[pBiblx2]
Home
rwp
Chap
OT
NT
INDX
?
Help

Gen
Exo
Lev
Num
Deu
Jos
Jud
Rut
1Sam
2Sam
1Ki
2Ki
1Ch
2Ch
Ezr
Neh
Est
Job
Psa
Pro
Ecc
Son
Isa
Jer
Lam
Eze
Dan
Hos
Amo
Oba
Jon
Mic
Nah
Hab
Zep
Hag
Zac
Mal
TOP

Mat
Mar
Luk
Joh
Act
Rom
1Co
2Ch
Gal
Eph
Phi
Col
1Th
2Th
1Ti
2Ti
Tit
Ph
Heb
Jam
1Pe
2Pe
1Jo
2Jo
3Jo
Jud
Rev
TOP

KJV
NKJV
RSV
ALL
TOP

AAA
BBB
CCC
DDD
EEE
FFF
GGG
HHH
III
JJJ
KKK
LLL
MMM
NNN
OOO
PPP
QQQ
RRR
SSS
TTT
UUU
VVV
WWW
XXX
YYY
ZZZ

TOP
Bible:
Filter: String:

NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp gete:



rwp@1Corinthians:6:18 @{Flee} (\pheugete\). Present imperative. Have the habit of fleeing without delay or parley. Note abruptness of the asyndeton with no connectives. Fornication violates Christ's rights in our bodies (verses 13-17|) and also ruins the body itself. {Without the body} (\ektos tou s“matos\). Even gluttony and drunkenness and the use of dope are sins wrought on the body, not "within the body" (\entos tou s“matos\) in the same sense as fornication. Perhaps the dominant idea of Paul is that fornication, as already shown, breaks the mystic bond between the body and Christ and hence the fornicator (\ho porneu“n\) {sins against his own body} (\eis to idion s“ma hamartanei\) in a sense not true of other dreadful sins. The fornicator takes his body which belongs to Christ and unites it with a harlot. In fornication the body is the instrument of sin and becomes the subject of the damage wrought. In another sense fornication brings on one's own body the two most terrible bodily diseases that are still incurable (gonorrhea and syphilis) that curse one's own body and transmit the curse to the third and fourth generation. Apart from the high view given here by Paul of the relation of the body to the Lord no possible father or mother has the right to lay the hand of such terrible diseases and disaster on their children and children's children. The moral and physical rottenness wrought by immorality defy one's imagination.

rwp@2John:1:10 @{If any one cometh and bringeth not} (\ei tis erchetai kai ou pherei\). Condition of first class with \ei\ and two present indicatives (\erchetai, pherei\). {This teaching} (\tautˆn tˆn didachˆn\). This teaching of Christ of verse 9|, which is the standard by which to test Gnostic deceivers (verse 7|). John does not refer to entertaining strangers (He strkjv@13:2; strkjv@1Timothy:5:10|), but to the deceiving propagandists who were carrying dissension and danger with them. {Receive him not} (\mˆ lambanete auton\). Present active imperative with \mˆ\. For \lamban“\ in this sense see strkjv@John:1:12; strkjv@6:21; strkjv@13:20|. {Into your house} (\eis oikian\). Definite without the article like our at home, to town. {Give him no greeting} (\chairein aut“i mˆ legete\). "Say not farewell to him." Apparently \chairein\ here (present active infinitive, object of \legete\ present active imperative with negative \mˆ\) is used of farewell as in strkjv@2Corinthians:13:11|, though usually in the N.T. (Acts:15:23; strkjv@23:26; strkjv@James:1:1|) of the salutation. But here the point turns on the stranger bringing into the house (or trying to do so) his heretical and harmful teaching which seems to be after the salutation is over. The usual greeting to a house is given in strkjv@Luke:10:5|. On the other hand, if \chairein\ means greeting, not farewell, here, it can very well be understood of the peril of allowing these Gnostic propagandists to spread their pernicious teachings (cf. Mormons or Bolshevists) in home and church (usually meeting in the home). This is assuming that the men were known and not mere strangers.

