OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp guilty:

rwp@1Corinthians:3:18 @{Let no man deceive himself} (\Mdeis heauton exapat\). A warning that implied that some of them were guilty of doing it (\m\ and the present imperative). Excited partisans can easily excite themselves to a pious phrenzy, hypnotize themselves with their own supposed devotion to truth. {Thinketh that he is wise} (\dokei sophos einai\). Condition of first class and assumed to be true. Predicate nominative \sophos\ with the infinitive to agree with subject of \dokei\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1038). Paul claimed to be "wise" himself in verse 10| and he desires that the claimant to wisdom may become wise (\hina gentai sophos\, purpose clause with \hina\ and subjunctive) by becoming a fool (\mros genesth\, second aorist middle imperative of \ginomai\) as this age looks at him. This false wisdom of the world (1:18-20,23; strkjv@2:14|), this self-conceit, has led to strife and wrangling. Cut it out.

rwp@1Corinthians:4:4 @{For I know nothing against myself} (\ouden gar emauti sunoida\). Not a statement of fact, but an hypothesis to show the unreliability of mere complacent self-satisfaction. Note the use of \sunoida\ (second perfect active indicative with dative (disadvantage) of the reflexive pronoun) for guilty knowledge against oneself (cf. strkjv@Acts:5:2; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@14:6|). {Yet} (\all'\). Adversative use of \alla\. {Amos:I not hereby justified} (\ouk en touti dedikaimai\). Perfect passive indicative of state of completion. Failure to be conscious of one's own sins does not mean that one is innocent. Most prisoners plead "not guilty." Who is the judge of the steward of the mysteries of God? It is the Lord "that judgeth me" (\ho anakrinn me\). Probably, who examines me and then passes on my fidelity (\pistos\ in verse 2|).

rwp@1Corinthians:11:27 @{Unworthily} (\anaxis\). Old adverb, only here in N.T., not genuine in verse 29|. Paul defines his meaning in verse 29f|. He does not say or imply that we ourselves must be "worthy" (\axioi\) to partake of the Lord's Supper. No one would ever partake on those terms. Many pious souls have abstained from observing the ordinance through false exegesis here. {Shall be guilty} (\enochos estai\). Shall be held guilty as in strkjv@Matthew:5:21f.| which see. Shall be guilty of a crime committed against the body and blood of the Lord by such sacrilege (cf. strkjv@Hebrews:6:6; strkjv@10:29|).

rwp@2Corinthians:5:18 @{Who reconciled us to himself through Christ} (\tou katallaxantos hmas heauti dia Christou\). Here Paul uses one of his great doctrinal words, \katallass\, old word for exchanging coins. \Diallass\, to change one's mind, to reconcile, occurs in N.T. only in strkjv@Matthew:5:24| though in papyri (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 187), and common in Attic. \Katallass\ is old verb, but more frequent in later writers. We find \sunallass\ in strkjv@Acts:7:26| and \apokatallass\ in strkjv@Colossians:1:20f.; strkjv@Ephesians:2:16| and the substantive \katallag\ in strkjv@Romans:5:11; strkjv@11:15| as well as here. It is hard to discuss this great theme without apparent contradiction. God's love (John:3:16|) provided the means and basis for man's reconciliation to God against whom he had sinned. It is all God's plan because of his love, but God's own sense of justice had to be satisfied (Romans:3:26|) and so God gave his Son as a propitiation for our sins (Romans:3:25; strkjv@Colossians:1:20; strkjv@1John:2:2; strkjv@4:10|). The point made by Paul here is that God needs no reconciliation, but is engaged in the great business of reconciling us to himself. This has to be done on God's terms and is made possible through (\dia\) Christ. {And gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation} (\kai dontos hmin tn diakonian ts katallags\). It is a ministry marked by reconciliation, that consists in reconciliation. God has made possible through Christ our reconciliation to him, but in each case it has to be made effective by the attitude of each individual. The task of winning the unreconciled to God is committed to us. It is a high and holy one, but supremely difficult, because the offending party (the guilty) is the hardest to win over. We must be loyal to God and yet win sinful men to him.

rwp@2Corinthians:6:14 @{Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers} (\m ginesthe heterozugountes apistois\). No other example of this verb has yet been found, though the adjective from which it is apparently formed, \heterozugos\ (yoked with a different yoke) occurs in strkjv@Leviticus:19:19| of the union of beasts of different kinds. In strkjv@Deuteronomy:22:10| we read: "Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together." Literally, "Stop becoming (\m ginesthe\ present imperative, not \m gensthe\ aorist subj.) unequally yoked with unconverted heathen (unbelievers)." Some were already guilty. Marriage is certainly included, but other unions may be in mind. Cf. strkjv@Ephesians:5:7|. Paul gives as the reason (\gar\) for this prohibition five words in questions to distinguish the contrasts. {Fellowship} (\metoch\). Sharing with and followed by associative instrumental case of \dikaiosuni\ (righteousness) and iniquity (\anomii\). A pertinent challenge today when church members wink at violations of laws of the land and laws of God. {Communion} (\koinnia\). Partnership to light (\phti\ dative case) with (\pros\), facing darkness.

