Bible:
Filter: String:

NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp unnecessary:

rwp@1Corinthians:1:13 @{Is Christ divided?} (\memeristai ho Christos;\). Perfect passive indicative, Does Christ stand divided? It is not certain, though probable, that this is interrogative like the following clauses. Hofmann calls the assertory form a "rhetorical impossibility." The absence of \m\ here merely allows an affirmative answer which is true. The fourth or Christ party claimed to possess Christ in a sense not true of the others. Perhaps the leaders of this Christ party with their arrogant assumptions of superiority are the false apostles, ministers of Satan posing as angels of light (2Corinthians:11:12-15|). {Was Paul crucified for you?} (\M Paulos estaurth huper humn;\). An indignant "No" is demanded by \m\. Paul shows his tact by employing himself as the illustration, rather than Apollos or Cephas. Probably \huper\, over, in behalf of, rather than \peri\ (concerning, around) is genuine, though either makes good sense here. In the _Koin_ \huper\ encroaches on \peri\ as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1|. {Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?} (\eis to onoma Paulou ebaptisthte;\). It is unnecessary to say {into} for \eis\ rather than {in} since \eis\ is the same preposition originally as \en\ and both are used with \baptiz\ as in strkjv@Acts:8:16; strkjv@10:48| with no difference in idea (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 592). Paul evidently knows the idea in strkjv@Matthew:28:19| and scouts the notion of being put on a par with Christ or the Trinity. He is no rival of Christ. This use of \onoma\ for the person is not only in the LXX, but the papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions give numerous examples of the name of the king or the god for the power and authority of the king or god (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, pp. 146ff., 196ff.; _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 121).

rwp@Colossians:2:18 @{Rob you of your prize} (\katabrabeuet\). Late and rare compound (\kata, brabeu\, strkjv@Colossians:3:15|) to act as umpire against one, perhaps because of bribery in Demosthenes and Eustathius (two other examples in Preisigke's _Worterbuch_), here only in the N.T. Songs:here it means to decide or give judgment against. The judge at the games is called \brabeus\ and the prize \brabeion\ (1Corinthians:9:24; strkjv@Phillipians:3:14|). It is thus parallel to, but stronger than, \krinet\ in verse 16|. {By a voluntary humility} (\theln en tapeinophrosuni\). Present active participle of \thel\, to wish, to will, but a difficult idiom. Some take it as like an adverb for "wilfully" somewhat like \thelontas\ in strkjv@2Peter:3:5|. Others make it a Hebraism from the LXX usage, "finding pleasure in humility." The Revised Version margin has "of his own mere will, by humility." Hort suggested \en ethelotapeinophrosuni\ (in gratuitous humility), a word that occurs in Basil and made like \ethelothrskia\ in verse 23|. {And worshipping of the angels} (\kai thrskeii tn aggeln\). In strkjv@3:12| humility (\tapeinophrosunn\) is a virtue, but it is linked with worship of the angels which is idolatry and so is probably false humility as in verse 23|. They may have argued for angel worship on the plea that God is high and far removed and so took angels as mediators as some men do today with angels and saints in place of Christ. {Dwelling in the things which he hath seen} (\ha heoraken embateun\). Some MSS. have "not," but not genuine. This verb \embateu\ (from \embats\, stepping in, going in) has given much trouble. Lightfoot has actually proposed \kenembateun\ (a verb that does not exist, though \kenembate\ does occur) with \aira\, to tread on empty air, an ingenious suggestion, but now unnecessary. It is an old word for going in to take possession (papyri examples also). W. M. Ramsay (_Teaching of Paul_, pp. 287ff.) shows from inscriptions in Klaros that the word is used of an initiate in the mysteries who "set foot in" (\enebateusen\) and performed the rest of the rites. Paul is here quoting the very work used of these initiates who "take their stand on" these imagined revelations in the mysteries. {Vainly puffed up} (\eiki phusioumenos\). Present passive participle of \phusio\, late and vivid verb from \phusa\, pair of bellows, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:4:6,18f.; strkjv@8:1|. Powerful picture of the self-conceit of these bombastic Gnostics.

