vegetus, governor of Egypt, says of a certain Phibion: "Thou hadst been worthy of scourging... but I will give thee to the people."

rwp@Matthew:27:27 @{Into the palace} (\eis to prait“rion\). In Rome the praetorium was the camp of the praetorian (from praetor) guard of soldiers (Phillipians:1:13|), but in the provinces it was the palace in which the governor resided as in strkjv@Acts:23:35| in Caesarea. Songs:here in Jerusalem Pilate ordered Jesus and all the band or cohort (\holˆn tˆn speiran\) of soldiers to be led into the palace in front of which the judgment-seat had been placed. The Latin _spira_ was anything rolled into a circle like a twisted ball of thread. These Latin words are natural here in the atmosphere of the court and the military environment. The soldiers were gathered together for the sport of seeing the scourging. These heathen soldiers would also enjoy showing their contempt for the Jews as well as for the condemned man.

rwp@Matthew:27:37 @{His accusation} (\tˆn aitian autou\). The title (\titlos\, strkjv@John:19:19|) or placard of the crime (the inscription, \he epigraphˆ\) which was carried before the victim or hung around his neck as he walked to execution was now placed above (\ep' an“\) the head of Jesus on the projecting piece (\crux immurus\). This inscription gave the name and home, {Jesus of Nazareth}, and the charge on which he was convicted, {the King of the Jews} and the identification, {This is}. The four reports all give the charge and vary in the others. The inscription in full was: This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews. The three languages are mentioned only by John (John:19:20|), Latin for law, Hebrew (Aramaic) for the Jews, Greek for everybody. The accusation (charge, cause, \aitia\) correctly told the facts of the condemnation.

rwp@Matthew:27:41 @{The chief priests mocking} (\hoi archiereis empaizontes\). The Sanhedrin in fact, for "the scribes and elders" are included. The word for mocking (\empaizontes, en,\ and \paiz“\, from \pais\, child) means acting like silly children who love to guy one another. These grave and reverend seniors had already given vent to their glee at the condemnation of Jesus by themselves (Matthew:26:67f.|).

rwp@Matthew:27:42 @{He saved others; himself he cannot save} (\allous es“sen; heauton ou dunatai s“sai\). The sarcasm is true, though they do not know its full significance. If he had saved himself now, he could not have saved any one. The paradox is precisely the philosophy of life proclaimed by Jesus himself (Matthew:10:39|). {Let him now come down} (\katabat“ nun\). Now that he is a condemned criminal nailed to the Cross with the claim of being "the King of Israel" (the Jews) over his head. Their spiteful assertion that they would then believe upon Jesus (\ep' auton\) is plainly untrue. They would have shifted their ground and invented some other excuse. When Jesus wrought his greatest miracles, they wanted "a sign from heaven." These "pious scoffers" (Bruce) are like many today who make factitious and arbitrary demands of Christ whose character and power and deity are plain to all whose eyes are not blinded by the god of this world. Christ will not give new proofs to the blind in heart.

rwp@Philippians:2:8 @{In fashion} (\schˆmati\). Locative case of \schˆma\, from \ech“\, to have, to hold. Bengel explains \morphˆ\ by _forma_, \homoi“ma\ by _similitudo_, \schˆma\ by _habitus_. Here with \schˆma\ the contrast "is between what He is in Himself, and what He _appeared_ in the eyes of men" (Lightfoot). {He humbled himself} (\etapein“sen heauton\). First aorist active of \tapeino“\, old verb from \tapeinos\. It is a voluntary humiliation on the part of Christ and for this reason Paul is pressing the example of Christ upon the Philippians, this supreme example of renunciation. See Bruce's masterpiece, _The Humiliation of Christ_. {Obedient} (\hupˆkoos\). Old adjective, giving ear to. See strkjv@Acts:7:39; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:9|. {Unto death} (\mechri thanatou\). "Until death." See "until blood" (\mechris haimatos\, strkjv@Hebrews:12:4|). {Yea, the death of the cross} (\thanatou de staurou\). The bottom rung in the ladder from the Throne of God. Jesus came all the way down to the most despised death of all, a condemned criminal on the accursed cross.