rwp@2Thessalonians:1:8 @{Rendering} (\didontos\). Genitive of present active participle of \didmi\, to give, agreeing with \Isou\. {Vengeance} (\ekdiksin\). Late word from \ekdike\, to vindicate, in Polybius and LXX. {To them that know not God} (\tois m eidosin theon\). Dative plural of perfect active participle \eids\. Apparently chiefly Gentiles in mind (1Thessalonians:4:3; strkjv@Galatians:4:8; strkjv@Romans:1:28; strkjv@Ephesians:2:12|), though Jews are also guilty of wilful ignorance of God (Romans:2:14|). {And to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus} (\kai tois m hupakouousin ti euaggelii tou kuriou hmn Isou\). Repetition of the article looks like another class and so Jews (Romans:10:16|). Both Jews as instigators and Gentiles as officials (\politarchs\) were involved in the persecution in Thessalonica (Acts:17:5-9; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:6|). Note the use of "gospel" here as in strkjv@Mark:1:15| "believe in the gospel."

rwp@Acts:7:1 @{Are these things so?} (\ei tauta houts echei\). On this use of \ei\ in a direct question see on ¯1:6|. Literally "Do these things hold thus?" A formal question by the high priest like our "Do you plead guilty, or not guilty?" (Furneaux). The abrupt question of the high priest would serve to break the evident spell of the angelic look on Stephen's face. Two charges had been made against Stephen (1) speaking against the holy temple, (2) changing the customs which Moses had delivered. Stephen could not give a yes or no answer to these two charges. There was an element of truth in each of them and a large amount of error all mixed together. Songs:he undertakes to explain his real position by the historical method, that is to say, by a rapid survey of God's dealing with the people of Israel and the Gentiles. It is the same method adopted by Paul in Pisidian Antioch (Acts:13:16ff.|) after he had become the successor of Stephen in his interpretation of the universal mission of Christianity. If one is disposed to say that Luke made up this speech to suit Stephen's predicament, he has to explain how the style is less Lukan than the narrative portions of Acts with knowledge of Jewish traditions that a Greek would not be likely to know. Precisely how Luke obtained the data for the speech we do not know, but Saul heard it and Philip, one of the seven, almost certainly. Both could have given Luke help about it. It is even possible that some one took notes of this important address. We are to remember also that the speech was interrupted at the end and may not include all that Stephen meant to say. But enough is given to give us a good idea of how Stephen met the first charge "by showing that the worship of God is not confined to Jerusalem or the Jewish temple" (Page). Then he answers the second charge by proving that God had many dealings with their fathers before Moses came and that Moses foretold the coming of the Messiah who is now known to be Jesus. It is at this point (verse 51|) that Stephen becomes passionate and so powerful that the wolves in the Sanhedrin lose all self-control. It is a great and masterful exposition of the worldwide mission of the gospel of Christ in full harmony with the Great Commission of Christ. The apostles had been so busy answering the Sadducees concerning the Resurrection of Christ and maintaining their freedom to teach and preach that they had not pushed the world-wide propaganda of the gospel as Jesus had commanded after they had received the Promise of the Father. But Stephen had proclaimed the same message of Christ and was now facing the same fate. Peter's mind had been enlightened by the Holy Spirit so that he could rightly interpret Joel and David in the light of Pentecost. "Songs:Stephen read the history of the Old Testament with new eyes in the light of the life and death of Jesus" (Furneaux).

rwp@Acts:7:57 @{Stopped their ears} (\suneschon ta ta autn\). Second aorist active of \sunech\, to hold together. They held their ears together with their hands and affected to believe Stephen guilty of blasphemy (cf. strkjv@Matthew:26:65|). {Rushed upon him with one accord} (\hrmsan homothumadon ep' auton\). Ingressive aorist active indicative of \horma\, to rush impetuously as the hogs did down the cliff when the demons entered them (Luke:8:33|). No vote was taken by the Sanhedrin. No scruple was raised about not having the right to put him to death (John:8:31|). It may have taken place after Pilate's recall and before his successor came or Pilate, if there, just connived at such an incident that did not concern Rome. At any rate it was mob violence like modern lynching that took the law into the hands of the Sanhedrin without further formalities. {Out of the city} (\ek ts poles\). To keep from defiling the place with blood. But they sought to kill Paul as soon as they got him out of the temple area (Acts:21:30f.|). {Stoned} (\elithoboloun\). Imperfect active indicative of \lithobole\, began to stone, from \lithobolos\ (\lithos\, stone, \ball\, to throw), late Greek verb, several times in the N.T. as strkjv@Luke:13:34|. Stoning was the Jewish punishment for blasphemy (Leviticus:24:14-16|). {The witnesses} (\hoi martures\). The false testifiers against Stephen suborned by the Pharisees (Acts:6:11,13|). These witnesses had the privilege of casting the first stones (Deuteronomy:13:10; strkjv@17:7|) against the first witness for Christ with death (_martyr_ in our modern sense of the word). {At the feet of a young man named Saul} (\para tous podas neaniou kaloumenou Saulou\). Beside (\para\) the feet. Our first introduction to the man who became the greatest of all followers of Jesus Christ. Evidently he was not one of the "witnesses" against Stephen, for he was throwing no stones at him. But evidently he was already a leader in the group of Pharisees. We know from later hints from Saul (Paul) himself that he had been a pupil of Gamaliel (Acts:22:3|). Gamaliel, as the Pharisaic leader in the Sanhedrin, was probably on hand to hear the accusations against Stephen by the Pharisees. But, if so, he does not raise his voice against this mob violence. Saul does not seem to be aware that he is going contrary to the views of his master, though pupils often go further than their teachers.