rwp@Hebrews:9:10 @{Only with meats and drinks and divers washings} (\monon epi brmasin kai pomasin kai diaphorois baptismois\). The parenthesis of the Revised Version here is unnecessary. The use of \epi\ here with the locative case is regular, "in the matter of" (Luke:12:52; strkjv@John:12:16; strkjv@Acts:21:24|). What ritual value these Levitical sacrifices had was confined to minute regulations about diet and ceremonial cleansing (clean and unclean). For "divers" (\diaphorois\, late adjective, in N.T. only in strkjv@Hebrews:1:4; strkjv@8:6; strkjv@9:10; strkjv@Romans:12:6|) say "different" or "various." \Baptismois\ is, of course, the Jewish ceremonial immersions (cf. strkjv@Mark:7:4; strkjv@Exodus:29:4; strkjv@Leviticus:11:25,28f.; strkjv@Numbers:8:7; strkjv@Revelation:6:2|). {Carnal ordinances} (\dikaimasin sarkos\). But the correct text is undoubtedly simply \dikaimata sarkos\ (nominative case), in apposition with \dra te kai thusiai\ (gifts and sacrifices). See strkjv@9:1| for \dikaimata\. {Imposed} (\epikeimena\). Present middle or passive participle of \epikeimai\, old verb to lie upon (be laid upon). Cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:9:16|. {Until a time of reformation} (\mechri kairou diorthses\). Definite statement of the temporary nature of the Levitical system already stated in strkjv@7:10-17; strkjv@8:13| and argued clearly by Paul in strkjv@Galatians:3:15-22|. \Diorthsis\ is a late word, here alone in N.T. (from \diortho\, to set right or straight), used by Hippocrates for making straight misshapen limbs like \anortho\ in strkjv@Hebrews:12:12|. Here for reformation like \diorthma\ (reform) in strkjv@Acts:24:2f|. Christianity itself is the great Reformation of the current Judaism (Pharisaism) and the spiritual Judaism foreshadowed by the old Abrahamic promise (see strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9|).

rwp@John:7:8 @{Go ye up to the feast} (\humeis anabte eis tn heortn\). The emphatic word by position is \humeis\ (ye) in contrast with \eg\ (I). Second aorist active imperative of \anabain\, old and common verb for going up to the feast (2:13|) or anywhere. Take your own advice (7:3|). {I go not up yet} (\eg oup anabain\). Songs:Westcott and Hort after B W L (Neutral) while \ou\ (not) is read by Aleph D, African Latin, Vulgate, Coptic (Western). Some of the early Greek Fathers were puzzled over the reading \ouk\ (I go not up) as contradictory to verse 10| wherein it is stated that Jesus did go up. Almost certainly \ouk\ (not) is correct and is not really contradictory when one notes in verse 10| that the manner of Christ's going up is precisely the opposite of the advice of the brothers in verses 3,4|. "Not yet" (\oup\) is genuine before "fulfilled" (\peplrtai\, perfect passive indicative of \plro\). One may think, if he will, that Jesus changed his plans after these words, but that is unnecessary. He simply refused to fall in with his brothers' sneering proposal for a grand Messianic procession with the caravan on the way to the feast. He will do that on the journey to the last passover.

rwp@Mark:2:12 @{Before them all} (\emprosthen pantn\). strkjv@Luke:5:25| follows Mark in this detail. He picked up (\aras\) his pallet and walked and went home as Jesus had commanded him to do (Mark:2:11|). It was an amazing proceeding and made it unnecessary for Jesus to refute the scribes further on this occasion. The amazement (\existasthai\, our _ecstasy_, as strkjv@Luke:5:26| has it), was too general and great for words. The people could only say: "We never saw it on this fashion" (\Houts oudepote eidamen\). Jesus had acted with the power of God and claimed equality with God and had made good his claim. They all marvelled at the {paradoxes} (\paradoxa\, strkjv@Luke:5:26|) of that day. For it all they glorified God.

rwp@Matthew:8:17 @{Himself took our infirmities and bare our diseases} (\autos tas astheneias elaben kai tas nosous ebastasen\). A quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:53:4|. It is not clear in what sense Matthew applies the words in Isaiah whether in the precise sense of the Hebrew or in an independent manner. Moffatt translates it: "He took away our sicknesses, and bore the burden of our diseases." Goodspeed puts it: "He took our sickness and carried away our diseases." Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, pp. 102f.) thinks that Matthew has made a free interpretation of the Hebrew, has discarded the translation of the Septuagint, and has transposed the two Hebrew verbs so that Matthew means: "He took upon himself our pains, and bore our diseases." Plummer holds that "It is impossible, and also unnecessary, to understand what the Evangelist understood by 'took ' (\elaben\) and 'bare' (\ebastasen\). It at least must mean that Christ removed their sufferings from the sufferers. He can hardly have meant that the diseases were transferred to Christ." \Bastaz\ occurs freely in the papyri with the sense of lift, carry, endure, carry away (the commonest meaning, Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_), pilfer. In strkjv@Matthew:3:11| we have the common vernacular use to take off sandals. The Attic Greek did not use it in the sense of carrying off. "This passage is the cornerstone of the faith-cure theory, which claims that the atonement of Christ includes provision for _bodily_ no less than for spiritual healing, and therefore insists on translating 'took away'" (Vincent). We have seen that the word \bastaz\ will possibly allow that meaning, but I agree with McNeile: "The passage, _as Mt. employs it_, has no bearing on the doctrine of the atonement." But Jesus does show his sympathy with us. "Christ's sympathy with the sufferers was so intense that he really felt their weaknesses and pains." In our burdens Jesus steps under the load with us and helps us to carry on.