Bible:
Filter: String:

NT.filter - rwp disagree:

rwp@2Corinthians:2:1 @{That I would not come again to you with sorrow} (\to m palin en lupi pros humas elthein\). Articular second aorist active infinitive with negative \m\ in apposition with \touto\ (this) preceding. What does Paul mean by "again" (\palin\)? Had he paid another visit besides that described in strkjv@Acts:18| which was in sorrow (\en lupi\)? Or does he mean that having had one joyful visit (that in strkjv@Acts:18|) he does not wish the second one to be in sorrow? Either interpretation is possible as the Greek stands and scholars disagree. Songs:in strkjv@12:14| "The third time I am ready to come" may refer to the proposed second visit (1:15f.|) and the present plan (a third). And so as to strkjv@13:1|. There is absolutely no way to tell clearly whether Paul had already made a second visit. If he had done so, it is a bit odd that he did not plainly say so in strkjv@1:15f.| when he is apologizing for not having made the proposed visit ("a second benefit").

rwp@2Corinthians:2:5 @{If any} (\ei tis\). Scholars disagree whether Paul refers to strkjv@1Corinthians:5:1|, where he also employs \tis, toioutos\, and \Satans\ as here, or to the ringleader of the opposition to him. Either view is possible. In both cases Paul shows delicacy of feeling by not mentioning the name. {But in part} (\alla apo merous\). "But to some extent to you all." The whole Corinthian Church has been injured in part by this man's wrongdoing. There is a parenthesis ({that I press not too heavily}, \hina m epibar\) that interrupts the flow of ideas. \Epibare\, to put a burden on (\epi, baros\), is a late word, only in Paul in N.T. (here and strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:9; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:8|). He does not wish to give pain by too severe language.

rwp@Acts:15:2 @{When Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them} (\Genomens stases kai ztses ouk oligs ti Pauli kai Barnabi pros autous\). Genitive absolute of second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\, genitive singular agreeing with first substantive \stases\. Literally, "No little (litotes for much) strife and questioning coming to Paul and Barnabas (dative case) with them " (\pros autous\, face to face with them). Paul and Barnabas were not willing to see this Gentile church brow-beaten and treated as heretics by these self-appointed regulators of Christian orthodoxy from Jerusalem. The work had developed under the leadership of Paul and Barnabas and they accepted full responsibility for it and stoutly resisted these Judaizers to the point of sedition (riot, outbreak in strkjv@Luke:23:25; strkjv@Acts:19:40|) as in strkjv@23:7|. There is no evidence that the Judaizers had any supporters in the Antioch church so that they failed utterly to make any impression. Probably these Judaizers compelled Paul to think through afresh his whole gospel of grace and so they did Paul and the world a real service. If the Jews like Paul had to believe, it was plain that there was no virtue in circumcision (Galatians:2:15-21|). It is not true that the early Christians had no disagreements. They had selfish avarice with Ananias and Sapphira, murmuring over the gifts to the widows, simony in the case of Simon Magus, violent objection to work in Caesarea, and now open strife over a great doctrine (grace vs. legalism). {The brethren appointed} (\etaxan\). "The brethren" can be supplied from verse 1| and means the church in Antioch. The church clearly saw that the way to remove this deadlock between the Judaizers and Paul and Barnabas was to consult the church in Jerusalem to which the Judaizers belonged. Paul and Barnabas had won in Antioch. If they can win in Jerusalem, that will settle the matter. The Judaizers will be answered in their own church for which they are presuming to speak. The verb \etaxan\ (\tass\, to arrange) suggests a formal appointment by the church in regular assembly. Paul (Galatians:2:2|) says that he went up by revelation (\kat' apokalupsin\), but surely that is not contradictory to the action of the church. {Certain others of them} (\tinas allous\). Certainly Titus (Galatians:2:1,3|), a Greek and probably a brother of Luke who is not mentioned in Acts. Rackham thinks that Luke was in the number. {The apostles and elders} (\tous apostolous kai presbuterous\). Note one article for both (cf. "the apostles and the brethren" in strkjv@11:1|). "Elders" now (11:30|) in full force. The apostles have evidently returned now to the city after the death of Herod Agrippa I stopped the persecution.