rwp@Acts:19:37 @{Neither robbers of temples} (\oute hierosulous\). Common word in Greek writers from \hieron\, temple, and \sula\, to rob, be guilty of sacrilege. The word is found also on inscriptions in Ephesus. The Jews were sometimes guilty of this crime (Romans:2:22|), since the heathen temples often had vast treasures like banks. The ancients felt as strongly about temple-robbing as westerners used to feel about a horse-thief. {Nor blasphemers of our goddess} (\oute blasphmountas tn theon hmn\). Nor those who blasphemed our goddess. That is to say, these men (Gaius and Aristarchus) as Christians had so conducted themselves (Colossians:4:5|) that no charge could be placed against them either in act (temple-robbery) or word (blasphemy). They had done a rash thing since these men are innocent. Paul had used tact in Ephesus as in Athens in avoiding illegalities.

rwp@Acts:23:5 @{I wist not} (\ouk idein\). Second past perfect of \oida\ used as an imperfect. The Greek naturally means that Paul did not know that it was the high priest who gave the order to smite his mouth. If this view is taken, several things may be said by way of explanation. The high priest may not have had on his official dress as the meeting was called hurriedly by Lysias. Paul had been away so long that he may not have known Ananias on sight. And then Paul may have had poor eyesight or the high priest may not have been sitting in the official seat. Another way of explaining it is to say that Paul was so indignant, even angry, at the command that he spoke without considering who it was that gave the order. The Greek allows this idea also. At any rate Paul at once recognizes the justice of the point made against him. He had been guilty of irreverence against the office of high priest as the passage from strkjv@Exodus:22:18| (LXX) shows and confesses his fault, but the rebuke was deserved. Jesus did not threaten (1Peter:2:23|) when smitten on the cheek (John:18:22|), but he did protest against the act and did not turn the other cheek.

rwp@Acts:24:14 @{I confess} (\homolog\). The only charge left was that of being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. This Paul frankly confesses is true. He uses the word in its full sense. He is "guilty" of that. {After the Way} (\kata tn hodon\). This word Paul had already applied to Christianity (22:4|). He prefers it to "sect" (\hairesin\ which means a choosing, then a division). Paul claims Christianity to be the real (whole, catholic) Judaism, not a "sect" of it. But he will show that Christianity is not a deviation from Judaism, but the fulfilment of it (Page) as he has already shown in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9|. {Songs:serve I the God of our fathers} (\houts latreu ti patrii thei\). Paul has not stretched the truth at all. He has confirmed the claim made before the Sanhedrin that he is a spiritual Pharisee in the truest sense (23:6|). He reasserts his faith in all the law and the prophets, holding to the Messianic hope. A curious "heretic" surely! {Which these themselves also look for} (\hn kai autoi houtoi prosdechontai\). Probably with a gesture towards his accusers. He does not treat them all as Sadducees. See strkjv@Titus:2:13| for similar use of the verb (\prosdechomenoi tn makarian elpida\, looking for the happy hope).

rwp@Acts:25:8 @{While Paul said in his defence} (\tou Paulou apologoumenou\). Genitive absolute again, present middle participle of \apologeomai\, old verb to make defence as in strkjv@19:33; strkjv@24:10; strkjv@26:1,2|. The recitative \hoti\ of the Greek before a direct quotation is not reproduced in English. {Have I sinned at all} (\ti hmarton\). Constative aorist active indicative of \hamartan\, to miss, to sin. The \ti\ is cognate accusative (or adverbial accusative). Either makes sense. Paul sums up the charges under the three items of law of the Jews, the temple, the Roman state (Caesar). This last was the one that would interest Festus and, if proved, would render Paul guilty of treason (\majestas\). Nero was Emperor A.D. 54-68, the last of the emperors with any hereditary claim to the name "Caesar." Soon it became merely a title like Kaiser and Czar (modern derivatives). In Acts only "Caesar" and "Augustus" are employed for the Emperor, not "King" (\Basileus\) as from the time of Domitian. Paul's denial is complete and no proof had been presented. Luke was apparently present at the trial.