rwp@Philippians:3:4 @{Might have} (\ech“n\). Rather, "even though myself having." {Confidence} (\pepoithˆsin\). Late word, condemned by the Atticists, from \pepoitha\ (just used). See strkjv@2Corinthians:1:15; strkjv@3:4|.

rwp@Revelation:2:2 @{I know} (\oida\). Rather than \gin“sk“\ and so "emphasizes better the absolute clearness of mental vision which photographs all the facts of life as they pass" (Swete). Songs:also in strkjv@2:9,13,19; strkjv@3:1,8,15|. For the distinction see strkjv@John:21:17|, "where the universal knowledge passes into the field of special observation." {Works} (\erga\). The whole life and conduct as in strkjv@John:6:29|. {And thy toil and patience} (\kai ton kopon kai tˆn hupomonˆn sou\). "Both thy toil and patience," in explanation of \erga\, and see strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:3|, where all three words (\ergon, kopos, hupomonˆ\) occur together as here. See strkjv@14:13| for sharp distinction between \erga\ (activities) and \kopoi\ (toils, with weariness). Endurance (\hupomonˆ\) in hard toil (\kopos\). {And that} (\kai hoti\). Further explanation of \kopos\ (hard toil). {Not able} (\ou dunˆi\). This _Koin‚_ form for the Attic \dunasai\ (second person singular indicative middle) occurs also in strkjv@Mark:9:22; strkjv@Luke:16:2|. {Bear} (\bastasai\). First aorist active infinitive of \bastaz“\, for which verb see strkjv@John:10:31; strkjv@12:6; strkjv@Galatians:6:2|. These evil men were indeed a heavy burden. {And didst try} (\kai epeirasas\). First aorist active indicative of \peiraz“\, to test, a reference to a recent crisis when these Nicolaitans (verse 6|) were condemned. The present tenses (\dunˆi, echeis\) indicate the continuance of this attitude. Cf. strkjv@1John:4:1|. {Which call themselves apostles} (\tous legontas heautous apostolous\). Perhaps itinerant missionaries of these Nicolaitans who posed as equal to or even superior to the original apostles, like the Judaizers so described by Paul (2Corinthians:11:5,13; strkjv@12:11|). Paul had foretold such false teachers (Gnostics), grievous wolves, in strkjv@Acts:20:29|; in sheep's clothing, Jesus had said (Matthew:7:15|). {And they are not} (\kai ouk eisin\). A parenthesis in Johannine style (John:2:9; strkjv@3:9; strkjv@1John:3:1|) for \kai ouk ontas\ to correspond to \legontas\. {And didst find} (\kai heures\). Second aorist active indicative of \heurisk“\. Dropping back to the regular structure parallel with \epeirasas\. {False} (\pseudeis\). Predicate accusative plural of \pseudˆs\, self-deceived deceivers as in strkjv@21:8|.