rwp@John:4:35 @{Say not ye?} (\Ouch humeis legete;\). It is not possible to tell whether Jesus is alluding to a rural proverb of which nothing is known about there being four months from seedtime to harvest (a longer time than four months in fact) or whether he means that it was then actually four months to harvest. In the latter sense, since harvest began about the middle of April, it would be December when Jesus spoke. {There are yet four months} (\eti tetramˆnos estin\). The use of \eti\ (yet) and the fact that the space between seedtime and harvest is longer than four months (\tetra\, Aeolic for \tessara\, and \mˆn\, month) argue against the proverb idea. {And then cometh the harvest} (\kai ho therismos erchetai\). "And the harvest (\therismos\, from \theriz“\, rare in Greek writers) comes." The possible Iambic verse here is purely accidental as in strkjv@5:14|. {Lift up your eyes} (\eparate tous ophthalmous hum“n\). First aorist active imperative of \epair“\. Deliberate looking as in strkjv@John:6:5| where \theaomai\ also is used as here. {Fields} (\ch“ras\). Cultivated or ploughed ground as in strkjv@Luke:21:21|. {White} (\leukai\). Ripened grain like grey hair (Matthew:5:36|). {Already unto harvest} (\pros therismon ˆdˆ\). Probably \ˆdˆ\ (already) goes with verse 36|. The Samaritans could already be seen approaching and they were the field "white for harvest." This is the meaning of Christ's parable. If it is the spring of the year and Christ can point to the ripened grain, the parable is all the plainer, but it is not dependent on this detail. Recall the parable of the sower in strkjv@Matthew:13|.

rwp@John:6:12 @{And when they were filled} (\h“s de eneplˆsthˆsan\). First aorist (effective) passive indicative of \empimplˆmi\, old verb to fill in, to fill up, to fill completely. They were all satisfied. The Synoptics have \echortasthˆsan\ like strkjv@John:6:26| (\echortasthˆte\). {Gather up} (\sunagagete\). Second aorist active imperative of \sunag“\, to gather together. {Broken pieces} (\klasmata\). From \kla“\, to break. Not crumbs or scraps on the ground, but pieces broken by Jesus (Mark:6:41|) and not consumed. {Be lost} (\apolˆtai\). Second aorist middle subjunctive of \apollumi\ with \hina\ in purpose clause. Only in John. There was to be no wastefulness in Christ's munificence. The Jews had a custom of leaving something for those that served.

rwp@John:6:26 @{Not because ye saw signs} (\ouch hoti eidete sˆmeia\). Second aorist active indicative of the defective verb \hora“\. They had seen the "signs" wrought by Jesus (verse 2|), but this one had led to wild fanaticism (verse 14|) and complete failure to grasp the spiritual lessons. {But because ye ate of the loaves} (\all' hoti ephagete ek t“n art“n\). Second aorist active indicative of \esthi“\, defective verb. {Ye were filled} (\echortasthˆte\). First aorist passive indicative of \chortaz“\, from \chortos\ (grass) as in verse 10|, to eat grass, then to eat anything, to satisfy hunger. They were more concerned with hungry stomachs than with hungry souls. It was a sharp and deserved rebuke.

rwp@John:7:45 @{Why did ye not bring him?} (\Dia ti ouk ˆgagete auton;\). Second aorist active indicative of \ag“\. Indignant outburst of the Sanhedrin (both Sadducees and Pharisees) at the failure of the (\tous\, note article here referring to verse 32|) temple police to arrest Jesus. "Apparently they were sitting in expectation of immediately questioning him" (Dods). They were stunned at this outcome.