rwp@Ephesians:5:18 @{Be not drunken with wine} (\m methuskesthe oini\). Present passive imperative of \methusk\, old verb to intoxicate. Forbidden as a habit and to stop it also if guilty. Instrumental case \oini\. {Riot} (\astia\). Old word from \astos\ (adverb \asts\ in strkjv@Luke:15:13|), in N.T. only here, strkjv@Titus:1:6; strkjv@1Peter:4:4|. {But be filled with the Spirit} (\alla plrousthe en pneumati\). In contrast to a state of intoxication with wine.

rwp@James:2:4 @{Are ye not divided in your own mind?} (\ou diekrithte en heautois;\). First aorist (gnomic) passive indicative of \diakrin\, to separate, conclusion of the third-class condition (future) in a rhetorical question in the gnomic aorist (as if past) with ou expecting an affirmative answer. For this idiom (gnomic aorist) in a conclusion of the third-class condition see strkjv@1Corinthians:7:28|. "Were ye not divided in (among) yourselves?" Cf. strkjv@1:6; strkjv@Matthew:21:21|. {Judges with evil thoughts} (\kritai dialogismn ponrn\). Descriptive genitive as in strkjv@1:25|. \Dialogismos\ is an old word for reasoning (Romans:1:21|). Reasoning is not necessarily evil, but see strkjv@Matthew:15:19| (\ponroi\) and strkjv@Mark:7:21| (\kakoi\) for evil reasonings, and strkjv@1Timothy:2:8| without an adjective. See strkjv@James:1:8; strkjv@4:8| for \dipsuchos\. They are guilty of partiality (a divided mind) as between the two strangers.

rwp@James:2:10 @{Whosoever shall keep} (\hostis trsi\). Indefinite relative clause with \hostis\ and aorist active subjunctive of \tre\, old verb, to guard (from \tros\ guarding), as in strkjv@Matthew:27:36|, without \an\ (though often used, but only one example of modal \ean=an\ in James, viz., strkjv@4:4|). This modal \an\ (\ean\) merely interprets the sentence as either more indefinite or more definite (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 957f.). {And yet stumble in one point} (\ptaisi de en heni\). First aorist active subjunctive also of \ptai\, old verb, to trip, as in strkjv@3:2; strkjv@Romans:11:11|. "It is incipient falling" (Hort). {He is become} (\gegonen\). Second perfect indicative of \ginomai\, "he has become" by that one stumble. {Guilty of all} (\pantn enochos\). Genitive of the crime with \enochos\, old adjective from \enech\ (to hold on or in), held in, as in strkjv@Mark:3:29|. This is law. To be a lawbreaker one does not have to violate all the laws, but he must keep all the law (\holon ton nomon\) to be a law-abiding citizen, even laws that one does not like. See strkjv@Matthew:5:18f.| for this same principle. There is Talmudic parallel: "If a man do all, but omit one, he is guilty for all and each." This is a pertinent principle also for those who try to save themselves. But James is urging obedience to all God's laws.

rwp@James:5:12 @{Above all things} (\pro pantn\). No connection with what immediately precedes. Probably an allusion to the words of Jesus (Matthew:5:34-37|). It is not out of place here. See the same phrase in strkjv@1Peter:4:8|. Robinson (_Ephesians_, p. 279) cites like examples from the papyri at the close of letters. Here it means "But especially" (Ropes). {Swear not} (\m omnuete\). Prohibition of the habit (or to quit doing it if guilty) with \m\ and the present active imperative of \omnu\. The various oaths (profanity) forbidden (\mte\, thrice) are in the accusative case after \omnuete\, according to rule (\ouranon, gn, horkon\). The Jews were wont to split hairs in their use of profanity, and by avoiding God's name imagine that they were not really guilty of this sin, just as professing Christians today use "pious oaths" which violate the prohibition of Jesus. {Let be} (\t\). Imperative active third singular of \eimi\, late form (1Corinthians:16:22|) for \est\. "Your yea be yea" (and no more). A different form from that in strkjv@Matthew:5:37|. {That ye fall not under judgment} (\hina m hupo krisin peste\). Negative purpose with \hina m\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \pipt\, to fall. See \hina m krithte\ in verse 9|. \Krisis\ (from \krin\) is the act of judging rather than the judgment rendered (\krima\ strkjv@James:3:1|).

rwp@John:4:29 @{All things that ever I did} (\panta ha epoisa\). {Ha}, not \hosa\ (as many as), no "ever" in the Greek. But a guilty conscience (verse 18f.|) led her to exaggerate a bit. {Can this be the Christ?} (\mti houtos estin ho Christos;\). She is already convinced herself (verses 26f.|), but she puts the question in a hesitant form to avoid arousing opposition. With a woman's intuition she avoided \ouk\ and uses \mti\. She does not take sides, but piques their curiosity.

