Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp agent:

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:4 @{He that opposeth and exalteth himself} (\ho antikeimenos kai huperairomenos\). Like John's Antichrist this one opposes (\anti-\) Christ and exalts himself (direct middle of \huperair\, old verb to lift oneself up {above} others, only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:12:7| in N.T.), but not Satan, but an agent of Satan. This participial clause is in apposition with the two preceding phrases, the man of sin, the son of perdition. Note strkjv@1Corinthians:8:5| about one called God and strkjv@Acts:17:23| for \sebasma\ (from \sebazomai\), object of worship, late word, in N.T. only in these two passages. {Songs:that he sitteth in the temple of God} (\hste auton eis ton naon tou theou kathisai\). Another example of the infinitive with \hste\ for result. Caius Caligula had made a desperate attempt to have his statue set up for worship in the Temple in Jerusalem. This incident may lie behind Paul's language here. {Setting himself forth as God} (\apodeiknunta heauton hoti estin theos\). Present active participle (\mi\ form) of \apodeiknumi\, agreeing in case with \auton\, {showing himself that he is God}. Caligula claimed to be God. Moffatt doubts if Paul is identifying this deception with the imperial cultus at this stage. Lightfoot thinks that the deification of the Roman emperor supplied Paul's language here. Wetstein notes a coin of Julius with \theos\ on one side and \Thessaloniken\ on the other. In strkjv@1John:2:18| we are told of "many antichrists" some of whom had already come. Hence it is not clear that Paul has in mind only one individual or even individuals at all rather than evil principles, for in verse 6| he speaks of \to katechon\ (that which restraineth) while in verse 7| it is \ho katechn\ (the one that restraineth). Frame argues for a combination of Belial and Antichrist as the explanation of Paul's language. But the whole subject is left by Paul in such a vague form that we can hardly hope to clear it up. It is possible that his own preaching while with them gave his readers a clue that we do not possess.

rwp@Acts:2:23 @{Him} (\touton\). "This one," resumptive and emphatic object of "did crucify and slay." {Being delivered up} (\ekdoton\). Verbal adjective from \ekdidmi\, to give out or over. Old word, but here only in the N.T. Delivered up by Judas, Peter means. {By the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God} (\ti hrismeni bouli kai prognsi tou theou\). Instrumental case. Note both purpose (\boul\) and foreknowledge (\prognsis\) of God and "determined" (\hrismen\, perfect passive participle, state of completion). God had willed the death of Jesus (John:3:16|) and the death of Judas (Acts:1:16|), but that fact did not absolve Judas from his responsibility and guilt (Luke:22:22|). He acted as a free moral agent. {By the hand} (\dia cheiros\). Luke is fond of these figures (hand, face, etc.) very much like the Hebrew though the vernacular of all languages uses them. {Lawless men} (\anomn\). Men without law, who recognize no law for their conduct, like men in high and low stations today who defy the laws of God and man. Old word, very common in the LXX. {Ye did crucify} (\prospxantes\). First aorist active participle of \prospgnumi\, rare compound word in Dio Cassius and here only in the N.T. One must supply \ti stauri\ and so it means "fastened to the cross," a graphic picture like Paul's "nailed to the cross" (\proslsas ti stauri\) in strkjv@Colossians:2:14|. {Did slay} (\aneilate\). Second aorist active indicative with first aorist vowel \a\ instead of \o\ as is common in the _Koin_. This verb \anaire\, to take up, is often used for kill as in strkjv@Acts:12:2|. Note Peter's boldness now under the power of the Holy Spirit. He charges the people to their faces with the death of Christ.

rwp@Acts:11:20 @{Spake} (\elaloun\). Inchoative imperfect active, began to speak. For them it was an experiment. {Unto the Greeks also} (\kai pros tous Hellnas\). This is undoubtedly the correct reading in spite of Hellenists (\Hellnistas\) or Grecian Jews in B E H L P. \Hellnas\ is read by A and D and a corrector of Aleph. The presence of "also" or "even" (\kai\) in Aleph A B makes no sense unless "Greeks" is correct. Hellenists or Grecian Jews as Christians were common enough as is seen in strkjv@Acts:2; 6|. Saul also had preached to the Hellenists in Jerusalem (9:29|). Hellenists were merely one kind of Jews in contrast with those who spoke Aramaic (Acts:6|). It is true that the case of Cornelius was first in importance, but it is not clear that it was before the work in Antioch. Probably the report of the work among the Greeks in Antioch reached Jerusalem after Peter's defence in strkjv@11:1-18|. That explains the calm tone about it and also why Barnabas and not Peter was sent to investigate. Peter and John (Acts:8|) had condoned Philip's work in Samaria and Peter was the agent in the work among the Romans in Caesarea. His position was now well-known and his services discounted for this new crisis. These Greeks in Antioch were apparently in part pure heathen and not "God-fearers" like Cornelius. A man of wisdom was called for. These preachers were themselves Hellenists (verse 19|) and open to the lessons from their environment without a vision such as Peter had at Joppa. "It was a departure of startling boldness" (Furneaux) by laymen outside of the circle of official leaders.