rwp@John:8:54 @{If I glorify myself} (\ean eg“ doxas“ emauton\). Third-class condition with \ean\ and first aorist active subjunctive (or future active indicative) of \doxaz“\. {It is my Father that glorifieth me} (\estin ho patˆr mou ho doxaz“n me\). The position and accent of \estin\ mean: "Actually my Father is the one," etc. {Of whom ye say} (\hon humeis legete\). The accusative of the person (\hon\) with \legete\ is regular (cf. strkjv@10:36|). {Your God} (\theos hum“n\). Songs:Aleph B D and apparently correct, though A C L W Delta Theta have \hˆm“n\ (our God). The \hoti\ can be taken as recitative (direct quotation, \hˆm“n\, our) or declarative (indirect, that, and so \hum“n\). The Jews claimed God as their peculiar national God as they had said in 41|. Songs:Jesus turns this confession and claim against them.

rwp@John:9:19 @{Is this your son who ye say was born blind? how doth he now see?} (\Houtos estin ho huios hum“n, hon humeis lˆgete hoti tuphlos egennˆthˆ; p“s oun blepei arti;\). It was shrewdly put with three questions in one in order to confuse the parents if possible and give the hostile Pharisees a handle.

rwp@John:9:41 @{If ye were blind} (\ei tuphloi ˆte\). Condition of second class with imperfect indicative in the protasis. The old word \tuphlos\ is from \tuph“\, to raise a smoke, to blind by smoke (literally and metaphorically). Here, of course, it is moral blindness. If the Pharisees were born morally blind, they would, like idiots, be without responsibility. {Ye would not have sin} (\ouk an eichete hamartian\). Regular form for conclusion of second-class condition, \an\ with imperfect. {But now ye say} (\nun de legete\). In contrast to the previous condition. See like contrast in strkjv@15:22,24|. They arrogantly asserted superior knowledge. {We see} (\blepomen\). The ignorant mob do not (7:49|). It is sin against light and is hopeless (Mark:3:29; strkjv@Matthew:12:31f.|). "Ye are witnesses against yourselves" (\martureite heautois\, strkjv@Matthew:23:31|).

rwp@John:10:35 @{If he called them gods} (\ei ekeinous eipen theous\). Condition of first class, assumed as true. The conclusion (verse 36|) is \humeis legete\; ({Do ye say?}). As Jews (and rabbis) they are shut out from charging Jesus with blasphemy because of this usage in the O.T. It is a complete _ad hominem_ argument. To be sure, it is in strkjv@Psalms:82:6| a lower use of the term \theos\, but Jesus did not call himself "Son of Jahweh," but "\huios theou\" which can mean only "Son of _Elohim_." It must not be argued, as some modern men do, that Jesus thus disclaims his own deity. He does nothing of the kind. He is simply stopping the mouths of the rabbis from the charge of blasphemy and he does it effectually. The sentence is quite involved, but can be cleared up. {To whom the word of God came} (\pros hous ho logos tou theou egeneto\). The relative points to \ekeinous\, before. These judges had no other claim to the term \theoi\ (_elohim_). {And the scripture cannot be broken} (\kai ou dunatai luthˆnai hˆ graphˆ\). A parenthesis that drives home the pertinency of the appeal, one that the Pharisees had to accept. \Luthˆnai\ is first aorist passive infinitive of \lu“\, to loosen, to break.

rwp@John:10:36 @{Of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world} (\hon ho patˆr hˆgiasen kai apesteilen eis ton kosmon\). Another relative clause with the antecedent (\touton\, it would be, object of \legete\) unexpressed. Every word counts heavily here in contrast with the mere judges of strkjv@Psalms:82:6|. {Thou blasphemest} (\hoti blasphˆmeis\). Recitative \hoti\ again before direct quotation. {Because I said} (\hoti eipon\). Causal use of \hoti\ and regular form \eipon\ (cf. \eipa\ in verse 34|). {I am the Son of God} (\huios tou theou eimi\). Direct quotation again after \eipon\. This Jesus had implied long before as in strkjv@2:16| (my Father) and had said in strkjv@5:18-30| (the Father, the Son), in strkjv@9:35| in some MSS., and virtually in strkjv@10:30|. They will make this charge against Jesus before Pilate (19:7|). Jesus does not use the article here with \huios\, perhaps (Westcott) fixing attention on the character of Son rather than on the person as in strkjv@Hebrews:1:2|. There is no answer to this question with its arguments.

