Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp possibility:

rwp@2Timothy:4:6 @{I am already being offered} (\d spendomai\). Present (progressive) passive indicative of \spend\, old verb, to pour out a libation or drink offering. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Phillipians:2:17|. "What was then a possibility is now a certainty" (Parry). The sacrifice of Paul's life-blood has begun. {Of my departure} (\ts analuses mou\). Our very word "analysis." Old word from \analu\, to loosen up or back, to unloose. Only here in N.T., though \analusai\ for death is used by Paul in strkjv@Phillipians:1:23| which see for the metaphor. {Is come} (\ephestken\). Perfect active indicative of \ephistmi\ (intransitive use). See strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:3; strkjv@Luke:21:34|. The hour has struck. The time has come.

rwp@Acts:6:3 @{Of good report} (\marturoumenous\). Present passive participle of \marture\, to bear witness to. Men with a good reputation as well as with spiritual gifts (the Holy Spirit and wisdom). {We may appoint} (\katastsomen\). Future active indicative of \kathistmi\, we shall appoint. The action of the apostles follows the choice by the church, but it is promised as a certainty, not as a possibility. The Textus Receptus has a first aorist active subjunctive here (\katastsmen\).

rwp@Galatians:3:28 @{There can be neither} (\ouk eni\). Not a shortened form of \enesti\, but the old lengthened form of \en\ with recessive accent. Songs:\ouk eni\ means "there is not" rather than "there cannot be," a statement of a fact rather than a possibility, as Burton rightly shows against Lightfoot. {One man} (\heis\). No word for "man" in the Greek, and yet \heis\ is masculine, not neuter \hen\. "One moral personality" (Vincent). The point is that "in Christ Jesus" race or national distinctions ("neither Jew nor Greek") do not exist, class differences ("neither bond nor free," no proletarianism and no capitalism) vanish, sex rivalry ("no male and female") disappears. This radical statement marks out the path along which Christianity was to come in the sphere (\en\) and spirit and power of Christ. Candour compels one to confess that this goal has not yet been fully attained. But we are on the road and there is no hope on any way than on "the Jesus Road."

rwp@Hebrews:6:18 @{By two immutable things} (\dia duo pragmatn ametathetn\). See verse 17|. God's promise and God's oath, both unchangeable. {In which it is impossible for God to lie} (\en hois adunaton pseusasthai theon\). Put this "impossibility" by that in verses 4-6|. {Theon} is accusative of general reference with \pseusasthai\, first aorist middle infinitive of \pseudomai\. {That we may have} (\hina echmen\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the present active subjunctive of \ech\, "that we may keep on having." {Strong consolation} (\ischuran paraklsin\). "Strong encouragement" by those two immutable things. {Who have fled for refuge} (\hoi kataphugontes\). Articular effective second aorist active participle of \katapheug\, old verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:14:6|. The word occurs for fleeing to the cities of refuge (Deuteronomy:4:42; strkjv@19:5; strkjv@Joshua:20:9|). {To lay hold of} (\kratsai\). First aorist active (single act) infinitive of \krate\ in contrast with present tense in strkjv@4:14| (hold fast). {Set before us} (\prokeimens\). Placed before us as the goal. See this same participle used with the "joy" (\charas\) set before Jesus (12:2|).

rwp@John:7:7 @{Cannot hate} (\ou dunatai misein\). Because of "the law of moral correspondence" (Westcott), often in John for "inherent impossibility" (Vincent). The brothers of Jesus here belong to the unbelieving world (\kosmos\) which is unable to love Jesus (15:18,23,24|) and which Jesus had already exposed ("testify," \martur\, strkjv@5:42,45|). This unbelieving "world" resented the exposure (3:19|, cf. strkjv@18:37|).

rwp@Luke:3:22 @{Descended} (\katabnai\). Same construction as the preceding infinitive. {The Holy Ghost} (\to pneuma to hagion\). The Holy Spirit. strkjv@Mark:1:10| has merely the Spirit (\to pneuma\) while strkjv@Matthew:3:16| has the Spirit of God (\pneuma theou\). {In a bodily form} (\smatiki eidei\). Alone in Luke who has also "as a dove" (\hs peristeran\) like Matthew and Mark. This probably means that the Baptist saw the vision that looked like a dove. Nothing is gained by denying the fact or possibility of the vision that looked like a dove. God manifests his power as he will. The symbolism of the dove for the Holy Spirit is intelligible. We are not to understand that this was the beginning of the Incarnation of Christ as the Cerinthian Gnostics held. But this fresh influx of the Holy Spirit may have deepened the Messianic consciousness of Jesus and certainly revealed him to the Baptist as God's Son. {And a voice came out of heaven} (\kai phnn ex ouranou genesthai\). Same construction of infinitive with accusative of general reference. The voice of the Father to the Son is given here as in strkjv@Mark:1:11|, which see, and strkjv@Matthew:3:17| for discussion of the variation there. The Trinity here manifest themselves at the baptism of Jesus which constitutes the formal entrance of Jesus upon his Messianic ministry. He enters upon it with the Father's blessing and approval and with the power of the Holy Spirit upon him. The deity of Christ here appears in plain form in the Synoptic Gospels. The consciousness of Christ is as clear on this point here as in the Gospel of John where the Baptist describes him after his baptism as the Son of God (John:1:34|).