rwp@Acts:13:9 @{But Saul, who is also called Paul} (\Saulos de, ho kai Paulos\). By this remarkably brief phrase Luke presents this epoch in the life of Saul Paul. The "also" (\kai\) does not mean that the name Paul was given now for the first time, rather than he had always had it. As a Jew and a Roman citizen, he undoubtedly had both names all the time (cf. John Mark, Symeon Niger, Barsabbas Justus). Jerome held that the name of Sergius Paulus was adopted by Saul because of his conversion at this time, but this is a wholly unlikely explanation, "an element of vulgarity impossible to St. Paul " (Farrar). Augustine thought that the meaning of the Latin _paulus_ (little) would incline Saul to adopt, "but as a proper name the word rather suggested the glories of the Aemilian family, and even to us recalls the name of another Paulus, who was 'lavish of his noble life'" (Page). Among the Jews the name Saul was naturally used up to this point, but from now on Luke employs Paul save when there is a reference to his previous life (Acts:22:7; strkjv@26:14|). His real career is work among the Gentiles and Paul is the name used by them. There is a striking similarity in sound between the Hebrew Saul and the Roman Paul. Paul was proud of his tribe of Benjamin and so of King Saul (Phillipians:3:5|). {Filled with the Holy Spirit} (\plstheis pneumatos hagiou\). First aorist (ingressive) passive participle of \pimplmi\ with the genitive case. A special influx of power to meet this emergency. Here was a cultured heathen, typical of the best in Roman life, who called forth all the powers of Paul plus the special help of the Holy Spirit to expose the wickedness of Elymas Barjesus. If one wonders why the Holy Spirit filled Paul for this emergency rather than Barnabas, when Barnabas was named first in strkjv@13:2|, he can recall the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit in his choice of agents (1Corinthians:12:4-11|) and also the special call of Paul by Christ (Acts:9:15; strkjv@26:17f.|). {Fastened his eyes} (\atenisas\). As already in strkjv@Luke:4:20; strkjv@22:56; strkjv@Acts:3:4,12; strkjv@6:15; strkjv@10:4|.

rwp@Galatians:5:4 @{Ye are severed from Christ} (\katrgthte apo Christou\). First aorist passive of \katarge\, to make null and void as in strkjv@Romans:7:2,6|. {Who would be justified by the law} (\hoitines en nomi dikaiousthe\). Present passive conative indicative, "ye who are trying to be justified in the law." {Ye are fallen away from grace} (\ts charitos exepesate\). Second aorist active indicative of \ekpipt\ (with \a\ variable vowel of the first aorist) and followed by the ablative case. "Ye did fall out of grace," "ye left the sphere of grace in Christ and took your stand in the sphere of law" as your hope of salvation. Paul does not mince words and carries the logic to the end of the course. He is not, of course, speaking of occasional sins, but he has in mind a far more serious matter, that of substituting law for Christ as the agent in salvation.

rwp@Hebrews:12:9 @{Furthermore} (\eita\). The next step in the argument (Mark:4:17|). {We had} (\eichomen\). Imperfect indicative of customary action, "we used to have." {To chasten us} (\paideutas\). Predicate accusative after \eichomen\, "as chasteners." Old word from \paideu\, as agent (\-ts\). Only once in LXX (Hosea:5:2|) and twice in N.T. (here and strkjv@Romans:2:20|). {We gave them reverence} (\enetrepometha\). Imperfect middle of old word \entrep\, to turn in or at. Here "we turned ourselves to" as in strkjv@Matthew:21:37|, habitual attitude of reverence. {Shall we be in subjection} (\hupotagsometha\). Second future passive of \hupotass\. There is no \de\ here to correspond to \men\ in the first part of the verse. {Unto the father of spirits} (\ti patri tn pneumatn\). Rather, "Unto the Father of our spirits" (note article \ton\). As God is.