rwp@Luke:9:20 @{But who say ye?} (\Humeis de tina legete;\). Note the emphatic proleptical position of \humeis\: "But _ye_ who do ye say? This is really what mattered now with Jesus. {The Christ of God} (\Ton christon tou theou\). The accusative though the infinitive is not expressed. The Anointed of God, the Messiah of God. See on ¯2:26| for "the Anointed of the Lord." See on ¯Matthew:16:17| for discussion of Peter's testimony in full. strkjv@Mark:6:29| has simply "the Christ." It is clear from the previous narrative that this is not a new discovery from Simon Peter, but simply the settled conviction of the disciples after all the defections of the Galilean masses and the hostility of the Jerusalem ecclesiastics. The disciples still believed in Jesus as the Messiah of Jewish hope and prophecy. It will become plain that they do not grasp the spiritual conception of the Messiah and his kingdom that Jesus taught, but they are clear that he is the Messiah however faulty their view of the Messiah may be. There was comfort in this for Jesus. They were loyal to him.

rwp@Luke:10:5 @{First say} (\pr“ton legete\). Say first. The adverb \pr“ton\ can be construed with "enter" (\eiselthˆte\), but probably with \legete\ is right. The word spoken is the usual oriental salutation.

rwp@Luke:11:18 @{Because ye say} (\hoti legete\). Jesus here repeats in indirect discourse (accusative and infinitive) the charge made against him in verse 15|. The condition is of the first class, determined as fulfilled.

rwp@Luke:17:6 @{If ye have} (\ei echete\). Condition of the first class, assumed to be true. {Ye would say} (\elegete an\). Imperfect active with \an\ and so a conclusion (apodosis) of the second class, determined as unfulfilled, a mixed condition therefore. {Sycamine tree} (\sukamin“i\). At the present time both the black mulberry (sycamine) and the white mulberry (sycamore) exist in Palestine. Luke alone in the N.T. uses either word, the sycamine here, the sycamore in strkjv@19:4|. The distinction is not observed in the LXX, but it is observed in the late Greek medical writers for both trees have medicinal properties. Hence it may be assumed that Luke, as a physician, makes the distinction. Both trees differ from the English sycamore. In strkjv@Matthew:17:20| we have "mountain" in place of "sycamine tree." {Be thou rooted up} (\ekriz“thˆti\). First aorist passive imperative as is \phuteuthˆti\. {Would have obeyed} (\hupˆkousen an\). First aorist active indicative with \an\, apodosis of a second-class condition (note aorist tense here, imperfect \elegete\).

rwp@Luke:22:70 @{Art thou the Son of God?} (\Su oun ei ho huios tou theou;\). Note how these three epithets are used as practical equivalents. They ask about "the Messiah." Jesus affirms that he is the Son of Man and will sit at the right hand of the power of God. They take this to be a claim to be the Son of God (both humanity and deity). Jesus accepts the challenge and admits that he claims to be all three (Messiah, the Son of man, the Son of God). {Ye say} (\Humeis legete\). Just a Greek idiom for "Yes" (compare "I am" in strkjv@Mark:14:62| with "Thou has said" in strkjv@Matthew:26:64|).

