OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp relate:

rwp@1Corinthians:15:42 @{Songs:is the resurrection of the dead} (\houts kai h anastasis tn nekrn\). Paul now applies his illustrations to his argument to prove the kind of body we shall have after the resurrection. He does it by a series of marvellous contrasts that gather all his points. The earthly and the risen beings differ in duration, value, power (Wendt). {It is sown} (\speiretai\). In death, like the seed (37|). {In incorruption} (\en aphtharsii\). Late word from \a\ privative and \phtheir\, to corrupt. In LXX, Plutarch, Philo, late papyrus of a Gnostic gospel, and quotation from Epicurus. Vulgate _incorruptio_. The resurrection body has undergone a complete change as compared with the body of flesh like the plant from the seed. It is related to it, but it is a different body of glory.

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

rwp@ seem to correlate to this note. strkjv@Jude:1:3 does. Changed.

rwp@ not seem to relate. later, 1pe strkjv@2:6 gives a correct ref to isa strkjv@28:16.

rwp@ 18, 20; strkjv@19:21. Much of this does not relate to the word.

rwp@Galatians:1:4 @{For our sins} (\huper tn hamartin\). Some MSS. have \peri\ (concerning). In the _Koin_ this use of \huper\ as like \peri\ has come to be common. He refers to the death of Christ (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:15:3; strkjv@Galatians:2:20; strkjv@Romans:5:6f.|). As a rule \peri\ occurs of things, \huper\ of persons. {Deliver} (\exeltai\). Second aorist middle subjunctive (final clause with \hops\) of \exaire\, old verb to pluck out, to rescue (Acts:23:27|). "Strikes the keynote of the epistle. The gospel is a rescue, an emancipation from a state of bondage" (Lightfoot). {Out of this present evil world} (\ek tou ainos tou enesttos ponrou\). Literally, "out of the age the existing one being evil." The predicate position of \ponrou\ calls emphatic attention to it. Each word here is of interest and has been already discussed. See on ¯Matthew:13:22| for \ain\, strkjv@Matthew:6:23| for \ponros\. \Enesttos\ is genitive masculine singular of \enests\ second perfect (intransitive) participle of \enistmi\ for which see on ¯2Thessalonians:2:12; strkjv@1Corinthians:3:22; strkjv@7:26|. It is present as related to future (Romans:8:38; strkjv@Hebrews:9:9|). {According to the will of God} (\kata to thelma tou theou\). Not according to any merit in us.

rwp@Hebrews:13:5 @{Be ye free from the love of money} (\aphilarguros ho tropos\). No copula, but supply \esto\: "Let your manner of life (\tropos\, way, strkjv@Matthew:23:37|), be without love of money" (\aphilarguros\, double compound), once found only in the N.T., here and strkjv@1Timothy:3:3|, but now several times--or the adverb \aphilargurs\ --in papyri and inscriptions (Deissmann, _Light_, etc., pp. 85f.). Alpha privative and \philos\ and \arguros\. The N.T. is full of the peril of money on the character as modern life is also. {Content with such things as ye have} (\arkoumenoi tois parousin\). Present passive participle of \arke\, to suffice, to be content as in strkjv@Luke:3:14|. Cf. \autarks\ in strkjv@Phillipians:4:11|. Here in the nominative plural with no substantive or pronoun (anacoluthon, as in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:7|) or the participle used as a principal verb as in strkjv@Romans:12:16|. "Contented with the present things" (\tois parousin\, associative instrumental case of \ta paronta\, present active neuter plural participle of \pareimi\, to be present or on hand). {For himself hath said} (\autos gar eirken\). God himself as in strkjv@Acts:20:33| of Christ. Perfect active indicative as in strkjv@1:13; strkjv@4:3f.; strkjv@10:9|. The quotation is a free paraphrase of strkjv@Genesis:28:15; strkjv@Deuteronomy:31:8; strkjv@Joshua:1:5; strkjv@1Chronicles:28:20|. Philo (de Confus. Ling. 32) has it in this form, "a popular paraphrase" (Moffatt). Note the five negatives strengthening each other (\ou m\ with the second aorist active subjunctive \an\ from \animi\, to relate, as in strkjv@Acts:16:26|; \oud' ou m\ with second aorist active subjunctive \egkatalip\ from \egkataleip\, to leave behind, as in strkjv@Matthew:27:46; strkjv@2Timothy:4:10|). A noble promise in times of depression.

rwp@Info_John @ THE USE OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS As the latest of the Gospels and by the oldest living apostle, it is only natural that there should be an infrequent use of the Synoptic Gospels. Outside of the events of Passion Week and the Resurrection period the Fourth Gospel touches the Synoptic narrative in only one incident, that of the Feeding of the Five Thousand and the walking on the water. The author supplements the Synoptic record in various ways. He mentions two passovers not given by the other Gospels (John:2:23; strkjv@6:4|) and another (John:5:1|) may be implied. Otherwise we could not know certainly that the ministry of Jesus was more than a year in length. He adds greatly to our knowledge of the first year of our Lord's public ministry ("the year of obscurity," Stalker) without which we should know little of this beginning (John:1:19-4:45|). The Synoptics give mainly the Galilean and Perean and Judean ministry, but John adds a considerable Jerusalem ministry which is really demanded by allusions in the Synoptics. The Prologue (John:1:1-18|) relates the Incarnation to God's eternal purpose as in strkjv@Colossians:1:14-20| and strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-3| and employs the language of the intellectuals of the time (\Logos\ -- Word) to interpret Christ as the Incarnate Son of God.