rwp@John:6:39 @{That of all that which} (\hina pn ho\). Literally, "That all which" (see verse 37| for \pan ho\), but there is a sharp anacoluthon with \pn\ left as _nominativus pendens_. {I should lose nothing} (\m apoles ex autou\). Construed with \hina\, "that I shall not lose anything of it." \Apoles\, from \apollumi\, can be either future active indicative or first aorist active subjunctive as is true also of \anasts\ (from \anistmi\), "I shall raise up." {At the last day} (\ti eschati hemeri\). Locative case without \en\. Only in John, but four times here (39,40,44,54|) "with the majesty of a solemn refrain." In strkjv@7:37| it is the last day of the feast of tabernacles, but in strkjv@11:24; strkjv@12:48| of the day of judgment as here. Christ is the Agent of the general resurrection in strkjv@5:28| as in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:22| while here only the resurrection of the righteous is mentioned.

rwp@John:6:57 @{The living Father} (\ho zn patr\). Nowhere else in the N.T., but see strkjv@5:26| and "the living God" (Matthew:16:16; strkjv@2Corinthians:6:16|). The Father is the source of life and so "I live because of the Father" (\kag z dia ton patera\). {He that eateth me} (\ho trgn me\). Still bolder putting of the mystical appropriation of Christ (51,53,54,56|). {Because of me} (\di' eme\). The same idea appears in strkjv@14:19|: "Because I live ye shall live also." See strkjv@11:25|. Jesus Christ is our ground of hope and guarantee of immortality. Life is in Christ. There is no real difficulty in this use of \dia\ with the accusative as with \dia ton patera\ just before. It occurs also in strkjv@15:3|. As the Father is the fount of life to Christ, so Christ is the fount of life to us. See strkjv@1John:4:9| where \dia\ is used with the genitive (\di' autou\) as the intermediate agent, not the ground or reason as here.

rwp@John:8:44 @{Ye are of your father the devil} (\humeis ek tou patros tou diabolou\). Certainly they can "understand" (\ginskete\ in 43|) this "talk" (\lalian\) though they will be greatly angered. But they had to hear it (\akouein\ in 43|). It was like a bombshell in spite of the preliminary preparation. {Your will to do} (\thelete poiein\). Present active indicative of \thel\ and present active infinitive, "Ye wish to go on doing." This same idea Jesus presents in strkjv@Matthew:13:38| (the sons of the evil one, the devil) and strkjv@23:15| (twofold more a son of Gehenna than you). See also strkjv@1John:3:8| for "of the devil" (\ek tou diabolou\) for the one who persists in sinning. In strkjv@Revelation:12:9| the devil is one who leads all the world astray. The Gnostic view that Jesus means "the father of the devil" is grotesque. Jesus does not, of course, here deny that the Jews, like all men, are children of God the Creator, like Paul's offspring of God for all men in strkjv@Acts:17:28|. What he denies to these Pharisees is that they are spiritual children of God who do his will. They do the lusts and will of the devil. The Baptist had denied this same spiritual fatherhood to the merely physical descendants of Abraham (Matthew:3:9|). He even called them "broods of vipers" as Jesus did later (Matthew:12:34|). {A murderer} (\anthrpoktonos\). Old and rare word (Euripides) from \anthrpos\, man, and \ktein\, to kill. In N.T. only here and strkjv@1John:3:15|. The Jews were seeking to kill Jesus and so like their father the devil. {Stood not in the truth} (\en ti altheii ouk estken\). Since \ouk\, not \ouch\, is genuine, the form of the verb is \esteken\ the imperfect of the late present stem \stk\ (Mark:11:25|) from the perfect active \hestka\ (intransitive) of \histmi\, to place. {No truth in him} (\ouk estin altheia en auti\). Inside him or outside (environment). The devil and truth have no contact. {When he speaketh a lie} (\hotan lali to pseudos\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and the present active subjunctive of \lale\. But note the article \to\: "Whenever he speaks the lie," as he is sure to do because it is his nature. Hence "he speaks out of his own" (\ek tn idin lalei\) like a fountain bubbling up (cf. strkjv@Matthew:12:34|). {For he is a liar} (\hoti pseusts estin\). Old word for the agent in a conscious falsehood (\pseudos\). See strkjv@1John:1:10; strkjv@Romans:3:4|. Common word in John because of the emphasis on \altheia\ (truth). {And the father thereof} (\kai ho patr autou\). Either the father of the lie or of the liar, both of which are true as already shown by Jesus. {Autou} in the genitive can be either neuter or masculine. Westcott takes it thus, "because he is a liar and his father (the devil) is a liar," making "one," not the devil, the subject of "whenever he speaks," a very doubtful expression.