rwp@Revelation:2:17 @{Of the hidden manna} (\tou manna tou kekrummenou\). "Of the manna the hidden" (perfect passive articular participle of \krupt“\). The partitive genitive, the only N.T. example with \did“mi\, though Q reads \to\ (accusative) here. For examples of the ablative with \apo\ and \ek\ see Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 519. See strkjv@John:6:31,49| for the indeclinable word \manna\. The golden pot of manna was "laid up before God in the ark" (Exodus:16:23|). It was believed that Jeremiah hid the ark, before the destruction of Jerusalem, where it would not be discovered till Israel was restored (II Macc. strkjv@2:5ff.). Christ is the true bread from heaven (John:6:31-33, 48-51|) and that may be the idea here. Those faithful to Christ will have transcendent fellowship with him. Swete takes it to be "the life-sustaining power of the Sacred Humanity now hid with Christ in God." {A white stone} (\psˆphon leukˆn\). This old word for pebble (from \psa“\, to rub) was used in courts of justice, black pebbles for condemning, white pebbles for acquitting. The only other use of the word in the N.T. is in strkjv@Acts:26:10|, where Paul speaks of "depositing his pebble" (\katˆnegka psˆphon\) or casting his vote. The white stone with one's name on it was used to admit one to entertainments and also as an amulet or charm. {A new name written} (\onoma kainon gegrammenon\). Perfect passive predicate participle of \graph“\. Not the man's own name, but that of Christ (Heitmuller, _Im Namen Jˆsu_, p. 128-265). See strkjv@3:12| for the name of God so written on one. The man himself may be the \psˆphos\ on which the new name is written. "The true Christian has a charmed life" (Moffatt). {But he that receiveth it} (\ei mˆ ho lamban“n\). "Except the one receiving it." See strkjv@Matthew:11:27| for like intimate and secret knowledge between the Father and the Son and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal the Father. See also strkjv@Revelation:19:12|.

rwp@Revelation:19:15 @{A sharp sword} (\romphaia oxeia\). As in strkjv@1:16; strkjv@2:12,15|. {That he should smite} (\hina pataxˆi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \patass“\, old verb already in strkjv@11:6| and like strkjv@Isaiah:11:4|, a figure here for forensic and judicial condemnation. {And he shall rule them} (\kai autos poimanei\). Emphatic use of \autos\ twice (he himself). Future active of \poimain“\, to shepherd as in strkjv@2:27; strkjv@12:5| "with a rod of iron" (\en rabd“i sidˆrƒi\) as there. See strkjv@1Peter:2:25; strkjv@Hebrews:13:20| for Christ as Shepherd. {And he treadeth} (\kai autos patei\). Change to present tense of \pate“\, to tread (here transitive), with solemn repetition of \kai autos\. {The winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God} (\tˆn lˆnon tou oinou tou thumou tˆs orgˆs tou theou tou pantokratoros\). Literally, "the winepress of the wine of the wrath of the anger of God the Almighty" (four genitives dependent on one another and on \lˆnon\). These images are here combined from strkjv@14:8,10,19f.; strkjv@16:19|. The fact is already in strkjv@19:13| after strkjv@Isaiah:63:1ff|.

rwp@Romans:1:21 @{Because that} (\dioti\). As in verse 19|. {Knowing God} (\gnontes ton theon\). Second aorist active participle of \gin“sk“\, to know by personal experience. Definite statement that originally men had some knowledge of God. No people, however degraded, have yet been found without some yearning after a god, a seeking to find the true God and get back to him as Paul said in Athens (Acts:17:27|). {Glorified not as God} (\ouch h“s theon edoxasan\). They knew more than they did. This is the reason for the condemnation of the heathen (2:12-16|), the failure to do what they know. {Their senseless heart} (\hˆ asunetos aut“n kardia\). \Kardia\ is the most comprehensive term for all our faculties whether feeling (Romans:9:2|), will (1Corinthians:4:5|), intellect (Romans:10:6|). It may be the home of the Holy Spirit (Romans:5:5|) or of evil desires (1:24|). See strkjv@Mark:7:21f.| for list of vices that come "out of the heart." \Asunetos\ is a verbal adjective from \suniˆmi\, to put together, and \a\ privative, unintelligent, not able to put together the manifest evidence about God (verse 20|). Songs:darkness settled down on their hearts (\eskotisthˆ\, first aorist ingressive passive of \skotiz“\, to darken).

rwp@Romans:1:32 @{The ordinance of God} (\to dikai“ma tou theou\). The heathen knows that God condemns such evil practices. {But also consent with them} (\alla kai suneudokousin\). Late verb for hearty approval as in strkjv@Luke:11:48; strkjv@Acts:8:1; strkjv@1Corinthians:7:12|. It is a tragedy of American city government that so many of the officials are proven to be hand in glove with the underworld of law-breakers.

