Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-POET.filter - rwp immediately:

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:17 @{Then} (\epeita\). The next step, not the identical time (\tote\), but immediately afterwards. {Together with them} (\hama sun autois\). Note both \hama\ (at the same time) and \sun\ (together with) with the associative instrumental case \autois\ (the risen saints). {Shall be caught up} (\harpagsometha\). Second future passive indicative of \harpaz\, old verb to seize, to carry off like Latin _rapio_. {To meet the Lord in the air} (\eis apantsin tou Kuriou eis aera\). This special Greek idiom is common in the LXX like the Hebrew, but Polybius has it also and it occurs in the papyri (Moulton, _Proleg_., p. 14, n. 3). This rapture of the saints (both risen and changed) is a glorious climax to Paul's argument of consolation. {And so} (\kai houts\). This is the outcome, to be forever with the Lord, whether with a return to earth or with an immediate departure for heaven Paul does not say. To be with Christ is the chief hope of Paul's life (1Thessalonians:5:10; strkjv@Phillipians:1:23; strkjv@Colossians:3:4; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:8|).

rwp@Acts:13:12 @{Believed} (\episteusen\). Ingressive aorist active indicative. Renan considers it impossible that a Roman proconsul could be converted by a miracle. But it was the teaching about the Lord (\tou kuriou\, objective genitive) by which he was astonished (\ekplssomenos\, present passive participle of \ekplss\, see on ¯Matthew:7:28|) or struck out as well as by the miracle. The blindness came "immediately" (\paraehrma\) upon the judgment pronounced by Paul. It is possible that Sergius Paulus was converted to Christ without openly identifying himself with the Christians as his baptism is not mentioned as in the case of Cornelius. But, even if he was baptized, he need not have been deposed from his proconsulship as Furneaux and Rackham argue because his office called for "official patronage of idolatrous worship." But that could have been merely perfunctory as it probably was already. He had been a disciple of the Jewish magician, Elymas Barjesus, without losing his position. Imperial persecution against Christianity had not yet begun. Furneaux even suggests that the conversion of a proconsul to Christianity at this stage would have called for mention by the Roman and Greek historians. There is the name Sergia Paullina in a Christian cemetery in Rome which shows that one of his family was a Christian later. One will believe what he wills about Sergius Paulus, but I do not see that Luke leaves him in the category of Simon Magus who "believed" (8:13|) for revenue only.

rwp@James:5:12 @{Above all things} (\pro pantn\). No connection with what immediately precedes. Probably an allusion to the words of Jesus (Matthew:5:34-37|). It is not out of place here. See the same phrase in strkjv@1Peter:4:8|. Robinson (_Ephesians_, p. 279) cites like examples from the papyri at the close of letters. Here it means "But especially" (Ropes). {Swear not} (\m omnuete\). Prohibition of the habit (or to quit doing it if guilty) with \m\ and the present active imperative of \omnu\. The various oaths (profanity) forbidden (\mte\, thrice) are in the accusative case after \omnuete\, according to rule (\ouranon, gn, horkon\). The Jews were wont to split hairs in their use of profanity, and by avoiding God's name imagine that they were not really guilty of this sin, just as professing Christians today use "pious oaths" which violate the prohibition of Jesus. {Let be} (\t\). Imperative active third singular of \eimi\, late form (1Corinthians:16:22|) for \est\. "Your yea be yea" (and no more). A different form from that in strkjv@Matthew:5:37|. {That ye fall not under judgment} (\hina m hupo krisin peste\). Negative purpose with \hina m\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \pipt\, to fall. See \hina m krithte\ in verse 9|. \Krisis\ (from \krin\) is the act of judging rather than the judgment rendered (\krima\ strkjv@James:3:1|).