rwp@Jude:1:16 @{Murmurers} (\goggustai\). Late onomatopoetic word for agent, from \gogguz\ (Matthew:20:11; strkjv@1Corinthians:10:10|) in the LXX (Exodus:16:8; strkjv@Numbers:11:1,14-29|). {Complainers} (\mempsimoiroi\). Rare word (Isocrates, Aristotle, Plutarch) from \memphomai\ to complain and \moira\ lot or fate. Here alone in N.T. {Lusts} (\epithumias\). As in strkjv@2Peter:3:3|. {Swelling} (\huperogka\). Songs:in strkjv@2Peter:2:18| (big words). {Showing respect of persons} (\thaumazontes prospa\). Present active participle of \thaumaz\ to admire, to wonder at. Nowhere else in N.T. with \prospa\, but a Hebraism (in strkjv@Leviticus:19:15; strkjv@Job:13:10|) like \lambanein prospon\ (Luke:20:21|) and \blepein prospon\ (Matthew:22:16|) and \prosoplempte\ (James:2:9|). Cf. strkjv@James:2:1|. {For the sake of advantage} (\pheleias charin\). To themselves. See also verse 11|. The covetousness of these Gnostic leaders is plainly shown in strkjv@2Peter:2:3,14|. For \charin\ as preposition with genitive see strkjv@Ephesians:3:1,14|.

rwp@Luke:4:6 @{All this authority} (\tn exousian tautn hapasan\). strkjv@Matthew:4:9| has "all these things." Luke's report is more specific. {And the glory of them} (\kai tn doxan autn\). strkjv@Matthew:4:8| has this in the statement of what the devil did, not what he said. {For it hath been delivered unto me} (\hoti emoi paradedotai\). Perfect passive indicative. Satan here claims possession of world power and Jesus does not deny it. It may be due to man's sin and by God's permission. Jesus calls Satan the ruler of this world (John:12:31; strkjv@14:30; strkjv@16:11|). {To whomsoever I will} (\hoi an thel\). Present subjunctive with \an\ in an indefinite relative sentence. This audacious claim, if allowed, makes one wonder whether some of the world rulers are not, consciously or unconsciously, agents of the devil. In several American cities there has been proven a definite compact between the police and the underworld of crime. But the tone of Satan here is one of superiority to Jesus in world power. He offers him a share in it on one condition.

rwp@Luke:4:7 @{Wilt worship before me} (\proskunsis enpion emou\). strkjv@Matthew:4:9| has it more bluntly "worship me." That is what it really comes to, though in Luke the matter is more delicately put. It is a condition of the third class (\ean\ and the subjunctive). Luke has it "thou therefore if" (\su oun ean\), in a very emphatic and subtle way. It is the ingressive aorist (\proskunsis\), just bow the knee once up here in my presence. The temptation was for Jesus to admit Satan's authority by this act of prostration (fall down and worship), a recognition of authority rather than of personal merit. {It shall all be thine} (\estai sou psa\). Satan offers to turn over all the keys of world power to Jesus. It was a tremendous grand-stand play, but Jesus saw at once that in that case he would be the agent of Satan in the rule of the world by bargain and graft instead of the Son of God by nature and world ruler by conquest over Satan. The heart of Satan's program is here laid bare. Jesus here rejected the Jewish idea of the Messiah as an earthly ruler merely. "He rejects Satan as an ally, and thereby has him as an implacable enemy" (Plummer.)

rwp@Luke:5:38 @{Must be put} (\blteon\). This verbal adjective in \-teos\ rather than \-tos\ appears here alone in the N.T. though it is common enough in Attic Greek. It is a survival of the literary style. This is the impersonal use and is transitive in sense here and governs the accusative "new wine" (\oinon neon\), though the agent is not expressed (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1097).