rwp@Romans:2:1 @{Wherefore} (\dio\). See strkjv@1:24,26| for this relative conjunction, "because of which thing." {Without excuse} (\anapologˆtos\). See on ¯1:21|. {Whosoever thou art that judgest} (\pas ho krin“n\). Literally, "every one that judgest," vocative case in apposition with \anthr“pe\. Paul begins his discussion of the failure of the Jew to attain to the God-kind of righteousness (2:1-3:20|) with a general statement applicable to all as he did (1:18|) in the discussion of the failure of the Gentiles (Lightfoot). The Gentile is readily condemned by the Jew when he sins and equally so is the Jew condemned by the Gentile in like case. \Krin“\ does not of itself mean to condemn, but to pick out, separate, approve, determine, pronounce judgment, condemn (if proper). {Another} (\ton heteron\). Literally, "the other man." The notion of two in the word, one criticizing the other. {Thou condemnest thyself} (\seauton katakrineis\). Note \kata\ here with \krin“\, to make plain the adverse judgment. {For} (\gar\). Explanatory reason for the preceding statement. The critic {practises} (\prasseis\, not single acts \poie“\, but the habit \prass“\) the same things that he condemns.

rwp@Romans:8:1 @{Therefore now} (\ara nun\). Two particles. Points back to the triumphant note in strkjv@7:25| after the preceding despair. {No condemnation} (\ouden katakrima\). As sinners we deserved condemnation in our unregenerate state in spite of the struggle. But God offers pardon "to those in Christ Jesus (\tois en Christ“i Iˆsou\). This is Paul's Gospel. The fire has burned on and around the Cross of Christ. There and there alone is safety. Those in Christ Jesus can lead the consecrated, the crucified, the baptized life.

rwp@Romans:8:3 @{That the law could not do} (\to adunaton tou nomou\). Literally, "the impossibility of the law" as shown in strkjv@7:7-24|, either nominative absolute or accusative of general reference. No syntactical connection with the rest of the sentence. {In that} (\en h“i\). "Wherein." {It was weak} (\ˆsthenei\). Imperfect active, continued weak as already shown. {In the likeness of sinful flesh} (\en homoi“mati sarkos hamartias\). For "likeness" see strkjv@Phillipians:2:7|, a real man, but more than man for God's "own Son." Two genitives "of flesh of sin" (marked by sin), that is the flesh of man is, but not the flesh of Jesus. {And for sin} (\kai peri hamartias\). Condensed phrase, God sent his Son also concerning sin (our sin). {Condemned sin in the flesh} (\katekrine tˆn hamartian en tˆi sarki\). First aorist active indicative of \katakrin“\. He condemned the sin of men and the condemnation took place in the flesh of Jesus. If the article \tˆn\ had been repeated before \en tˆi sarki\ Paul would have affirmed sin in the flesh of Jesus, but he carefully avoided that (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 784).

rwp@Romans:8:34 @{Shall condemn} (\katakrin“n\). Can be either present active participle (condemns) or the future (shall condemn). It is a bold accuser who can face God with false charges or with true ones for that matter for we have an "Advocate" at God's Court (1John:2:1|), "who is at the right hand of God" (\hos estin en dexiƒi tou theou\) "who also maketh intercession for us" (\hos kai entugchanei huper hˆm“n\). Our Advocate paid the debt for our sins with his blood. The score is settled. We are free (8:1|).

rwp@Romans:12:19 @{Avenge not} (\mˆ ekdikountes\). Independent participle again of late verb \ekdike“\ from \ekdikos\, exacting justice (13:4|). See already strkjv@Luke:18:5; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:6|. {But give place unto wrath} (\alla dote topon tˆi orgˆi\). Second aorist active imperative of \did“mi\, to give. "Give room for the (note article as in strkjv@5:9; strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:16|) wrath" of God instead of taking vengeance in your own hands. See strkjv@Ephesians:4:27| for \didote topon\. Paul quotes strkjv@Deuteronomy:32:35| (the Hebrew rather than the LXX). Songs:have strkjv@Hebrews:10:30| and the Targum of Onkelos, but the relation between them and Paul we cannot tell. Socrates and Epictetus condemned personal vindictiveness as Paul does here. {I will recompense} (\antapod“s“\). Future active of the double compound verb quoted also in strkjv@11:35|.