rwp@Acts:15:39 @{A sharp contention} (\paroxusmos\). Our very word paroxysm in English. Old word though only twice in the N.T. (here and strkjv@Hebrews:10:24|), from \paroxun\, to sharpen (\para, oxus\) as of a blade and of the spirit (Acts:17:16; strkjv@1Corinthians:13:5|). This "son of consolation" loses his temper in a dispute over his cousin and Paul uses sharp words towards his benefactor and friend. It is often so that the little irritations of life give occasion to violent explosions. If the incident in strkjv@Galatians:2:11-21| had already taken place, there was a sore place already that could be easily rubbed. And if Mark also joined with Peter and Barnabas on that occasion, Paul had fresh ground for irritation about him. But there is no way to settle differences about men and we can only agree to disagree as Paul and Barnabas did. {Songs:that they parted asunder from one another} (\hste apochristhnai autous ap' allln\). Actual result here stated by \hste\ and the first aorist passive infinitive of \apochriz\, old verb to sever, to separate, here only and strkjv@Revelation:6:4| in the N.T. The accusative of general reference (\autous\) is normal. For construction with \hste\ see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 999f. {And Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus} (\ton te Barnaban paralabonta ton Markon ekpleusai eis Kupron\). Second infinitival clause \ekpleusai\ after \hste\ connected by \te\. The same participle is used here minus \sun, paralabonta\ (second aorist active). Barnabas and Mark sailed out (\ekpleusai\ from \ekple\) from the harbour of Antioch. This is the last glimpse that Luke gives us of Barnabas, one of the noblest figures in the New Testament. Paul has a kindly reference to him in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:6|. No one can rightly blame Barnabas for giving his cousin John Mark a second chance nor Paul for fearing to risk him again. One's judgment may go with Paul, but one's heart goes with Barnabas. And Mark made good with Barnabas, with Peter (1Peter:5:13|) and finally with Paul (Colossians:4:10; strkjv@2Timothy:4:11|). See my little book on John Mark (_Making Good in the Ministry_). Paul and Barnabas parted in anger and both in sorrow. Paul owed more to Barnabas than to any other man. Barnabas was leaving the greatest spirit of the time and of all times.

rwp@Galatians:2:1 @{Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again} (\epeita dia dekatessarn etn palin anebn\) This use of \dia\ for interval between is common enough. Paul is not giving a recital of his visits to Jerusalem, but of his points of contact with the apostles in Jerusalem. As already observed, he here refers to the Jerusalem Conference given by Luke in strkjv@Acts:15| when Paul and Barnabas were endorsed by the apostles and elders and the church over the protest of the Judaizers who had attacked them in Antioch (Acts:15:1f.|). But Paul passes by another visit to Jerusalem, that in strkjv@Acts:11:30| when Barnabas and Saul brought alms from Antioch to Jerusalem and delivered them to "the elders" with no mention of the apostles who were probably out of the city since the events in strkjv@Acts:12| apparently preceded that visit and Peter had left for another place (Acts:12:17|). Paul here gives the inside view of this private conference in Jerusalem that came in between the two public meetings (Acts:15:4,6-29|). {With Barnabas} (\meta Barnab\). As in strkjv@Acts:15:2|. {Taking Titus also with me} (\sunparalabn kai Titon\). Second aorist active participle of \sunparalamban\ the very verb used in strkjv@Acts:15:37f.| of the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas about Mark. Titus is not mentioned in Acts 15 nor anywhere else in Acts for some reason, possibly because he was Luke's own brother. But his very presence was a challenge to the Judaizers, since he was a Greek Christian.

rwp@John:8:17 @{Yea and in your law} (\kai en ti nomi de ti humeteri\). Same use of \kai--de\ as in verse 16|. They claimed possession of the law (7:49|) and so Jesus takes this turn in answer to the charge of single witness in verse 13|. He will use similar language (your law) in strkjv@10:34| in an _argumentum ad hominem_ as here in controversy with the Jews. In strkjv@15:24| to the apostles Jesus even says "in their law" in speaking of the hostile Jews plotting his death. He does not mean in either case to separate himself wholly from the Jews and the law, though in Matthew 5 he does show the superiority of his teaching to that of the law. For the Mosaic regulation about two witnesses see strkjv@Deuteronomy:17:6; strkjv@19:15|. This combined witness of two is not true just because they agree, unless true in fact separately. But if they disagree, the testimony falls to the ground. In this case the Father confirms the witness of the Son as Jesus had already shown (5:37|).

rwp@John:9:17 @{Unto the blind man again} (\ti tuphli palin\). The doctors disagree and they ask the patient whose story they had already heard (verse 15|). {In that he opened thine eyes} (\hoti neixen sou tous ophthalmous\). Causal use of \hoti\ and triple augment in the first aorist active indicative of \anoig\. They offer the excuse that the man's experience particularly qualified him to explain the "how," overlooking the fact he had already told his story and also trying to conceal their own hopeless division of opinion. {He is a prophet} (\prophts estin\). The man will go that far anyhow.

rwp@John:11:2 @{And it was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair} (\n de Mariam h aleipsasa ton kurion muri kai ekmaxasa tous podas autou tais thrixin auts\). This description is added to make plainer who Mary is "whose brother Lazarus was sick" (\hs ho adelphos Lazaros sthenei\). There is an evident proleptic allusion to the incident described by John in strkjv@12:1-8| just after chapter 11. As John looks back from the end of the century it was all behind him, though the anointing (\h aleipsasa\, first aorist active articular participle of \aleiph\, old verb for which see strkjv@Mark:6:13|) took place after the events in chapter 11. The aorist participle is timeless and merely pictures the punctiliar act. The same remark applies to \ekmaxasa\, old verb \ekmass\, to wipe off or away (Isaiah:12:3; strkjv@13:5; strkjv@Luke:7:38,44|). Note the Aramaic form \Mariam\ as usual in John, but \Marias\ in verse 1|. When John wrote, it was as Jesus had foretold (Matthew:26:13|), for the fame of Mary of Bethany rested on the incident of the anointing of Jesus. The effort to link Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene and then both names with the sinful woman of strkjv@Luke:7:36-50| is gratuitous and to my mind grotesque and cruel to the memory of both Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene. Bernard may be taken as a specimen: "The conclusion is inevitable that John (or his editor) regarded Mary of Bethany as the same person who is described by Luke as \hamartlos\." This critical and artistic heresy has already been discussed in Vol. II on Luke's Gospel. Suffice it here to say that Luke introduces Mary Magdalene as an entirely new character in strkjv@8:2| and that the details in strkjv@Luke:7:36-50; strkjv@John:12:1-8| have only superficial resemblances and serious disagreements. John is not here alluding to Luke's record, but preparing for his own in chapter 12. What earthly difficulty is there in two different women under wholly different circumstances doing a similar act for utterly different purposes?

