OT.filter - rwp Joseph:

rwp@Acts:4:1 @{The captain of the temple} (\ho stratgos tou hierou\). Twenty-four bands of Levites guarded the temple, one guard at a time. They watched the gates. The commander of each band was called captain (\stratgos\). Josephus names this captain of the temple police next to the high priest (_War_. VI. 5, 3). {The Sadducees} (\hoi Saddoukaioi\). Most of the priests were Sadducees now and all the chief priests since John Hyrcanus I deserted the Pharisees (Josephus, _Ant_. XVII. 10, 6; XVIII. 1, 4; XX. 9, 1). The Sadducees were slow to line up with the Pharisees against Jesus, but they now take the lead against Peter and John. {Came upon them} (\epestsan autois\). Second aorist active indicative (intransitive). Burst upon them suddenly or stood by them in a hostile attitude here (Luke:20:1; strkjv@24:4; strkjv@Acts:6:12; strkjv@17:5; strkjv@22:20; strkjv@23:11|).

rwp@Acts:7:6 @{On this wise} (\houts\). A free quotation from strkjv@Genesis:15:13|. {Should sojourn} (\estai paroikon\). Shall be a sojourner, \Paroikos\ (\para\, beside, \oikos\, home), one dwelling near one's home, but not of it, so a stranger, foreigner, old word, often in LXX, temporary residence without full rights of citizenship (7:29; strkjv@13:17|), and descriptive of Christians (Ephesians:2:19; strkjv@1Peter:1:17; strkjv@2:11|). {In a strange land} (\en gi allotrii\). In a land not one's own, that belongs to another, alien as in strkjv@Matthew:17:25f.|, which see. {Four hundred years} (\et tetrakosia\). Accusative of duration of time. As in strkjv@Genesis:15:13|, but a round number as in strkjv@Exodus:12:40| the time is 430 years. But in strkjv@Galatians:3:17| Paul, following the LXX in strkjv@Exodus:12:40|, takes the 430 years to cover the period in Canaan and the stay in Egypt, cutting the sojourn in Egypt to about half. Josephus gives it both ways. Hackett suggests two solutions, one that there were two ways of reckoning the period among the Jews with no way of settling it, the other that by the 430 years in Egypt the writers meant to include Canaan also as merely the preliminary to the period in Egypt.

rwp@Acts:7:13 @{At the second time} (\en ti deuteri\). This expression only here in the N.T. This second visit is recorded in strkjv@Genesis:45:1ff|. {Became manifest} (\phaneron egeneto\). In strkjv@Genesis:41:12| the fact that Joseph was a Hebrew had been incidentally mentioned to Pharaoh, but now it was made clear to him.

rwp@Acts:7:14 @{Three-score and fifteen souls} (\en psuchais hebdomkonta pente\). Stephen follows the LXX which counts some grandchildren of Joseph and so makes it 75 whereas strkjv@Genesis:46:26| has 66 and then the next verse makes it 70| including Jacob and Joseph with his two sons. The use of \en\ means "consisting in."

rwp@Acts:7:16 @{They were carried over unto Shechem} (\metetethsan eis Suchem\). First aorist passive of \metatithmi\, only here in the N.T. in this sense of changing places. Jacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah (Genesis:50:13|). The O.T. does not say where the sons of Jacob were buried save that Joseph was buried in Shechem (Joshua:24:32|). Possibly only "our fathers" without Jacob is the subject of "were carried." {Which Abraham bought} (\hi nsato Abraam\). Hackett is sure that our present text is wrong. Hort notes some sixty "primitive errors" in the critical text of the N.T. It is possible that this is also one. If "Jacob" is substituted for "Abraham," the matter is cleared up. "It is quite as likely, judging _a priori_, that the word producing the error escaped from some early copyist as that so glaring an error was committed by Stephen" (Hackett). At any rate Abraham bought a burying-place, the cave of Machpelah, from Ephron the Hittite at Hebron (Genesis:23:16|), while Jacob bought a field from the sons of Hamor at Shechem (Genesis:33:19; strkjv@Joshua:24:32|). Abraham had built an altar at Shechem when he entered Canaan (Genesis:12:6f.|). It is possible, of course, that Abraham also bought the ground on which the altar stood. {In Shechem} (\en Suchem\). This is the reading of Aleph B C instead of the Textus Receptus \tou Suchem\ which makes it "Hamar the father of Sichem." "In Shechem" is the true reading.

