Bible:
Filter: String:

NT-GOSPEL.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@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@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:5:28 @{We straitly charged} (\Paraggelii parggeilamen\). Like the Hebrew idiom (common in the LXX), though found in Greek, with charging (instrumental case) we charged (cf. same idiom in strkjv@Luke:22:15|). Somewhat like the cognate accusative. The command referred to occurs in strkjv@Acts:4:17,18| and the refusal of Peter and John in strkjv@4:20|. {To bring upon us} (\epagagein eph' hms\). Note repetition of \epi\. Second aorist active infinitive of \epag\, old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@2Peter:2:1,5|. The Sanhedrin gladly took the blood of Christ on their heads and their children to Pilate (Matthew:27:25|). Paul tried to save the Jews (Acts:18:6; strkjv@22:20|). "{This man}" (\tou anthrpou toutou\). Contemptuous slur and refusal to call the name of Jesus as in the Talmud later.

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@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: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@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:4:22 @{Save that it should be manifested} (\ean m hina phanerthi\). Note \ean m\ and \hina\. strkjv@Luke:8:17| has it {that shall not be made manifest} (\ho ou phaneron gensetai\). Here in Mark it is stated that the temporary concealment is for final manifestation and a means to that end. Those who are charged with the secret at this time are given the set responsibility of proclaiming it on the housetops after Ascension (Swete). The hidden (\krupton\) and the {secret} (\apokruphon\) are to be revealed in due time.

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@Matthew:9:30 @{Were opened} (\neichthsan\). Triple augment (on \oi=i, e\ and then on preposition \an = n\). {Strictly charged them} (\enebrimth autois\). A difficult word, compound of \en\ and \brimaomai\ (to be moved with anger). It is used of horses snorting (Aeschylus, _Theb_. 461), of men fretting or being angry (Daniel:11:30|). Allen notes that it occurs twice in Mark (Mark:1:43; strkjv@14:5|) when Matthew omits it. It is found only here in Matthew. John has it twice in a different sense (John:11:33| with \en heauti\). Here and in strkjv@Mark:1:32| it has the notion of commanding sternly, a sense unknown to ancient writers. Most manuscripts have the middle \enebrimsato\, but Aleph and B have the passive \enebrimth\ which Westcott and Hort accept, but without the passive sense (cf. \apekrith\). "The word describes rather a rush of deep feeling which in the synoptic passages showed itself in a vehement injunctive and in strkjv@John:11:33| in look and manner" (McNeile). Bruce translates Euthymius Zigabenus on strkjv@Mark:1:32|: "Looked severely, contracting His eyebrows, and shaking His head at them as they are wont to do who wish to make sure that secrets will be kept." "See to it, let no one know it" (\horate, mdeis ginsket\). Note elliptical change of persons and number in the two imperatives.

rwp@Revelation:9:5 @{That they should not kill them} (\hina m apokteinsin autous\). Sub-final object clause (subject of \edoth\) with \hina m\ and the subjunctive of \apoktein\ either present (continued action) or aorist (constative, form the same), the usual construction with \hina\. The locusts are charged to injure men, but not to kill them. {But that they should be tormented} (\all' hina basanisthsontai\). Sub-final clause again with \hina\, but this time with the first future passive indicative (like strkjv@3:9; strkjv@6:4; strkjv@8:3; strkjv@13:12|) of \basaniz\, old verb, to test metals (from \basanos\, strkjv@Matthew:4:24|) by touchstone, then to torture like strkjv@Matthew:8:29|, further in strkjv@Revelation:11:10; strkjv@12:2; strkjv@14:10; strkjv@20:10|. {Five months} (\mnas pente\). Accusative of extent of time. The actual locust is born in the spring and dies at the end of summer (about five months). {Torment} (\basanismos\). Late word for torture, from \basaniz\, in N.T. only in strkjv@Revelation:9:5; strkjv@14:11; strkjv@18:7,10,15|. The wound of the scorpion was not usually fatal, though exceedingly painful. {When it striketh a man} (\hotan paisi anthrpon\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \pai\ (Matthew:26:51|), old verb, to smite, "whenever it smites a man."