rwp@John:8:4 @{Hath been taken} (\kateilptai\). Perfect passive indicative of \katalamban\ (see verse 3|), caught and still guilty. {In adultery} (\moicheuomen\). Present passive participle of \moicheu\, "herself suffering adultery" (Matthew:5:32|). Used of married people. Not in John. {In the very act} (\ep' autophri\). Old adjective (\autophros, autos\, self, and \phr\, thief) caught in the act of theft, then extended to any crime in which one is caught. Old idiom, but not elsewhere in the Greek Bible. One example in a Berlin papyrus.

rwp@John:8:5 @{Commanded} (\eneteilato\). First aorist middle indicative of \entell\, old verb to enjoin (Matthew:4:6|). {To stone such} (\tas toiautas lithazein\). Present active infinitive of \lithaz\ (from \lithos\), from Aristotle on. Stoning was specified for the case of a betrothed woman guilty of adultery (Deuteronomy:22:23f.|) and for a priest's daughter if guilty. In other cases just death was commanded (Leviticus:20:10; strkjv@Deuteronomy:22:22|). The Talmud prescribes strangulation. This case may have strictly come within the regulation as a betrothed virgin. {What then sayest thou of her?} (\su oun ti legeis;\). "Thou then, what dost thou say?" This was the whole point, to catch Jesus, not to punish the woman.

rwp@John:8:53 @{Art thou greater than our father Abraham?} (\M su meizn ei tou patros hmn Abraam;\). Negative answer expected by \m\ with ablative case of comparison in \patros\ after \meizn\. The question was designed to put Jesus in a difficult position, for Abraham and the prophets all "died." They do not see that Jesus uses death in a different sense. {Whom makest thou thyself?} (\tina seauton poieis;\). \Seauton\ is predicate accusative with \poieis\. They suspect that Jesus is guilty of blasphemy as they charged in strkjv@5:18| in making himself equal with God. Later they will make it specifically (10:33; strkjv@19:7|). They set a trap for Jesus for this purpose.

rwp@John:9:2 @{Who did sin?} (\tis hmarten;\). Second aorist active indicative of \hamartan\. See strkjv@Acts:3:2; strkjv@14:8| for two examples of lameness from birth. Blindness is common in the Orient and Jesus healed many cases (cf. strkjv@Mark:8:23; strkjv@10:46|) and mentions this fact as one of the marks of the Messiah in the message to the Baptist (Matthew:11:5|). This is the only example of congenital blindness healed. It is not clear that the disciples expected Jesus to heal this case. They are puzzled by the Jewish notion that sickness was a penalty for sin. The Book of Job:had shown that this was not always the case and Jesus shows it also (Luke:13:1-5|). If this man was guilty, it was due to prenatal sin on his part, a curious notion surely. The other alternative charged it upon his parents. That is sometimes true (Exodus:20:5|, etc.), but by no means always. The rabbinical casuists loved to split hairs on this problem. Ezekiel (Ezekiel:18:20|) says: "The soul that sinneth it shall die" (individual responsibility for sin committed). There is something in heredity, but not everything. {That he should be born blind} (\hina tuphlos gennthi\). Probably consecutive (or sub-final) use of \hina\ with first aorist passive subjunctive of \genna\.

rwp@John:10:24 @{Came round about him} (\ekuklsan auton\). Aorist active indicative of \kuklo\, old verb from \kuklos\ (cycle, circle). See strkjv@Acts:14:20| for the circle of disciples around Paul when stoned. Evidently the hostile Jews cherished the memory of the stinging rebuke given them by Jesus when here last, particularly the allegory of the Good Shepherd (10:1-19|), in which he drew so sharply their own picture. {How long dost thou hold us in suspense?} (\hes pote tn psuchn hmn aireis;\). Literally, "Until when dost thou lift up our soul?" But what do they mean by this metaphor? \Air\ is common enough to lift up the eyes (John:11:41|), the voice (Luke:17:13|), and in strkjv@Psalms:25:1; strkjv@86:4| (Josephus, _Ant_. III. ii. 3) we have "to lift up the soul." We are left to the context to judge the precise meaning. Clearly the Jews mean to imply doubt and suspense. The next remark makes it clear. {If thou art the Christ} (\ei su ei ho Christos\). Condition of first class assumed to be true for the sake of argument. {Tell us plainly} (\eipon hmin parrsii\). Conclusion with \eipon\ rather than the usual \eipe\ as if first aorist active imperative like \luson\. The point is in "plainly" (\parrsii\), adverb as in strkjv@7:13,26| which see. That is to say "I am the Christ" in so many words. See strkjv@11:14; strkjv@16:29| for the same use of \parrsii\. The demand seemed fair enough on the surface. They had made it before when here at the feast of tabernacles (8:25|). Jesus declined to use the word \Christos\ (Messiah) then as now because of the political bearing of the word in their minds. The populace in Galilee had once tried to make him king in opposition to Pilate (John:6:14f.|). When Jesus does confess on oath before Caiaphas that he is the Christ the Son of God (Mark:14:61f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:63f.|), the Sanhedrin instantly vote him guilty of blasphemy and then bring him to Pilate with the charge of claiming to be king as a rival to Caesar. Jesus knew their minds too well to be caught now.