rwp@Mark:6:38 @{Go and see} (\hupagete idete\). John says that Jesus asked Philip to find out what food they had (John:6:5f.|) probably after the disciples had suggested that Jesus send the crowd away as night was coming on (Mark:6:35f.|). On this protest to his command that they feed the crowds (Mark:6:37; strkjv@Matthew:14:16; strkjv@Luke:9:13|) Jesus said "Go see" how many loaves you can get hold of. Then Andrew reports the fact of the lad with five barley loaves and two fishes (John:6:8f.|). They had suggested before that two hundred pennyworth (\dˆnari“n diakosi“n\. See on ¯Matthew:18:28|) was wholly inadequate and even that (some thirty-five dollars) was probably all that or even more than they had with them. John's Gospel alone tells of the lad with his lunch which his mother had given him.

rwp@Mark:7:11 @{Corban} (\korban ho estin d“ron\). See on ¯Matthew:15:5|. Mark preserves the Hebrew word for a gift or offering to God (Exodus:21:17; strkjv@Leviticus:20:9|), indeclinable here, meaning {gift} (\d“ron\), but declinable \korbanas\ in strkjv@Matthew:27:6|, meaning sacred treasury. The rabbis ({but ye say}, \humeis de legete\) actually allowed the mere saying of this word by an unfaithful son to prevent the use of needed money for the support of father or mother. It was a home thrust to these pettifogging sticklers for ceremonial punctilios. They not only justified such a son's trickery, but held that he was prohibited from using it for father or mother, but he might use it for himself.

rwp@Mark:14:44 @{Token} (\sussˆmon\). A common word in the ancient Greek for a concerted signal according to agreement. It is here only in the New Testament. strkjv@Matthew:26:48| has \sˆmeion\, sign. The signal was the kiss by Judas, a contemptible desecration of a friendly salutation. {And lead him away safely} (\kai apagete asphal“s\). Only in Mark. Judas wished no slip to occur. Mark and Matthew do not tell of the falling back upon the ground when Jesus challenged the crowd with Judas. It is given by John alone (John:18:4-9|).

rwp@Mark:15:12 @{Whom ye call the King of the Jews} (\hon legete ton basilea t“n Ioudai“n\). Pilate rubs it in on the Jews (cf. verse 9|). The "then" (\oun\) means since you have chosen Barabbas instead of Jesus.

rwp@Matthew:13:29 @{Ye root up the wheat with them} (\ekriz“sˆte hama autois ton siton\). Literally, "root out." Easy to do with the roots of wheat and darnel intermingled in the field. Songs:\sullegontes\ is not "gather up," but "gather together," here and verses 28| and 30|. Note other compound verbs here, "grow together" (\sunauxanesthai\), "burn up" (\katakausai\, burn down or completely), "bring together" (\sunagete\).

rwp@Matthew:15:5 @{But ye say} (\h–meis 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" (\thanat“i 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" (\D“ron\) 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 mˆ timˆsei\, 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:16:15 @{But who say ye that I am?} (\h–meis de tina me legete einai?\). This is what matters and what Jesus wanted to hear. Note emphatic position of {h–meis}, "But _you_, who say ye that I am?"

rwp@Revelation:16:2 @{Went and poured out} (\apˆlthen kai execheen\). Second aorist active indicative of \aperchomai\ (redundant use like \hupagete\ with \ekcheete\, "go and pour out," in verse 1|) and of \ekche“\. Each angel "went off" to perform his task. For \execheen\ see it repeated in verses 3,4,8,10,12,17|. {Into the earth} (\eis tˆn gˆn\). This same use of \eis\ after \execheen\ in verses 3,4|. {It became} (\egeneto\). "There came" (second aorist middle indicative of \ginomai\). {A noisome and grievous sore} (\helkos kakon kai ponˆron\). "Bad and malignant sore." \Helkos\ is old word for a suppurated wound (Latin _ulcus_), here, verse 11; strkjv@Luke:16:21|. See the sixth Egyptian plague (Exodus:9:10; strkjv@Deuteronomy:28:27,35|) and strkjv@Job:2:7|. The magicians were attacked in Egypt and the worshippers of Caesar here (13:17; strkjv@14:9,11; strkjv@19:20|).