rwp@John:1:15 @{Beareth witness} (\marturei\). Historical (dramatic) present indicative of this characteristic word in John (cf. strkjv@1:17f.|). See strkjv@1:32,34| for historical examples of John's witness to Christ. This sentence is a parenthesis in Westcott and Hort's text, though the Revised Version makes a parenthesis of most of verse 14|. The witness of John is adduced in proof of the glory full of grace and truth already claimed for the Incarnate Logos. {Crieth} (\kekragen\). Second perfect active indicative of \kraz\, old verb for loud crying, repeated in dramatic form again for emphasis recalling the wonderful Voice in the wilderness which the Beloved Disciple can still hear echoing through the years. {This was} (\houtos n\). Imperfect indicative where John throws the tense back in past time when he looked forward to the coming of the Messiah as in strkjv@Acts:3:10| where we should prefer "is" (\estin\). Gildersleeve (_Syntax_, p. 96) calls this the "imperfect of sudden appreciation of the real state of things." {Of whom I said} (\hon eipon\). But B C and a corrector of Aleph (Westcott and Hort) have \ho eipn\ "the one who said," a parenthetical explanation about the Baptist, not the words of the Baptist about Christ. {After me} (\opis mou\). See also strkjv@1:27|. Later in time John means. He described "the Coming One" (\ho erchomenos\) before he saw Jesus. The language of John here is precisely that in strkjv@Matthew:3:11| \ho opis mou erchomenos\ (cf. strkjv@Mark:1:7|). The Beloved Disciple had heard the Baptist say these very words, but he also had the Synoptic Gospels. {Is become} (\gegonen\). Second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. It is already an actual fact when the Baptist is speaking. {Before me} (\emprosthen mou\). In rank and dignity, the Baptist means, \ho ischuroteros mou\ "the one mightier than I" (Mark:1:7|) and \ischuroteros mou\ "mightier than I" (Matthew:3:11|). In strkjv@John:3:28| \emprosthen ekeinou\ (before him, the Christ) does mean priority in time, but not here. This superior dignity of the Messiah John proudly recognizes always (John:3:25-30|). {For he was before me} (\hoti prtos mou n\). Paradox, but clear. He had always been (\n imperfect\) before John in his Pre-incarnate state, but "after" John in time of the Incarnation, but always ahead of John in rank immediately on his Incarnation. \Prtos mou\ (superlative with ablative) occurs here when only two are compared as is common in the vernacular _Koin_. Songs:the Beloved Disciple came first (\prtos\) to the tomb, ahead of Peter (20:4|). Songs:also \prton humn\ in strkjv@15:18| means "before you" as if it were \proteron humn\. Verse 30| repeats these words almost exactly.

rwp@John:4:44 @{For Jesus himself testified} (\autos gar Isous emartursen\). John's explanation of the conduct of Jesus by quoting a proverb often used by Jesus (Mark:6:4; strkjv@Matthew:13:57; strkjv@Luke:4:24| in reference to Nazareth), but not necessarily used by Jesus on this occasion. A similar proverb has been found in Plutarch, Pliny, Seneca. {A prophet hath no honour in his own country} (\prophts en ti idii patridi timn ouk echei\). What is meant by \patridi\? In the Synoptics (Luke:4:24; strkjv@Mark:6:4; strkjv@Matthew:13:57|) the reference is to Nazareth where he was twice rejected. But what has John in mind in quoting it here? He probably knew the quotations in the Synoptics. Does John refer to Judea by "his own country"? If so, the application hardly fits for he had already explained that Jesus was leaving Judea because he was too popular there (4:1-3|). If he means Galilee, he immediately mentions the cordial welcome accorded Jesus there (verse 45|). But even so this is probably John's meaning for he is speaking of the motive of Jesus in going into Galilee where he had not yet laboured and where he apparently had no such fame as in Judea and now in Samaria.

rwp@John:5:1 @{After these things} (\meta tauta\). John is fond of this vague phrase (3:22; strkjv@6:1|). He does not mean that this incident follows immediately. He is supplementing the Synoptic Gospels and does not attempt a full story of the work of Jesus. Some scholars needlessly put chapter 5 after chapter 6 because in chapter 6 Jesus is in Galilee as at the end of chapter 4. But surely it is not incongruous to think of Jesus making a visit to Jerusalem before the events in chapter 6 which undoubtedly come within a year of the end (6:4|). {A feast of the Jews} (\heort tn Ioudain\). Some manuscripts have the article (\h\) "the feast" which would naturally mean the passover. As a matter of fact there is no way of telling what feast it was which Jesus here attended. Even if it was not the passover, there may well be another passover not mentioned besides the three named by John (2:13,23; strkjv@6:4: strkjv@12:1|). {Went up} (\aneb\). Second aorist active indicative of \anabain\. It was up towards Jerusalem from every direction save from Hebron.