rwp@Acts:7:18 @{Another king} (\basileus heteros\). A different kind of king also, probably a king of the new dynasty after the shepherd kings had been expelled from Egypt. {Who knew not Joseph} (\hos ouk idei ton Isph\). Second past perfect of \oida\ used like an imperfect. Joseph's history and services meant nothing to the new king. "The previous dynasty had been that of the Hyksos: the new king was Ahmes who drove out the Hyksos" (Knobel).

rwp@Acts:7:21 @{When he was cast out} (\ektethentos autou\). Genitive absolute with first aorist passive participle of \ektithmi\. {Took up} (\aneilato\). Second aorist middle indicative (with first aorist vowel \a\ instead of \e\ as often in the _Koin_) of \anaire\, common in the N.T. in the sense of take up and make away with, to kill as in verse 28|, but here only in the N.T. in the original sense of taking up from the ground and with the middle voice (for oneself). Quoted here from strkjv@Exodus:2:5|. The word was used of old for picking up exposed children as here. Vincent quotes Aristophanes (_Clouds_, 531): "I exposed (the child), and some other women, having taken it, adopted (\aneileto\) it." Vulgate has _sustulit_. "Adopted" is the idea here. "After the birth of a child the father took it up to his bosom, if he meant to rear it; otherwise it was doomed to perish" (Hackett). {Nourished him for her own son} (\anethrepsato auton heauti eis huion\). Literally, "she nursed him up for herself (\heauti\ besides middle voice) as a son." This use of \eis\=as occurs in the old Greek, but is very common in the LXX as a translation of the Hebrew _le_. The tradition is that she designed Moses for the throne as the Pharaoh had no son (Josephus, _Ant_. ii. 9, 7).

rwp@Acts:13:42 @{And as they went out} (\Exiontn de autn\). Genitive absolute with present active participle of \exeimi\, to go out, old verb, in the N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:12:42; strkjv@17:15; strkjv@20:7; strkjv@27:43|. As they (Paul and Barnabas) were going out with all the excitement and hubbub created by the sermon. {They besought} (\parekaloun\). Imperfect active, inchoative, began to beseech. The Textus Receptus inserts wrongly \ta ethn\ (the Gentiles) as if the Jews were opposed to Paul from the first as some doubtless were. But both Jews and Gentiles asked for the repetition of the sermon (\lalthnai\, first aorist passive infinitive object of \parekaloun\ with accusative of general reference). {The next Sabbath} (\eis to metaxu sabbaton\). Late use (Josephus, Plutarch, etc.) of \metaxu\ (\meta\ and \xun\=\sun\) in sense of after or next instead of between (sense of \meta\ prevailing). Note use of \eis\ for "on" or "by."

rwp@Galatians:4:24 @{Which things contain an allegory} (\hatina estin allgoroumena\). Literally, "Which things are allegorized" (periphrastic present passive indicative of \allgore\). Late word (Strabo, Plutarch, Philo, Josephus, ecclesiastical writers), only here in N.T. The ancient writers used \ainittomai\ to speak in riddles. It is compounded of \allo\, another, and \agoreu\, to speak, and so means speaking something else than what the language means, what Philo, the past-master in the use of allegory, calls the deeper spiritual sense. Paul does not deny the actual historical narrative, but he simply uses it in an allegorical sense to illustrate his point for the benefit of his readers who are tempted to go under the burden of the law. He puts a secondary meaning on the narrative just as he uses \tupiks\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:11| of the narrative. We need not press unduly the difference between allegory and type, for each is used in a variety of ways. The allegory in one sense is a speaking parable like Bunyan's _Pilgrim's Progress_, the Prodigal Son in strkjv@Luke:15|, the Good Shepherd in strkjv@John:10|. But allegory was also used by Philo and by Paul here for a secret meaning not obvious at first, one not in the mind of the writer, like our illustration which throws light on the point. Paul was familiar with this rabbinical method of exegesis (Rabbi Akiba, for instance, who found a mystical sense in every hook and crook of the Hebrew letters) and makes skilful use of that knowledge here. Christian preachers in Alexandria early fell victims to Philo's allegorical method and carried it to excess without regard to the plain sense of the narrative. That startling style of preaching survives yet to the discredit of sound preaching. Please observe that Paul says here that he is using allegory, not ordinary interpretation. It is not necessary to say that Paul intended his readers to believe that this allegory was designed by the narrative. He illustrates his point by it. {For these are} (\hautai gar eisin\). Allegorically interpreted, he means. {From Mount Sinai} (\apo orous Sin\). Spoken from Mount Sinai. {Bearing} (\gennsa\). Present active participle of \genna\, to beget of the male (Matthew:1:1-16|), more rarely as here to bear of the female (Luke:1:13,57|). {Which is Hagar} (\htis estin Hagar\). Allegorically interpreted.