rwp@John:19:5 @{Wearing} (\phorn\). Present active participle of \phore\, an early frequentative of \pher\, denoting a continual wearing, though not true here (only temporary). Jesus bore the mockery with kingly dignity as part of the shame of the Cross (Hebrews:12:2|). {Behold, the man} (\Idou ho anthrpos\). _Ecce Homo!_ by Pilate. This exclamatory introduction of Jesus in mock coronation robes to the mob was clearly intended to excite pity and to show how absurd the charge of the Sanhedrin was that such a pitiable figure should be guilty of treason. Pilate failed utterly in this effort and did not dream that he was calling attention to the greatest figure of history, the Man of the ages.

rwp@Luke:7:49 @{Who even forgiveth sins} (\hos kai hamartias aphisin\). Present indicative active of same verb, \aphimi\. Once before the Pharisees considered Jesus guilty of blasphemy in claiming the power to forgive sins (Luke:5:21|). Jesus read their inmost thoughts as he always does.

rwp@Luke:16:3 @{Within himself} (\en heauti\). As soon as he had time to think the thing over carefully. He knew that he was guilty of embezzlement of the Master's funds. {Taketh away} (\aphaireitai\). Present (linear) middle indicative of \aphaire\, old verb to take away. Here the middle present means, He is taking away for himself. {To beg I am not ashamed} (\epaitein aischunomai\). The infinitive with \aischunomai\ means ashamed to begin to beg. The participle, \epaitn aischunomai\ would mean, ashamed while begging, ashamed of begging while doing it.

rwp@Mark:6:14 @{Heard} (\kousen\). This tour of Galilee by the disciples in pairs wakened all Galilee, for the name of Jesus thus became known (\phaneron\) or known till even Herod heard of it in the palace. "A palace is late in hearing spiritual news" (Bengel). {Therefore do these powers work in him} (\dia touto energousin hai dunameis en auti\). "A snatch of Herod's theology and philosophy" (Morison). John wrought no miracles (John:10:41|), but if he had risen from the dead perhaps he could. Songs:Herod may have argued. "Herod's superstition and his guilty conscience raised this ghost to plague him" (Gould). Our word _energy_ is this same Greek word here used (\energousin\). It means at work. Miraculous powers were at work in Jesus whatever the explanation. This all agreed, but they differed widely as to his personality, whether Elijah or another of the prophets or John the Baptist. Herod was at first much perplexed (\diporei\, strkjv@Luke:9:7| and strkjv@Mark:6:20|).

rwp@Mark:11:17 @{For all the nations} (\psin tois ethnesin\). Mark alone has this phrase from strkjv@Isaiah:56:7; strkjv@Jeremiah:7:11|. The people as well as the temple authorities were guilty of graft, extortion, and desecration of the house of prayer. Jesus assumes and exercises Messianic authority and dares to smite this political and financial abuse. Some people deny the right of the preacher to denounce such abuses in business and politics even when they invade the realm of morals and religion. But Jesus did not hesitate.

rwp@Matthew:5:10 @{That have been persecuted for righteousness' sake} (\hoi dedigmenoi heneken dikaiosuns\). Posing as persecuted is a favourite stunt. The kingdom of heaven belongs only to those who suffer for the sake of goodness, not who are guilty of wrong.

rwp@Matthew:14:2 @{His servants} (\tois paisin autou\). Literally "boys," but here the courtiers, not the menials of the palace. {Work in him} (\energousin\). Cf. our "energize." "The powers of the invisible world, vast and vague in the king's imagination" (Bruce). John wrought no miracles, but one _redivivus_ might be under the control of the unseen powers. Songs:Herod argued. A guilty conscience quickened his fears. Possibly he could see again the head of John on a charger. "The King has the Baptist on the brain" (Bruce). Cf. Josephus (_War_, I. xxx. 7) for the story that the ghosts of Alexander and Aristobulus haunted the palace of Herod the Great. There were many conjectures about Jesus as a result of this tour of Galilee and Herod Antipas feared this one.

rwp@Matthew:15:5 @{But ye say} (\hmeis de legete\). In sharp contrast to the command of God. Jesus had quoted the fifth commandment (Exodus:20:12,16|) with the penalty "die the death" (\thanati teleutat\), "go on to his end by death," in imitation of the Hebrew idiom. They dodged this command of God about the penalty for dishonouring one's father or mother by the use "Corban" (\korban\) as Mark calls it (Mark:7:11|). All one had to do to evade one's duty to father or mother was to say "Corban" or "Gift" (\Dron\) with the idea of using the money for God. By an angry oath of refusal to help one's parents, the oath or vow was binding. By this magic word one set himself free (\ou m timsei\, he shall not honour) from obedience to the fifth commandment. Sometimes unfilial sons paid graft to the rabbinical legalists for such dodges. Were some of these very faultfinders guilty?

