Bible:
Filter: String:

NT-EPISTLES.filter - rwp charged:

rwp@1Corinthians:2:13 @{Which things also we speak} (\ha kai laloumen\). This onomatopoetic verb \lale\ (from \la-la\), to utter sounds. In the papyri the word calls more attention to the form of utterance while \leg\ refers more to the substance. But \lale\ in the N.T. as here is used of the highest and holiest speech. Undoubtedly Paul employs the word purposely for the utterance of the revelation which he has understood. That is to say, there is revelation (verse 10|), illumination (verse 12|), and inspiration (verse 13|). Paul claims therefore the help of the Holy Spirit for the reception of the revelation, for the understanding of it, for the expression of it. Paul claimed this authority for his preaching (1Thessalonians:4:2|) and for his epistles (2Thessalonians:3:14|). {Not in words which man's wisdom teacheth} (\ouk en didaktois anthrpins sophias logois\). Literally, "not in words taught by human wisdom." The verbal adjective \didaktois\ (from \didask\, to teach) is here passive in idea and is followed by the ablative case of origin or source as in strkjv@John:6:45|, \esontai pantes didaktoi theou\ (from strkjv@Isaiah:54:13|), "They shall all be taught by God." The ablative in Greek, as is well known, has the same form as the genitive, though quite different in idea (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 516). Songs:then Paul claims the help of the Holy Spirit in the utterance (\laloumen\) of the words, "which the Spirit teacheth (\en didaktois pneumatos\), "in words taught by the Spirit" (ablative \pneumatos\ as above). Clearly Paul means that the help of the Holy Spirit in the utterance of the revelation extends to the words. No theory of inspiration is here stated, but it is not _mere_ human wisdom. Paul's own Epistles bear eloquent witness to the lofty claim here made. They remain today after nearly nineteen centuries throbbing with the power of the Spirit of God, dynamic with life for the problems of today as when Paul wrote them for the needs of the believers in his time, the greatest epistles of all time, surcharged with the energy of God. {Comparing spiritual things with spiritual} (\pneumatikois pneumatika sunkrinontes\). Each of these words is in dispute. The verb \sunkrin\, originally meant to combine, to join together fitly. In the LXX it means to interpret dreams (Genesis:40:8,22; strkjv@41:12|) possibly by comparison. In the later Greek it may mean to compare as in strkjv@2Corinthians:10:12|. In the papyri Moulton and Milligan (_Vocabulary_) give it only for "decide," probably after comparing. But "comparing," in spite of the translations, does not suit well here. Songs:it is best to follow the original meaning to combine as do Lightfoot and Ellicott. But what gender is \pneumatikois\? Is it masculine or neuter like \pneumatika\? If masculine, the idea would be "interpreting (like LXX) spiritual truths to spiritual persons" or "matching spiritual truths with spiritual persons." This is a possible rendering and makes good sense in harmony with verse 14|. If \pneumatikois\ be taken as neuter plural (associative instrumental case after \sun\ in \sunkrinontes\), the idea most naturally would be, "combining spiritual ideas (\pneumatika\) with spiritual words" (\pneumatikois\). This again makes good sense in harmony with the first part of verse 13|. On the whole this is the most natural way to take it, though various other possibilities exist.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:40 @{Happier} (\makariter\). Comparative of \makarios\ used in the Beatitudes (Matthew:5:3ff.|). {After my judgment} (\kata tn emn gnmn\). The same word used in verse 25|, not a command. {I think} (\dok\). From \doke\, not \nomiz\ of verse 26|. But he insists that he has "the spirit of God" (\pneuma theou\) in the expression of his inspired judgment on this difficult, complicated, tangled problem of marriage. But he has discharged his duty and leaves each one to decide for himself.

rwp@1John:4:14 @{We have beheld} (\tethemetha\). Perfect middle of \theaomai\ as in verse 12|, though the aorist in strkjv@1:1; strkjv@John:1:14| (\ethesametha\). John is qualified to bear witness (\marturoumen\ as in strkjv@1:2|) as Jesus had charged the disciples to do (Acts:1:8|). {Hath sent} (\apestalken\). As in verse 9|, though \apesteilen\ in verse 10|. {To be the Saviour of the world} (\stra tou kosmou\). Predicate accusative of \str\ (Saviour), like \hilasmon\ in verse 10|. This very phrase occurs elsewhere only in strkjv@John:4:42| as the confession of the Samaritans, but the idea is in strkjv@John:3:17|.