rwp@John:2:1 @{The third day} (\ti hmeri ti triti\). "On the day the third" (locative case), from the start to Galilee when Philip was found (1:43|), seven days since strkjv@1:19|. {There was a marriage} (\gamos egeneto\). "A wedding (or marriage festival) took place." See on ¯Matthew:22:8|. {In Cana of Galilee} (\en Kana ts Galilaias\). This town, the home of Nathanael (21:2|), is only mentioned again in strkjv@4:46| as the home of the nobleman. There was a Cana in Coele-Syria. It is usually located at _Kefr Kenna_ (3 1/2 miles from Nazareth), though _Ain Kana_ and _Khirbet Kana_ are also possible. Bernard thinks that it was probably on Wednesday afternoon the fourth day of the week (usual day for marriage of virgins), when the party of Jesus arrived. {And the mother of Jesus was there} (\kai n h mtr tou Isou ekei\). When they arrived. John does not mention her name, probably because already well known in the Synoptics. Probably Joseph was already dead. Mary may have been kin to the family where the wedding took place, an intimate friend clearly.

rwp@John:4:5 @{Songs:he cometh} (\erchetai oun\). Vivid present middle indicative and transitional \oun\. {Sychar} (\Suchar\). There is a dispute whether this is just a variation of Shechem as meaning "drunken-town" (Isaiah:28:1|) or "lying-town" (Habbakkuk:2:18|) or is a separate village near Shechem (Neapolis, Nablous) as the Talmud and Eusebius indicate. Apparently the present village Askar corresponds well with the site. The use of \polin\ (city) does not mean that it was a large town. Mark and John use it freely for small places. {Parcel of ground} (\chriou\). Old use of this diminutive of \chros\ or \chra\, a piece of ground. {That Jacob gave to his son Joseph} (\ho edken Iakb ti Isph ti huii autou\). See strkjv@Genesis:33:19; strkjv@48:22|. Relative \ho\ is not attracted to case of \chriou\. First aorist active indicative \edken\.

rwp@John:4:12 @{Art thou} (\M su ei\). Expecting a negative answer. {Greater than our father Jacob} (\meizn ei tou patros hmn Iakb\). Ablative case \patros\ after the comparative adjective \meizn\ (positive \megas\). The Samaritans claimed descent from Jacob through Joseph (tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh). {Cattle} (\thremmata\). Old word from \treph\, to nourish, nursling, child, flock, cattle. Only here in N.T.

rwp@Luke:2:49 @{Son} (\teknon\). Child, literally. It was natural for Mary to be the first to speak. {Why} (\Ti\). The mother's reproach of the boy is followed by a confession of negligence on her part and of Joseph ({sorrowing}, \odunmenoi\). {Thy father} (\ho pater sou\). No contradiction in this. Alford says: "Up to this time Joseph had been so called by the holy child himself, but from this time never." {Sought} (\eztoumen\). Imperfect tense describing the long drawn out search for three days. {How is it that} (\Ti hoti\). The first words of Jesus preserved to us. This crisp Greek idiom without copula expresses the boy's amazement that his parents should not know that there was only one possible place in Jerusalem for him. {I must be} (\dei einai me\). Messianic consciousness of the necessity laid on him. Jesus often uses \dei\ (must) about his work. Of all the golden dreams of any boy of twelve here is the greatest. {In my Father's house} (\en tois tou patros mou\). Not "about my Father's business," but "in my Father's house" (cf. strkjv@Genesis:41:51|). Common Greek idiom. And note "my," not "our." When the boy first became conscious of his peculiar relation to the Father in heaven we do not know. But he has it now at twelve and it will grow within him through the years ahead in Nazareth.