rwp@Matthew:27:28 @{A scarlet robe} (\chlamuda kokkinn\). A kind of short cloak worn by soldiers, military officers, magistrates, kings, emperors (2Macc. strkjv@12:35; Josephus, _Ant_. V. 1,10), a soldier's _sagum_ or scarf. Carr (_Cambridge Gk. Test._) suggests that it may have been a worn-out scarf of Pilate's. The scarlet colour (\kokkinn\) was a dye derived from the female insect (\kermes\) which gathered on the \ilex coccifera\ found in Palestine. These dried clusters of insects look like berries and form the famous dye. The word occurs in Plutarch, Epictetus, Herodas, and late papyri besides the Septuagint and New Testament. Mark (Mark:15:17|) has "purple" (\porphuran\). There are various shades of purple and scarlet and it is not easy to distinguish these colours or tints. The manuscripts vary here between "stripped" (\ekdusantes\) and "clothed" (\endusantes\). He had been stripped for the scourging. If "clothed" is correct, the soldiers added the scarlet (purple) mantle. Herodotus (iii. 139) relates that Darius richly rewarded a Samian exile for a rare scarlet robe which he obtained from him. This scarlet mantle on Jesus was mock imitation of the royal purple.

rwp@Matthew:28:2 @{There was a great earthquake} (\seismos egeneto megas\). Clearly not the earthquake of strkjv@27:51|. The precise time of this earthquake is not given. It was before sunrise on the first day of the week when the women made the next visit. Matthew alone relates the coming of the angel of the Lord who rolled away the stone and was sitting upon it (\apekulise ton lithon kai ekathto epan autou\). If one is querulous about these supernatural phenomena, he should reflect that the Resurrection of Jesus is one of the great supernatural events of all time. Cornelius Lapide dares to say: "The earth, which trembled with sorrow at the Death of Christ as it were leaped for joy at His Resurrection." The Angel of the Lord announced the Incarnation of the Son of God and also His Resurrection from the grave. There are apparent inconsistencies in the various narratives of the Resurrection and the appearances of the Risen Christ. We do not know enough of the details to be able to reconcile them. But the very variations strengthen the independent witness to the essential fact that Jesus rose from the grave. Let each writer give his own account in his own way. The stone was rolled away not to let the Lord out, but to let the women in to prove the fact of the empty tomb (McNeile).

rwp@Revelation:6:1 @{And I saw} (\kai eidon\). As in strkjv@4:1; strkjv@5:1|. The vision unfolds without anything being said about opening the book and reading from it. In a more vivid and dramatic fashion the Lamb breaks the seals one by one and reveals the contents and the symbolism. The first four seals have a common note from one of the four \za\ and the appearance of a horse. No effort will be made here to interpret these seals as referring to persons or historical events in the past, present, or future, but simply to relate the symbolism to the other symbols in the book. It is possible that there is some allusion here to the symbolism in the so-called "Little Apocalypse" of strkjv@Mark:13; strkjv@Matthew:24f.; strkjv@Luke:21|. The imagery of the four horses is similar to that in strkjv@Zechariah:1:7-11; strkjv@6:1-8| (cf. strkjv@Jeremiah:14:12; strkjv@24:10; strkjv@42:17|). In the Old Testament the horse is often the emblem of war (Job:39:25; strkjv@Psalms:76:6; strkjv@Proverbs:21:31; strkjv@Ezekiel:26:10|). "Homer pictures the horses of Rhesus as whiter than snow, and swift as the wind" (Vincent). {When the Lamb opened} (\hote noixen to arnion\). First aorist active indicative of \anoig\. This same phrase recurs in rhythmical order at the opening of each seal (6:1,3,5,7,9,12|) till the last (8:1|), where we have \hotan noixen\ (\hotan\ rather than \hote\ calling particular attention to it). {One} (\mian\). Probably used here as an ordinal (the first) as in strkjv@Matthew:28:1|. See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 671f. {Of} (\ek\). This use of \ek\ with the ablative in the partitive sense is common in the Apocalypse, as twice in this verse (\ek tn\, etc.). Songs:\henos ek tn\ (one of the four living creatures) is "the first of," etc. {In a voice of thunder} (\en phni bronts\). Old word used of John and James (Mark:3:17|) and elsewhere in N.T. only strkjv@John:12:29| and a dozen times in the Apocalypse. {Come} (\Erchou\). Present middle imperative of \erchomai\, but with exclamatory force (not strictly linear). The command is not addressed to the Lamb nor to John (the correct text omits \kai ide\ "and see") as in strkjv@17:1; strkjv@21:9|, but to one of the four horsemen each time. Swete takes it as a call to Christ because \erchou\ is so used in strkjv@22:17,20|, but that is not conclusive.

rwp@Romans:5:15 @{But not as the trespass} (\all' ouch hs\). It is more contrast than parallel: "the trespass" (\to paraptma\, the slip, fall to one side) over against the free gift (\to charisma\, of grace \charis\). {Much more} (\polli mallon\). Another _a fortiori_ argument. Why so? As a God of love he delights {much more} in showing mercy and pardon than in giving just punishment (Lightfoot). The gift surpasses the sin. It is not necessary to Paul's argument to make "the many" in each case correspond, one relates to Adam, the other to Christ.