rwp@Mark:14:58 @{Made with hands} (\cheiropoiton\). In Mark alone. An old Greek word. The negative form \acheiropoiton\ here occurs elsewhere only in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:1; strkjv@Colossians:2:11|. In strkjv@Hebrews:9:11| the negative \ou\ is used with the positive form. It is possible that a real \logion\ of Jesus underlies the perversion of it here. Mark and Matthew do not quote the witnesses precisely alike. Perhaps they quoted Jesus differently and therein is shown part of the disagreement, for Mark adds verse 59| (not in Matthew). "And not even so did their witness agree together," repeating the point of verse 57|. Swete observes that Jesus, as a matter of fact, did do what he is quoted as saying in Mark: "He said what the event has proved to be true; His death destroyed the old order, and His resurrection created the new." But these witnesses did not mean that by what they said. The only saying of Jesus at all like this preserved to us is that in strkjv@John:2:19|, when he referred not to the temple in Jerusalem, but to the temple of his body, though no one understood it at the time.

rwp@Matthew:19:9 @{Except for fornication} (\parektos logou porneias\). This is the marginal reading in Westcott and Hort which also adds "maketh her an adulteress" (\poiei autn moicheuthnai\) and also these words: "and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery" (\kai ho apolelumenn gamsas moichatai\). There seems to be a certain amount of assimilation in various manuscripts between this verse and the words in strkjv@5:32|. But, whatever reading is accepted here, even the short one in Westcott and Hort (\m epi porneii\, not for fornication), it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term (\porneia\) which is technically adultery (\moicheia\ from \moicha or moicheu\). Here, as in strkjv@5:31f.|, a group of scholars deny the genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile holds that "the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had already grown up." That in my opinion is gratuitous criticism which is unwilling to accept Matthew's report because it disagrees with one's views on the subject of divorce. He adds: "It cannot be supposed that Matthew wished to represent Jesus as siding with the school of Shammai." Why not, if Shammai on this point agreed with Jesus? Those who deny Matthew's report are those who are opposed to remarriage at all. Jesus by implication, as in strkjv@5:31|, does allow remarriage of the innocent party, but not of the guilty one. Certainly Jesus has lifted the whole subject of marriage and divorce to a new level, far beyond the petty contentions of the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

rwp@Matthew:26:17 @{To eat the passover} (\phagein to pascha\). There were two feasts rolled into one, the passover feast and the feast of unleavened bread. Either name was employed. Here the passover meal is meant, though in strkjv@John:18:28| it is probable that the passover feast is referred to as the passover meal (the last supper) had already been observed. There is a famous controversy on the apparent disagreement between the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel on the date of this last passover meal. My view is that the five passages in John (John:13:1f.,27; strkjv@18:28; strkjv@19:14,31|) rightly interpreted agree with the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew:26:17,20; strkjv@Mark:14:12,17; strkjv@Luke:22:7,14|) that Jesus ate the passover meal at the regular time about 6 P.M. beginning of 15 Nisan. The passover lamb was slain on the afternoon of 14 Nisan and the meal eaten at sunset the beginning of 15 Nisan. According to this view Jesus ate the passover meal at the regular time and died on the cross the afternoon of 15 Nisan. See my _Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ_, pp.279-284. The question of the disciples here assumes that they are to observe the regular passover meal. Note the deliberative subjunctive (\hetoimasmen\) after \theleis\ with \hina\. For the asyndeton see Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 935.

rwp@Matthew:26:61 @{I am able to destroy the temple of God} (\dunamai katalusai ton naon tou theou\). What he had said (John:2:19|) referred to the temple of his body which they were to destroy (and did) and which he would raise again in three days as he did. It was a pitiful perversion of what Jesus had said and even so the two witnesses disagreed in their misrepresentation (Mark:14:59|).

rwp@Matthew:27:34 @{Wine mingled with gall} (\oinon meta chols memigmenon\). Late MSS. read {vinegar} (\oxos\) instead of wine and Mark (Mark:15:23|) has myrrh instead of gall. The myrrh gave the sour wine a better flavour and like the bitter gall had a narcotic and stupefying effect. Both elements may have been in the drink which Jesus tasted and refused to drink. Women provided the drink to deaden the sense of pain and the soldiers may have added the gall to make it disagreeable. Jesus desired to drink to the full the cup from his Father's hand (John:18:11|).