rwp@Info_Revelation @ EMPEROR WORSHIP AS THE OCCASION FOR JOHN'S APOCALYPSE There is no doubt at all that the emperor cult (emperor worship) played a main part in the persecution of the Christians that was the occasion for this great Christian apocalypse. The book itself bears ample witness to this fact, if the two beasts refer to the Roman power as the agent of Satan. It is not possible to single out each individual emperor in the graphic picture. Most would take the dragon to be Satan and the first and the second beasts to be the imperial and provincial Roman power. The Roman emperors posed as gods and did the work of Satan. In particular there were two persecuting emperors (Nero and Domitian) who were responsible for many martyrs for Christ. But emperor worship began before Nero. Julius Caesar was worshipped in the provinces. Octavius was called Augustus (\Sebastos\, Reverend). The crazy Emperor Caius Caligula not simply claimed to be divine, but actually demanded that his statue be set up for worship in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem. He was killed in January A.D. 41 before he could execute his dire purpose. But the madcap Nero likewise demanded worship and blamed in A.D. 64 the burning of Rome on the Christians, though guilty of it himself. He set the style for persecuting Christians, which slumbered on and burst into flames again under Domitian, who had himself commonly termed _Dominus ac Deus noster_ (Our Lord and God). The worship of the emperor did not disturb the worshippers of other gods save the Jews and the Christians, and in particular the Christians were persecuted after the burning of Rome when they were distinguished from the Jews. Up till then Christians were regarded (as by Gallio in Corinth) as a variety of Jews and so entitled to tolerance as a _religio licita_, but they had no standing in law by themselves and their refusal to worship the emperor early gave offence, as Paul indicates in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3|. It was \Kurios Isous\ or \Kurios Kaisar\. On this very issue Polycarp lost his life. The emperors as a rule were tolerant about it, save Nero and Domitian, who was called Nero _redivivus_, or Nero back again. Trajan in his famous letter to Pliny advised tolerance except in stubborn cases, when the Christians had to be put to death. After Nero it was a crime to be a Christian and all sorts of slanders about them were circulated. We have seen already in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3ff.|, the man of sin who sets himself above God as the object of worship. We have seen also in strkjv@1John:2:18,22; strkjv@4:3; strkjv@2John:1:7| the term antichrist applied apparently to Gnostic heretics. One may wonder if, as Beckwith argues, in the Apocalypse the man of sin and the antichrist are united in the beast.

rwp@Romans:1:30 @Paul changes the construction again to twelve substantives and adjectives that give vivid touches to this composite photograph of the God abandoned soul. {Whisperers} (\psithuristas\). Old word from \psithuriz\, to speak into the ear, to speak secretly, an onomatopoetic word like \psithurismos\ (2Corinthians:12:20|) and only here in N.T. {Backbiters} (\katalalous\). Found nowhere else except in Hermas, compound like \katalale\, to talk back (James:4:11|), and \katalalia\, talking back (2Corinthians:12:20|), talkers back whether secretly or openly. {Hateful to God} (\theostugeis\). Old word from \theos\ and \stuge\. All the ancient examples take it in the passive sense and so probably here. Songs:\stugtos\ (Titus:3:13|). Vulgate has _deo odibiles_. {Insolent} (\hubristas\). Old word for agent from \hubriz\, to give insult to, here alone in N.T. save strkjv@1Timothy:1:13|. {Haughty} (\huperphanous\). From \huper\ and \phainomai\, to appear above others, arrogant in thought and conduct, "stuck up." {Boastful} (\alazonas\). From \al\, wandering. Empty pretenders, swaggerers, braggarts. {Inventors of evil things} (\epheuretas kakn\). Inventors of new forms of vice as Nero was. Tacitus (_Ann_. IV. ii) describes Sejanus as _facinorum omnium repertor_ and Virgil (_Aen_. ii. 163) _scelerum inventor_. {Disobedient to parents} (\goneusin apeitheis\). Cf. strkjv@1Timothy:1:9; strkjv@2Timothy:3:2|. An ancient and a modern trait.

rwp@Romans:5:1 @{Being therefore justified by faith} (\dikaithentes oun ek pistes\). First aorist passive participle of \dikaio\, to set right and expressing antecedent action to the verb \echmen\. The \oun\ refers to the preceding conclusive argument (chapters 1 to 4) that this is done by faith. {Let us have peace with God} (\eirnn echmen pros ton theon\). This is the correct text beyond a doubt, the present active subjunctive, not \echomen\ (present active indicative) of the Textus Receptus which even the American Standard Bible accepts. It is curious how perverse many real scholars have been on this word and phrase here. Godet, for instance. Vincent says that "it is difficult if not impossible to explain it." One has only to observe the force of the _tense_ to see Paul's meaning clearly. The mode is the volitive subjunctive and the present tense expresses linear action and so does not mean "make peace" as the ingressive aorist subjunctive \eirnn schmen\ would mean. A good example of \schmen\ occurs in strkjv@Matthew:21:38| (\schmen tn klronomian autou\) where it means: "Let us get hold of his inheritance." Here \eirnn echmen\ can only mean: "Let us enjoy peace with God" or "Let us retain peace with God." We have in strkjv@Acts:9:31| \eichen eirnn\ (imperfect and so linear), the church "enjoyed peace," not "made peace." The preceding justification (\dikaithentes\) "made peace with God." Observe \pros\ (face to face) with \ton theon\ and \dia\ (intermediate agent) with \tou kuriou\.