rwp@Luke:2:51 @{He was subject unto them} (\n hupotassomenos autois\). Periphrastic imperfect passive. He continued subject unto them, this wondrous boy who really knew more than parents and rabbis, this gentle, obedient, affectionate boy. The next eighteen years at Nazareth (Luke:3:23|) he remained growing into manhood and becoming the carpenter of Nazareth (Mark:6:3|) in succession to Joseph (Matthew:13:55|) who is mentioned here for the last time. Who can tell the wistful days when Jesus waited at Nazareth for the Father to call him to his Messianic task? {Kept} (\dietrei\). Imperfect active. Ancient Greek word (\diatre\), but only here and strkjv@Acts:15:29| in the N.T. though in strkjv@Genesis:37:11|. She kept thoroughly (\dia\) all these recent sayings (or things, \rhmata\). In strkjv@2:19| \sunetrei\ is the word used of Mary after the shepherds left. These she kept pondering and comparing all the things. Surely she has a full heart now. Could she foresee how destiny would take Jesus out beyond her mother's reach?

rwp@Luke:21:24 @{Edge of the sword} (\stomati machairs\). Instrumental case of \stomati\ which means "mouth" literally (Genesis:34:26|). This verse like the close of verse 22| is only in Luke. Josephus (_War_, VI. 9.3) states that 1,100,000 Jews perished in the destruction of Jerusalem and 97,000 were taken captive. Surely this is an exaggeration and yet the number must have been large. {Shall be led captive} (\aichmaltisthsontai\). Future passive of \aichmaltiz\ from \aichm\, spear and \haltos\ (\haliskomai\). Here alone in the literal sense in the N.T. {Shall be trodden under foot} (\estai patoumen\). Future passive periphrastic of \pate\, to tread, old verb. {Until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled} (\achri hou plrthsin kairoi ethnn\). First aorist passive subjunctive with \achri hou\ like \hes hou\. What this means is not clear except that Paul in strkjv@Romans:11:25| shows that the punishment of the Jews has a limit. The same idiom appears there also with \achri hou\ and the aorist subjunctive.

rwp@Matthew:1:18 @{Betrothed to Joseph} (\Mnsteutheiss ti Isph\). Matthew proceeds to explain his statement in strkjv@1:16| which implied that Joseph, though the legal father of Jesus in the royal line, was not the actual father of Mary's Son. Betrothal with the Jews was a serious matter, not lightly entered into and not lightly broken. The man who betrothed a maiden was legally husband (Genesis:29:21; strkjv@Deuteronomy:22:23f.|) and "an informal cancelling of betrothal was impossible" (McNeile). Though they did not live together as husband and wife till actual marriage, breach of faithfulness on the part of the betrothed was treated as adultery and punished with death. _The New Testament in Braid Scots_ actually has "mairry't till Joseph" for "betrothed to Joseph." Matthew uses the genitive absolute construction here, a very common Greek idiom.

rwp@Matthew:1:18 @{Of the Holy Ghost} (\ek pneumatos hagiou\). The discovery that Mary was pregnant was inevitable and it is plain that she had not told Joseph. She "was found with child" (\heureth en gastri echousa\). This way of putting it, the usual Greek idiom, plainly shows that it was the discovery that shocked Joseph. He did not as yet know what Matthew plainly asserts that the Holy Ghost, not Joseph and not any man, was responsible for the pregnancy of Mary. The problem of the Virgin Birth of Jesus has been a disturbing fact to some through all the ages and is today to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the Son of God, before his Incarnation on earth. This is the primal fact about the Birth of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ is clearly stated by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|; and involved in strkjv@Colossians:1:15-19|) and by John (John:1:14; strkjv@17:5|). If one frankly admits the actual pre-existence of Christ and the real Incarnation, he has taken the longest and most difficult step in the matter of the supernatural Birth of Christ. That being true, no merely human birth without the supernatural element can possibly explain the facts. Incarnation is far more than the Indwelling of God by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. To admit real incarnation and also full human birth, both father and mother, creates a greater difficulty than to admit the Virgin Birth of Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew here says, and born of the Virgin Mary. It is true that only Matthew and Luke tell the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus, though strkjv@John:1:14| seems to refer to it. Mark has nothing whatever concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus and so cannot be used as a witness on the subject. Both Matthew and Luke present the birth of Jesus as not according to ordinary human birth. Jesus had no human father. There is such a thing in nature as parthenogenesis in the lower orders of life. But that scientific fact has no bearing here. We see here God sending his Son into the world to be the world's Saviour and he gave him a human mother, but not a human father so that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of Man, the God Man. Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph as Luke gives it from the standpoint of Mary. The two narratives harmonize with each other. One credits these most wonderful of all birth narratives according as he believes in the love and power of Almighty God to do what he wills. There is no miracle with God who has all power and all knowledge. The laws of nature are simply the expression of God's will, but he has not revealed all his will in the laws that we discover. God is Spirit. He is Person. He holds in his own power all life. strkjv@John:3:16| is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us.