rwp@1Peter:4:15 @{Let no one of you suffer} (\m tis humn paschet\). Prohibition with \m\ and present active imperative (habit prohibited). {As} (\hs\). Charged as and being so. Two specific crimes (murderer, thief) and one general phrase (\kakopoios\, evildoer, strkjv@1Peter:2:12,14|), and one unusual term \allotriepiscopos\ (a meddler in other men's matters). Note \ hs\ (or as) = or "also only as" (Wohlenberg). The word was apparently coined by Peter (occurring elsewhere only in Dionys. Areop. and late eccles. writers) from \allotrios\ (belonging to another, strkjv@2Corinthians:10:15|) and \episkopos\, overseer, inspector, strkjv@1Peter:2:25|). The idea is apparently one who spies out the affairs of other men. Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 224) gives a second-century papyrus with \allotrin epithumts\ a _speculator alienorum_. Epictetus has a like idea (iii. 22. 97). Biggs takes it to refer to "things forbidden." Clement of Alexandria tells of a disciple of the Apostle John who became a bandit chief. Ramsay (_Church in the Roman Empire_, pp. 293, 348) thinks the word refers to breaking up family relationships. Hart refers us to the gadders-about in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:11; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:11| and women as gossipers in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:13|. It is interesting to note also that \episkopos\ here is the word for "bishop" and so suggests also preachers meddling in the work of other preachers.

rwp@Info_1Thessalonians @ FIRST THESSALONIANS FROM CORINTH A.D. 50 TO 51 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION We cannot say that this is Paul's first letter to a church, for in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:2| he speaks of some as palming off letters as his and in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:17| he says that he appends his own signature to every letter after dictating it to an amanuensis (Romans:16:22|). We know of one lost letter (1Corinthians:5:11|) and perhaps another (2Corinthians:2:3|). But this is the earliest one that has come down to us and it may even be the earliest New Testament book, unless the Epistle of James antedates it or even Mark's Gospel. We know, as already shown, that Paul was in Corinth and that Timothy and Silas had just arrived from Thessalonica (1Thessalonians:3:6; strkjv@Acts:18:5|). They had brought supplies from the Macedonian churches to supply Paul's need (2Corinthians:11:9|), as the church in Philippi did once and again while Paul was in Thessalonica (Phillipians:4:15f.|). Before Timothy and Silas came to Corinth Paul had to work steadily at his trade as tent-maker with Aquila and Priscilla (Acts:18:3|) and could only preach in the synagogue on sabbaths, but the rich stores from Macedonia released his hands and "Paul devoted himself to the word" (\suneicheto ti logi Paulos\). He gave himself wholly to preaching now. But Timothy and Silas brought news of serious trouble in the church in Thessalonica. Some of the disciples there had misunderstood Paul's preaching about the second coming of Christ and had quit work and were making a decided disturbance on the subject. Undoubtedly Paul had touched upon eschatological matters while in Thessalonica. The Jewish leaders at Thessalonica charged it against Paul and Silas to the politarchs that they had preached another king, Jesus, in place of Caesar. Paul had preached Jesus as King of the spiritual kingdom which the Jews misrepresented to the politarchs as treason against Caesar as the Sanhedrin had done to Pilate about Jesus. Clearly Paul had said also that Jesus was going to come again according to his own promise before his ascension. Some asserted that Paul said Jesus was going to come right away and drew their own inferences for idleness and fanaticism as some do today. Strange as it may seem, there are scholars today who say that Paul did believe and say that Jesus was going to come back right away. They say this in spite of strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1f.| where Paul denies having ever said it. Undoubtedly Paul hoped for the early return of Jesus as most of the early Christians did, but that is a very different thing from setting a time for his coming. It is open to us all to hope for the speedy return of Christ, but times and seasons are with God and not with us. It is not open to us to excuse our negligence and idleness as Christians because of such a hope. That hope should serve as a spur to increased activity for Christ in order to hasten his coming. Songs:Paul writes this group of Epistles to correct gross misapprehension and misrepresentation of his preaching about last things (eschatology). It is a rare preacher who has never been misunderstood or misrepresented.

rwp@2Corinthians:10:3 @{In the flesh} (\en sarki\). But that is a very different thing from walking \kata sarka\ according to the standards of the flesh as his enemies charged. It is easy enough to make insinuations. {We war} (\strateuometha\). Literary plural again after \logizomai\ in verse 2|. Old word to lead an army (\stratos\). In N.T. only in the middle as here. Paul admits that he fights, but only the devil and his agents even if wearing the livery of heaven. Paul knew the Roman army well. He knows how to use the military metaphor.