rwp@John:12:2 @{Songs:they made him a supper there} (\epoisan oun auti deipnon ekei\). Here again \oun\ is not inferential, but merely transitional. This supper is given by Mark (Mark:14:3-9|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6-13|) just two days (Mark:14:1|) before the passover, that is on our Tuesday evening (beginning of Jewish Wednesday), while John mentions (12:2-9|) it immediately after the arrival of Jesus in Bethany (12:1|). One must decide which date to follow. Mark and Matthew and Luke follow it with the visit of Judas to the Sanhedrin with an offer to betray Jesus as if exasperated by the rebuke by Jesus at the feast. Bernard considers that John "is here more probably accurate." It all turns on John's purpose in putting it here. This is the last mention of Jesus in Bethany and he may have mentioned it proleptically for that reason as seems to me quite reasonable. Westcott notes that in chapter 12 John closes his record of the public ministry of the Lord relative to the disciples at this feast (1-11|), to the multitude in the triumphal entry (12-19|), to the world outside in the visit of the Greeks (20-36a|), and with two summary judgements (36b-50|). There is no further reason to refer to the feast in the house of another Simon when a sinful woman anointed Jesus (Luke:7:36-50|). It is no credit to Luke or to John with Mark and Matthew to have them all making a jumble like that. There were two anointings by two absolutely different women for wholly different purposes. See the discussion on Luke for further details. {And Martha served} (\kai h Martha dikonei\). Imperfect active of \diakone\, picturing Martha true to the account of her in strkjv@Luke:10:40| (\polln diakonian\, \diakonein\ as here). But this fact does not show that Martha was the wife of this Simon at all. They were friends and neighbours and Martha was following her bent. It is Mark (Mark:14:3|) and Matthew (Matthew:26:6|) who mention the name of the host. It is not Simon the Pharisee (Luke:7:36|), but Simon the leper (Mark:14:3; strkjv@Matthew:26:6|) in whose house they meet. The name is common enough. The Simon in Luke was sharply critical of Jesus; this one is full of gratitude for what Jesus has done for him. {That sat at meat} (\tn anakeimenn\). "That lay back," reclined as they did, articular participle (ablative case after \ek\) of the common verb \anakeimai\. Perhaps Simon gave the feast partly in honour of Lazarus as well as of Jesus since all were now talking of both (John:12:9|). It was a gracious occasion. The guests were Jesus, the twelve apostles, and Martha, Mary, and Lazarus.

rwp@Luke:21:9 @{Be not terrified} (\m ptothte\). First aorist passive subjunctive with \m\ from \ptoe\ an old verb to terrify, from \ptoa\, terror. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:24:37|. {First} (\Prton\). It is so easy to forget this and to insist that the end is "immediately" in spite of Christ's explicit denial here. See strkjv@Matthew:24:4-42; strkjv@Mark:13:1-37| for discussion of details for strkjv@Luke:21:8-36|, the great eschatological discourse of Jesus

rwp@Matthew:24:29 @{Immediately} (\euthes\). This word, common in Mark's Gospel as \euthus\, gives trouble if one stresses the time element. The problem is how much time intervenes between "the tribulation of those days" and the vivid symbolism of verse 29|. The use of \en tachei\ in strkjv@Revelation:1:1| should make one pause before he decides. Here we have a prophetic panorama like that with foreshortened perspective. The apocalyptic pictures in verse 29| also call for sobriety of judgment. One may compare Joel's prophecy as interpreted by Peter in strkjv@Acts:21:16-22|. Literalism is not appropriate in this apocalyptic eschatology.