rwp@Romans:14:22 @{Have thou to thyself before God} (\su--kata seauton eche en“pion tou theou\). Very emphatic position of \su\ at the beginning of the sentence, "Thou there." The old MSS. put \hˆn\ (relative "which") after \pistin\ and before \echeis\. This principle applies to both the "strong" and the "weak." He is within his rights to act "according to thyself," but it must be "before God" and with due regard to the rights of the other brethren. {In that which he approveth} (\en hoi dokimazei\). This beatitude cuts both ways. After testing and then approving (1:28; strkjv@2:18|) one takes his stand which very act may condemn himself by what he says or does. "It is a rare felicity to have a conscience untroubled by scruples" (Denney).

rwp@Romans:14:23 @{He that doubteth} (\ho diakrinomenos\). Present middle participle of \diakrin“\, to judge between (\dia\), to hesitate. See strkjv@James:1:6f.| for this same picture of the double-minded man. Cf. strkjv@Romans:4:20; strkjv@Mark:11:23|. {Is condemned} (\katakekritai\). Perfect passive indicative of \katakrin“\ (note \kata-\), "stands condemned." {If he eat} (\ean phagˆi\). Third class condition, \ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive. If in spite of his doubt, he eat. {Whatsoever is not of faith is sin} (\pan ho ouk ek piste“s hamartia estin\). {Faith} (\pistis\) here is subjective, one's strong conviction in the light of his relation to Christ and his enlightened conscience. To go against this combination is sin beyond a doubt. Some MSS. (A L etc.) put the doxology here which most place in strkjv@16:25-27|. But they all give chapters 15 and 16. Some have supposed that the Epistle originally ended here, but that is pure speculation. Some even suggest two editions of the Epistle. But chapter 15 goes right on with the topic discussed in chapter 14.

rwp@Titus:1:14 @See strkjv@1Timothy:1:4| for \prosech“\ and \muthois\, only here we have _Jewish_ (\Ioudaikois\) added. Perhaps a reference to the oral traditions condemned by Christ in strkjv@Mark:7:2-8|. See also strkjv@Colossians:2:22|, apparently Pharisaic type of Gnostics. {Who turn away from the truth} (\apostrephomen“n\). Present middle (direct) participle of \apostreph“\, "men turning themselves away from the truth" (accusative according to regular idiom). "The truth" (1Timothy:4:3|) is the gospel (Ephesians:4:21|).

rwp@Titus:2:8 @{Sound} (\hugiˆ\, Attic usually \hugiƒ\ in accusative singular), elsewhere in Pastorals participle \hugian“n\ (verse 1|). {That cannot be condemned} (\akatagn“ston\). Only N.T. example (verbal, \a\ privative and \katagn“stos\) and in IV Macc. strkjv@4:47. Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 200) quotes it from an inscription and the adverb from a papyrus. {He that is of the contrary part} (\ho ex enantias\). "The one on the opposite side" (your opponent). Cf. verse 9; strkjv@1Timothy:5:14|. {May be ashamed} (\hina entrapˆi\). Final clause with \hina\ and second aorist passive subjunctive of \entrep“\, to turn, in middle and passive to turn one on himself and so be ashamed (to blush) as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:14; strkjv@1Corinthians:4:14|. This sense in the papyri. {Evil} (\phaulon\). Old word, easy (easy morals), worthless; bad, as in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:10|.

rwp@Titus:3:11 @{Is perverted} (\exestraptai\). Perfect passive indicative of \ekstreph“\, old word to turn inside out, to twist, to pervert. Only here in N.T. {Self-condemned} (\autokatakritos\). Only known example of this double compound verbal adjective (\autos, kata, krin“\).

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Sun Jun 30 20:44:01 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020