rwp@Acts:6:10 @{They were not able to withstand} (\ouk ischuon antistnai\). Imperfect active of \ischu\, to have strength, and ingressive second aorist active (intransitive) infinitive of \anthistmi\. They continued unable (without strength enough) to take a stand against. Stephen knocked them down, Saul included, as fast as they got up. Stephen was like a battery charged and in action. {The wisdom and spirit} (\ti sophii kai pneumati\). Dative case. They stood up against Stephen's wisdom and the Holy Spirit "by whom he spoke" (\hi elalei\). Instrumental case and the relative agrees with "Spirit." He kept on speaking so (\elalei\, imperfect active). It was a desperate situation.

rwp@Acts:7:52 @{Which of the prophets} (\tina tn prophtn\). Jesus (Luke:11:47; strkjv@Matthew:23:29-37|) had charged them with this very thing. Cf. strkjv@2Chronicles:36:16|. {Which shewed before} (\prokataggeilantas\). The very prophets who foretold the coming of the Messiah their fathers killed. {The coming} (\ts eleuses\). Not in ancient Greek or LXX and only here in the N.T. (in a few late writers). {Betrayers} (\prodotai\). Just like Judas Iscariot. He hurled this old biting word at them. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:6:16; strkjv@2Timothy:3:4|. It cut like a knife. It is blunter than Peter in strkjv@Acts:3:13|. {Murderers} (\phoneis\). The climax with this sharp word used of Barabbas (3:14|).

rwp@Acts:10:42 @{He charged} (\parggeilen\). First aorist active indicative as in strkjv@1:4|. There Jesus is the subject and so probably here, though Page insists that \ho theos\ (God) is here because of verse 40|. {To testify} (\diamarturasthai\). First aorist middle infinitive. See on ¯2:40|. {Ordained} (\hrismenos\). Perfect passive participle of \horiz\, old verb, to mark out, to limit, to make a horizon. {Judge} (\krits\). The same point made by Peter in strkjv@1Peter:4:5|. He does not use the word "Messiah" to these Gentiles though he did say "anointed" (\echrisen\) in verse 38|. Peter's claim for Jesus is that he is the Judge of Jew and Gentile (living and dead).

rwp@Acts:21:26 @{Took the men} (\paralabn tous andras\). The very phrase used in verse 24| to Paul. {The next day} (\ti echomeni\). One of the phrases in strkjv@20:15| for the coming day. Locative case of time. {Purifying himself with them} (\sun autois hagnistheis\, first aorist passive participle of \hagniz\). The precise language again of the recommendation in verse 24|. Paul was conforming to the letter. {Went into the temple} (\eisiei eis to hieron\). Imperfect active of \eiseimi\ as in verse 18| which see. Went on into the temple, descriptive imperfect. Paul joined the four men in their vow of separation. {Declaring} (\diaggelln\). To the priests what day he would report the fulfilment of the vow. The priests would desire notice of the sacrifice. This verb only used by Luke in N.T. except strkjv@Romans:11:17| (quotation from the LXX). It is not necessary to assume that the vows of each of the five expired on the same day (Rackham). {Until the offering was offered for every one of them} (\hes hou prosnechth huper henos hekastou autn h prosphora\). This use of \hes hou\ (like \hes\, alone) with the first aorist passive indicative \prosnechth\ of \prospher\, to offer, contemplates the final result (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 974f.) and is probably the statement of Luke added to Paul's announcement. He probably went into the temple one day for each of the brethren and one for himself. The question arises whether Paul acted wisely or unwisely in agreeing to the suggestion of James. What he did was in perfect harmony with his principle of accommodation in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:20| when no principle was involved. It is charged that here on this occasion Paul was unduly influenced by considerations of expediency and was willing for the Jewish Christians to believe him more of a Jew than was true in order to placate the situation in Jerusalem. Furneaux calls it a compromise and a failure. I do not so see it. To say that is to obscure the whole complex situation. What Paul did was not for the purpose of conciliating his opponents, the Judaizers, who had diligently spread falsehoods about him in Jerusalem as in Corinth. It was solely to break the power of these "false apostles" over the thousands in Jerusalem who have been deluded by Paul's accusers. Songs:far as the evidence goes that thing was accomplished. In the trouble that comes in Jerusalem and Caesarea the Judaizers cut no figure at all. The Jewish Christians do not appear in Paul's behalf, but there was no opportunity for them to do so. The explosion that came on the last day of Paul's appearance in the temple was wholly disconnected from his offerings for the four brethren and himself. It must be remembered that Paul had many kinds of enemies. The attack on him by these Jews from Asia had no connexion whatever with the slanders of the Judaizers about Paul's alleged teachings that Jewish Christians in the dispersion should depart from the Mosaic law. That slander was put to rest forever by his following the advice of James and justifies the wisdom of that advice and Paul's conduct about it.