rwp@Matthew:19:9 @{Except for fornication} (\parektos logou porneias\). This is the marginal reading in Westcott and Hort which also adds "maketh her an adulteress" (\poiei autn moicheuthnai\) and also these words: "and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery" (\kai ho apolelumenn gamsas moichatai\). There seems to be a certain amount of assimilation in various manuscripts between this verse and the words in strkjv@5:32|. But, whatever reading is accepted here, even the short one in Westcott and Hort (\m epi porneii\, not for fornication), it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term (\porneia\) which is technically adultery (\moicheia\ from \moicha or moicheu\). Here, as in strkjv@5:31f.|, a group of scholars deny the genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile holds that "the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had already grown up." That in my opinion is gratuitous criticism which is unwilling to accept Matthew's report because it disagrees with one's views on the subject of divorce. He adds: "It cannot be supposed that Matthew wished to represent Jesus as siding with the school of Shammai." Why not, if Shammai on this point agreed with Jesus? Those who deny Matthew's report are those who are opposed to remarriage at all. Jesus by implication, as in strkjv@5:31|, does allow remarriage of the innocent party, but not of the guilty one. Certainly Jesus has lifted the whole subject of marriage and divorce to a new level, far beyond the petty contentions of the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

rwp@Matthew:23:16 @{Ye blind guides} (\hodgoi tuphloi\). Note omission of "Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" with this third woe. In strkjv@15:14| Jesus had already called the Pharisees "blind guides" (leaders). They split hairs about oaths, as Jesus had explained in strkjv@5:33-37|, between the temple and the gold of the temple. {He is a debtor} (\opheilei\). He owes his oath, is bound by his oath. A.V., {is guilty}, is old English, obsolete sense of guilt as fine or payment.

rwp@Matthew:23:24 @{Strain out the gnat} (\diulizontes ton knpa\). By filtering through (\dia\), not the "straining at" in swallowing so crudely suggested by the misprint in the A.V. {Swallow the camel} (\tn de kamlon katapinontes\). Gulping or drinking down the camel. An oriental hyperbole like that in strkjv@19:24|. See also strkjv@5:29,30; strkjv@17:20; strkjv@21:21|. Both insects and camels were ceremonially unclean (Leviticus:11:4,20,23,42|). "He that kills a flea on the Sabbath is as guilty as if he killed a camel" (Jer. _Shabb._ 107).

rwp@Matthew:26:66 @{He is worthy of death} (\enochos thanatou estin\). Held in the bonds of death (\en, ech\) as actually guilty with the genitive (\thanatou\). The dative expresses liability as in strkjv@Matthew:5:21| (\ti krisei\) and as \eis\ and the accusative (Matthew:5:22|). They took the vote though it was at night and they no longer had the power of death since the Romans took it away from them. Death was the penalty of blasphemy (Leviticus:24:15|). But they enjoyed taking it as their answer to his unanswerable speeches in the temple that dreadful Tuesday a few days before. It was unanimous save that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus did not agree. They were probably absent and not even invited as being under suspicion for being secret disciples of Christ.

rwp@Matthew:27:17 @{Barabbas or Jesus which is called Christ?} (\Barabbn Isoun 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 thelon\). 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 (\epismon\), 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:27:39 @{Wagging their heads} (\kinountes tas kephalas autn\). Probably in mock commiseration. "Jews again appear on the scene, with a malice like that shewn in the trial before the Sanhedrin" (McNeile). "To us it may seem incredible that even his worst enemies could be guilty of anything so brutal as to hurl taunts at one suffering the agonies of crucifixion" (Bruce). These passers-by (\paratroumenoi\) look on Jesus as one now down and out. They jeer at the fallen foe.

rwp@Revelation:2:20 @{Thou sufferest} (\apheis\). Late vernacular present active indicative second person singular as if from a form \aphe\ instead of the usual \aphimi\ forms. {The woman Jezebel} (\tn gunaika Iezabel\). Symbolical name for some prominent woman in the church in Thyatira, like the infamous wife of Ahab who was guilty of whoredom and witchcraft (1Kings:16:31; strkjv@2Kings:9:22|) and who sought to drive out the worship of God from Israel. Some MSS. here (A Q 40 min.s) have \sou\ (thy wife, thy woman Ramsay makes it), but surely Aleph C P rightly reject \sou\. Otherwise she is the pastor's wife! {Which calleth herself a prophetess} (\h legousa heautn prophtin\). Nominative articular participle of \leg\ in apposition with the accusative \gunaika\ like \ho martus\ in apposition with \Antipas\ in strkjv@2:13|. \Prophtis\ is an old word, feminine form for \prophts\, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:2:36| (Anna), two extremes surely. See strkjv@Acts:21:9| for the daughters of Philip who prophesied. {And she teacheth and seduceth} (\kai didaskei kai plani\). A resolution of the participles (\didaskousa kai plansa\) into finite verbs (present active indicatives) as in strkjv@1:5f|. This woman was not a real prophetess, but a false one with loud claims and loose living. One is puzzled to know how such a woman had so much shrewdness and sex-appeal as to lead astray the servants of God in that church. The church tolerated the Nicolaitans and this leader whose primary object was sexual immorality (Charles) and became too much involved with her to handle the heresy.