rwp@Info_Revelation @ RELATION TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL Here scholars divide again. Many who deny the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles accept the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse, Baur, for instance. Hort, Lightfoot, and Westcott argued for the Johannine authorship on the ground that the Apocalypse was written early (time of Nero or Vespasian) when John did not know Greek so well as when the Epistles and the Gospel were written. There are numerous grammatical laxities in the Apocalypse, termed by Charles a veritable grammar of its own. They are chiefly retention of the nominative case in appositional words or phrases, particularly participles, many of them sheer Hebraisms, many of them clearly intentional (as in strkjv@Revelation:1:4|), all of them on purpose according to Milligan (_Revelation_ in Schaff's Pop. Comm.) and Heinrici (_Der Litterarische Charakter der neutest. Schriften_, p. 85). Radermacher (_Neutestamentliche Grammatik_, p. 3) calls it "the most uncultured literary production that has come down to us from antiquity," and one finds frequent parallels to the linguistic peculiarities in later illiterate papyri. J. H. Moulton (_Grammar_, Vol. II, Part I, p. 3) says: "Its grammar is perpetually stumbling, its idiom is that of a foreign language, its whole style that of a writer who neither knows nor cares for literary form." But we shall see that the best evidence is for a date in Domitian's reign and not much later than the Fourth Gospel. It is worth noting that in strkjv@Acts:4:13| Peter and John are both termed by the Sanhedrin \agrammatoi kai iditai\ (unlettered and unofficial men). We have seen the possibility that II Peter represents Peter's real style or at least that of a different amanuensis from Silvanus in strkjv@1Peter:5:12|. It seems clear that the Fourth Gospel underwent careful scrutiny and possibly by the elders in Ephesus (John:21:24|). If John wrote the Apocalypse while in Patmos and so away from Ephesus, it seems quite possible that here we have John's own uncorrected style more than in the Gospel and Epistles. There is also the added consideration that the excitement of the visions played a part along with a certain element of intentional variations from normal grammatical sequence. An old man's excitement would bring back his early style. There are numerous coincidences in vocabulary and style between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse.

rwp@Info_Romans @ THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS SPRING OF A.D. 57 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE The genuineness of the Epistle is so generally admitted by scholars that it is unnecessary to prove it here, for Loman, Steck, and the Dutch scholars (Van Manen, etc.) who deny it as Pauline are no longer taken seriously. He wrote it from Corinth because he sent it to Rome by Phoebe of Cenchreae (Romans:16:2|) if chapter 16 is acknowledged to be a part of the Epistle. Chapter 16 is held by some to be really a short epistle to Ephesus because of the long list of names in it, because of Paul's long stay in Ephesus, because he had not yet been to Rome, and because, in particular, Aquila and Priscilla are named (Romans:16:3-5|) who had been with Paul in Ephesus. But they had come from Rome before going to Corinth and there is no reason for thinking that they did not return to Rome. It was quite possible for Paul to have many friends in Rome whom he had met elsewhere. People naturally drifted to Rome from all over the empire. The old MSS. (Aleph A B C D) give chapter 16 as an integral part of the Epistle. Marcion rejected it and chapter 15 also for reasons of his own. Renan's theory that Romans was a circular letter like Ephesians sent in different forms to different churches (Rome, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc.) has appealed to some scholars as explaining the several doxologies in the Epistle, but they cause no real difficulty since Paul interjected them in his other epistles according to his moods (2Corinthians:1:20|, for instance). That theory raises more problems than it solves as, for example, Paul's remarks about going to Rome (Romans:1:9-16|) which apply to Rome. Lightfoot suggests the possibility that Paul added strkjv@Romans:16:25-27| some years after the original date so as to turn it into a circular letter. But the MSS. do not support that theory and that leaves strkjv@Romans:15:22-33 in the Epistle quite unsuitable to a circular letter. Modern knowledge leaves the Epistle intact with occasional variations in the MSS. on particular points as is true of all the N.T.

rwp@Romans:7:25 @{I thank God} (\charis ti thei\). "Thanks to God." Note of victory over death through Jesus Christ our Lord." {Songs:then I myself} (\ara oun autos eg\). His whole self in his unregenerate state gives a divided service as he has already shown above. In strkjv@6:1-7:6| Paul proved the obligation to be sanctified. In strkjv@7:7-8:11| he discusses the possibility of sanctification, only for the renewed man by the help of the Holy Spirit.

rwp@Romans:8:3 @{That the law could not do} (\to adunaton tou nomou\). Literally, "the impossibility of the law" as shown in strkjv@7:7-24|, either nominative absolute or accusative of general reference. No syntactical connection with the rest of the sentence. {In that} (\en hi\). "Wherein." {It was weak} (\sthenei\). Imperfect active, continued weak as already shown. {In the likeness of sinful flesh} (\en homoimati sarkos hamartias\). For "likeness" see strkjv@Phillipians:2:7|, a real man, but more than man for God's "own Son." Two genitives "of flesh of sin" (marked by sin), that is the flesh of man is, but not the flesh of Jesus. {And for sin} (\kai peri hamartias\). Condensed phrase, God sent his Son also concerning sin (our sin). {Condemned sin in the flesh} (\katekrine tn hamartian en ti sarki\). First aorist active indicative of \katakrin\. He condemned the sin of men and the condemnation took place in the flesh of Jesus. If the article \tn\ had been repeated before \en ti sarki\ Paul would have affirmed sin in the flesh of Jesus, but he carefully avoided that (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 784).