rwp@Acts:22:1 @{Brethren and fathers} (\Andres adelphoi kai pateres\) Men, brethren, and fathers. The very language used by Stephen (7:2|) when arraigned before the Sanhedrin with Paul then present. Now Paul faces a Jewish mob on the same charges brought against Stephen. These words are those of courtesy and dignity (_amoris et honoris nomina_, Page). These men were Paul's brother Jews and were (many of them) official representatives of the people (Sanhedrists, priests, rabbis). Paul's purpose is conciliatory, he employs "his ready tact" (Rackham). {The defence which I now make unto you} (\mou ts pros humas nuni apologias\). Literally, My defence to you at this time. \Nuni\ is a sharpened form (by \-i\) of \nun\ (now), just now. The term \apologia\ (apology) is not our use of the word for apologizing for an offence, but the original sense of defence for his conduct, his life. It is an old word from \apologeomai\, to talk oneself off a charge, to make defence. It occurs also in strkjv@Acts:25:16| and then also in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:11; strkjv@Phillipians:1:7,16; strkjv@2Timothy:4:16; strkjv@1Peter:3:15|. Paul uses it again in strkjv@Acts:25:16| as here about his defence against the charges made by the Jews from Asia. He is suspected of being a renegade from the Mosaic law and charged with specific acts connected with the alleged profanation of the temple. Songs:Paul speaks in Aramaic and recites the actual facts connected with his change from Judaism to Christianity. The facts make the strongest argument. He first recounts the well-known story of his zeal for Judaism in the persecution of the Christians and shows why the change came. Then he gives a summary of his work among the Gentiles and why he came to Jerusalem this time. He answers the charge of enmity to the people and the law and of desecration of the temple. It is a speech of great skill and force, delivered under remarkable conditions. The one in chapter strkjv@Acts:26| covers some of the same ground, but for a slightly different purpose as we shall see. For a discussion of the three reports in Acts of Paul's conversion see chapter strkjv@Acts:9|. Luke has not been careful to make every detail correspond, though there is essential agreement in all three.

rwp@Acts:24:19 @{But certain Jews from Asia} (\tines de apo ts Alias Ioudaioi\). No verb appears in the Greek for these words. Perhaps he meant to say that "certain Jews from Asia charged me with doing these things." Instead of saying that, Paul stops to explain that they are not here, a thoroughly Pauline anacoluthon (2Corinthians:7:5|) as in strkjv@26:9|. "The passage as it stands is instinct with life, and seems to exhibit the abruptness so characteristic of the Pauline Epistles" (Page). {Who ought to have been here before thee} (\hous edei epi sou pareinai\). This use of \epi\ with genitive of the person is common. The imperfect indicative with verbs of necessity and obligation to express failure to live up to it is common in Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 919-21). "The accusers who were present had not witnessed the alleged offence: those who could have given evidence at first-hand were not present" (Furneaux). There was no case in a Roman court. These Asiatic Jews are never heard of after the riot, though they almost succeeded in killing Paul then. {If they had aught against me} (\ei ti echoien pros eme\). A condition of the fourth class or undetermined with less likelihood of being determined (\ei\ with the optative, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). This is a "mixed condition" (_op.cit._, p. 1022) with a conclusion of the second class.

rwp@John:9:16 @{Because he keepeth not the sabbath} (\hoti to sabbaton ou trei\). This is reason (causal \hoti\) enough. He violates our rules about the Sabbath and therefore is a Sabbath-breaker as charged when here before (5:10,16,18|). Hence he is not "from God" (\para theou\). Songs:some. {How can a man that is a sinner do such signs?} (\Ps dunatai anthrpos hamartlos toiauta smeia poiein;\). This was the argument of Nicodemus, himself a Pharisee and one of the Sanhedrin, long ago (3:2|). It was a conundrum for the Pharisees. No wonder there was "a division" (\schisma\, schism, split, from \schiz\) as in strkjv@7:43; strkjv@10:19|.