rwp@Revelation:2:22 @{I do cast} (\ball\). Futuristic present active indicative rather than the future \bal\, since judgment is imminent. {Into a bed} (\eis klinn\). "A bed of sickness in contrast with the bed of adultery" (Beckwith). {Them that commit adultery with her} (\tous moicheuontas met' auts\). Present active articular participle accusative plural of \moicheu\. The actual paramours of the woman Jezebel, guilty of both \porneia\ (fornication, verse 21|) and \moicheia\ (adultery), works of Jezebel of old and of this Jezebel. There may be also an allusion to the spiritual adultery (2Corinthians:11:2|) towards God and Christ as of old (Jeremiah:3:8; strkjv@5:7; strkjv@Ezekiel:16:22|). {Except they repent} (\ean m metanosousin\). Condition of first class with \ean m\ and the future active indicative of \metanoe\, put in this vivid form rather than the aorist subjunctive (\-sin\) third-class condition. {Of her works} (\ek tn ergn auts\). \Auts\ (her) correct rather than \autn\ (their). Jezebel was chiefly responsible.

rwp@Revelation:14:9 @{A third} (\tritos\). "The third of this succession of herald angels denounces the Caesar-worshippers" (Swete). Cf. strkjv@13:12ff|. This counter proclamation (verses 9-12|) warns those tempted to yield to the threats of the second beast about boycott and death (13:11-17|). {If any man worshippeth the beast and his image} (\ei tis proskunei to thrion kai tn eikona autou\). Condition of first class challenging those afraid of the beast. Note accusative (\thrion\) after \proskunei\, not dative as in verse 7|. {And receiveth a mark} (\kai lambanei charagma\). Carries on the same condition and picks up the very language of strkjv@13:16|. These Caesar-worshippers are guilty of an "eternal sin" (Mark:3:29|).

rwp@Info_Revelation @ EMPEROR WORSHIP AS THE OCCASION FOR JOHN'S APOCALYPSE There is no doubt at all that the emperor cult (emperor worship) played a main part in the persecution of the Christians that was the occasion for this great Christian apocalypse. The book itself bears ample witness to this fact, if the two beasts refer to the Roman power as the agent of Satan. It is not possible to single out each individual emperor in the graphic picture. Most would take the dragon to be Satan and the first and the second beasts to be the imperial and provincial Roman power. The Roman emperors posed as gods and did the work of Satan. In particular there were two persecuting emperors (Nero and Domitian) who were responsible for many martyrs for Christ. But emperor worship began before Nero. Julius Caesar was worshipped in the provinces. Octavius was called Augustus (\Sebastos\, Reverend). The crazy Emperor Caius Caligula not simply claimed to be divine, but actually demanded that his statue be set up for worship in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem. He was killed in January A.D. 41 before he could execute his dire purpose. But the madcap Nero likewise demanded worship and blamed in A.D. 64 the burning of Rome on the Christians, though guilty of it himself. He set the style for persecuting Christians, which slumbered on and burst into flames again under Domitian, who had himself commonly termed _Dominus ac Deus noster_ (Our Lord and God). The worship of the emperor did not disturb the worshippers of other gods save the Jews and the Christians, and in particular the Christians were persecuted after the burning of Rome when they were distinguished from the Jews. Up till then Christians were regarded (as by Gallio in Corinth) as a variety of Jews and so entitled to tolerance as a _religio licita_, but they had no standing in law by themselves and their refusal to worship the emperor early gave offence, as Paul indicates in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3|. It was \Kurios Isous\ or \Kurios Kaisar\. On this very issue Polycarp lost his life. The emperors as a rule were tolerant about it, save Nero and Domitian, who was called Nero _redivivus_, or Nero back again. Trajan in his famous letter to Pliny advised tolerance except in stubborn cases, when the Christians had to be put to death. After Nero it was a crime to be a Christian and all sorts of slanders about them were circulated. We have seen already in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3ff.|, the man of sin who sets himself above God as the object of worship. We have seen also in strkjv@1John:2:18,22; strkjv@4:3; strkjv@2John:1:7| the term antichrist applied apparently to Gnostic heretics. One may wonder if, as Beckwith argues, in the Apocalypse the man of sin and the antichrist are united in the beast.