rwp@Revelation:7:4 @{The number of the sealed} (\ton arithmon tn esphragismenn\). Accusative case object of \kousa\ and genitive of the perfect passive articular participle of \sphragiz\. He did not see the sealing or count them himself, but only heard. {A hundred and forty and four thousand} (\hekaton tesserakonta tessares chiliades\). Symbolical, of course, and not meant to be a complete number of the sealed (or saved) even in that generation, let alone for all time. The number connotes perfection (Alford), 12x12x1000 = a hundred and forty-four thousands (\chiliades\, strkjv@5:11|). Nominative absolute, not agreeing in case either with \arithmon\ (accusative) or \esphragismenn\ (genitive). Songs:as to the case of \esphragismenoi\. {Out of every tribe of the children of Israel} (\ek pss phuls huin Isral\). There are two opposite views here, one taking the sealed as referring only to Jews (either actual Jews as a remnant or just Jewish Christians), the other including Gentiles as well as Jewish Christians, that is the true Israel as in strkjv@2:9; strkjv@3:9ff.| and like Paul in Galatians and Romans. This is the more probable view and it takes the twelve tribes in a spiritual sense. But in either view there remains the difficulty about names of the tribes. The list is not geographical, since Levi is included, but Dan is omitted and Manasseh put in his place, though he as the son of Joseph is included in Joseph. Irenaeus suggested that Antichrist was expected to come from the tribe of Dan and hence the omission here. There are various lists of the tribes in the O.T. (Genesis:35:22f.; strkjv@46:8ff.,49; strkjv@Exodus:1:1ff.; strkjv@Numbers:1:2; strkjv@13:4ff; strkjv@26:34; strkjv@Deuteronomy:27:11f.; strkjv@33:6ff.; strkjv@Joshua:13-22; strkjv@Judges:5; strkjv@1Chronicles:2-8; strkjv@12:24ff.; strkjv@27:16ff.; strkjv@Ezekiel:48|) and given in various orders. In strkjv@1Chronicles:7:12| both Dan and Zebulon are omitted. Joseph is given here in place of Ephraim. The distribution is equal (12,000) to each tribe.

rwp@Revelation:20:8 @{To deceive the nations} (\plansai ta ethn\). First aorist active infinitive of purpose of \plana\, Satan's chief task (chapters 12 to 18, in particular strkjv@12:9; strkjv@13:14; strkjv@19:20; strkjv@20:3,10|). {Which are in the four corners of the earth} (\ta en tais tessarsi gniais ts gs\). Clearly the reign with Christ, if on earth, was not shared in by all on earth, for Satan finds a large and ready following on his release. See strkjv@7:1| (Isaiah:11:12|) for "the four corners of the earth." {Gog and Magog} (\ton Gg kai Magg\). Accusative in explanatory apposition with \ta ethn\ (the nations). Magog is first mentioned in strkjv@Genesis:10:2|. The reference here seems to be strkjv@Ezekiel:38:2|, where both are mentioned. Josephus (_Ant_. I. 6. 1) identifies Magog with the Scythians, with Gog as their prince. In the rabbinical writings Gog and Magog appear as the enemies of the Messiah. Some early Christian writers thought of the Goths and Huns, but Augustine refuses to narrow the imagery and sees only the final protest of the world against Christianity. {To gather them together to the war} (\sunagagein autous eis ton polemon\). Second aorist active infinitive of purpose of \sunag\, a congenial task for Satan after his confinement. See strkjv@16:14| for this very phrase and also strkjv@17:14; strkjv@19:19|. {Of whom} (\hn--autn\). Pleonasm or redundant pronoun as in strkjv@3:8| and often (of whom--of them). {As the sand of the sea} (\hs h ammos ts thalasss\). Already in strkjv@12:18|. Clearly then the millennium, whatever it is, does not mean a period when Satan has no following on earth, for this vast host rallies at once to his standard.