rwp@Luke:5:14 @{To tell no man} (\mdeni eipein\). This is an indirect command after the verb "charged" (\parggeilen\). But Luke changes (_constructio variata_) to the direct quotation, a common idiom in Greek and often in Luke (Acts:1:4f.|). Here in the direct form he follows strkjv@Mark:1:43; strkjv@Matthew:8:4|. See discussion there about the direction to go to the priest to receive a certificate showing his cleansing, like our release from quarantine (Leviticus:13:39; strkjv@14:2-32|). {For a testimony unto them} (\eis marturion autois\). The use of \autois\ (them) here is "according to sense," as we say, for it has no antecedent in the context, just to people in general. But this identical phrase with absence of direct reference occurs in Mark and Matthew, pretty good proof of the use of one by the other. Both strkjv@Matthew:8:4; strkjv@Luke:5:14| follow strkjv@Mark:1:44|.

rwp@Luke:12:33 @{Sell that ye have} (\Plsate ta huparchonta humn\). 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 m 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:21:34 @{Lest haply your hearts be overcharged} (\m pote barthsin hai kardiai humn\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \bare\, an old verb to weigh down, depress, with \m pote\. {With surfeiting} (\en krepali\). A rather late word, common in medical writers for the nausea that follows a debauch. Latin _crapula_, the giddiness caused by too much wine. Here only in the N.T. {Drunkenness} (\methi\). From \methu\ (wine). Old word but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:13:13; strkjv@Galatians:5:21|. {Cares of this life} (\merimnais bitikais\). Anxieties of life. The adjective \bitikos\ is late and in the N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:6:3f|. {Come on you} (\episti\). Second aorist active subjunctive of \ephistmi\, ingressive aorist. Construed also with \m pote\. {Suddenly} (\ephnidios\). Adjective in predicate agreeing with \hmera\ (day). {As a snare} (\hs pagis\). Old word from \pgnumi\, to make fast a net or trap. Paul uses it several times of the devil's snares for preachers (1Timothy:3:7; strkjv@2Timothy:2:26|).

rwp@Mark:1:43 @{Strictly charged} (\embrimsamenos\). Only in Mark. strkjv@Luke:5:14| has \parggeilen\ (commanded). Mark's word occurs also in strkjv@14:5| and in strkjv@Matthew:9:30| and strkjv@John:11:38|. See on ¯Matthew:9:30|. It is a strong word for the snorting of a horse and expresses powerful emotion as Jesus stood here face to face with leprosy, itself a symbol of sin and all its train of evils. The command to report to the priests was in accord with the Mosaic regulations and the prohibition against talking about it was to allay excitement and to avoid needless opposition to Christ.

rwp@Mark:3:11 @{Whensoever they beheld him} (\hotan auton etheroun\). Imperfect indicative with \hotan\ of repeated action. They kept falling down before him (\prosepipton\) and crying, (\ekrazon\) and he kept charging or rebuking (\epitim\) them, all imperfects. The unclean spirits (demons) recognize Jesus as the Son of God, as before. Jesus charged them not to make him known as he had also done before. He did not wish this testimony. It was a most exciting ordeal and is given only by Mark. Note non-final use of \hina\.

rwp@Mark:8:15 @{Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and the leaven of Herod} (\Horte, blepete apo ts zums tn Pharisain kai ts zums Hridou\). Present imperatives. Note \apo\ and the ablative case. \Zum\ is from \zumo\ and occurs already in strkjv@Matthew:13:33| in a good sense. For the bad sense see strkjv@1Corinthians:5:6|. He repeatedly charged (\diestelleto\, imperfect indicative), showing that the warning was needed. The disciples came out of a Pharisaic atmosphere and they had just met it again at Dalmanutha. It was insidious. Note the combination of Herod here with the Pharisees. This is after the agitation of Herod because of the death of the Baptist and the ministry of Jesus (Mark:6:14-29; strkjv@Matthew:14:1-12; strkjv@Luke:9:7-9|). Jesus definitely warns the disciples against "the leaven of Herod" (bad politics) and the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (bad theology and also bad politics).

rwp@Romans:7:2 @{The wife that hath a husband} (\h hupandros gun\). Late word, under (in subjection to) a husband. Here only in N.T. {Is bound} (\dedetai\). Perfect passive indicative, stands bound. {By law} (\nomi\). Instrumental case. {To the husband while he liveth} (\ti znti andri\). "To the living husband," literally. {But if the husband die} (\ean de apothani ho anr\). Third class condition, a supposable case (\ean\ and the second aorist active subjunctive). {She is discharged} (\katrgtai\). Perfect passive indicative of \katarge\, to make void. She stands free from the law of the husband. Cf. strkjv@6:6|.