[pBiblx2]
Home
rwp
Chap
OT
NT
INDX
?
Help

Gen
Exo
Lev
Num
Deu
Jos
Jud
Rut
1Sam
2Sam
1Ki
2Ki
1Ch
2Ch
Ezr
Neh
Est
Job
Psa
Pro
Ecc
Son
Isa
Jer
Lam
Eze
Dan
Hos
Amo
Oba
Jon
Mic
Nah
Hab
Zep
Hag
Zac
Mal
TOP

Mat
Mar
Luk
Joh
Act
Rom
1Co
2Ch
Gal
Eph
Phi
Col
1Th
2Th
1Ti
2Ti
Tit
Ph
Heb
Jam
1Pe
2Pe
1Jo
2Jo
3Jo
Jud
Rev
TOP

KJV
NKJV
RSV
ALL
TOP

AAA
BBB
CCC
DDD
EEE
FFF
GGG
HHH
III
JJJ
KKK
LLL
MMM
NNN
OOO
PPP
QQQ
RRR
SSS
TTT
UUU
VVV
WWW
XXX
YYY
ZZZ

TOP
Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp sentiment:



rwp@2Corinthians:7:4 @{I overflow with joy in all our affliction} (\huperperisseuomai tˆi charƒi epi pƒsˆi tˆi thlipsei hˆm“n\). A thoroughly Pauline sentiment. \Perisseu“\ means to overflow, as we have seen. \Huper-perisseu“\ (late word, so far only here and Byzantine writers) is to have a regular flood. Vulgate _superabundo_.

rwp@Acts:15:21 @{For Moses} (\M“usˆs gar\). A reason why these four necessary things (verse 28|) are named. In every city are synagogues where rabbis proclaim (\kˆrussontas\) these matters. Hence the Gentile Christians would be giving constant offence to neglect them. The only point where modern Christian sentiment would object would be about "things strangled" and "blood" in the sense of any blood left in the animals, though most Christians probably agree with the feeling of James in objecting to blood in the food. If "blood" is taken to be "murder," that difficulty vanishes. Moses will suffer no loss for these Gentile Christians are not adherents of Judaism.

rwp@Matthew:26:8 @{This waste} (\hˆ ap“leia hautˆ\). Dead loss (\ap“leia\) they considered it, nothing but sentimental aroma. It was a cruel shock to Mary of Bethany to hear this comment. Matthew does not tell as John does (John:12:4|) that it was Judas who made the point which the rest endorsed. Mark explains that they mentioned "three hundred pence," while Matthew (26:9|) only says "for much" (\pollou\).

rwp@Matthew:26:28 @{The Covenant} (\tˆs diathˆkˆs\). The adjective \kainˆs\ in Textus Receptus is not genuine. The covenant is an agreement or contract between two (\dia, duo, thˆke\, from \tithˆmi\). It is used also for will (Latin, _testamentum_) which becomes operative at death (Hebrews:9:15-17|). Hence our _New Testament_. Either covenant or will makes sense here. Covenant is the idea in strkjv@Hebrews:7:22; strkjv@8:8| and often. In the Hebrew to make a covenant was to cut up the sacrifice and so ratify the agreement (Genesis:15:9-18|). Lightfoot argues that the word \diathˆke\ means covenant in the N.T. except in strkjv@Hebrews:9:15-17|. Jesus here uses the solemn words of strkjv@Exodus:24:8| "the blood of the covenant" at Sinai. "My blood of the covenant" is in contrast with that. This is the New Covenant of strkjv@Jeremiah:31; strkjv@Hebrews:8|. {Which is shed for many} (\to peri poll“n ekchunnomenon\). A prophetic present passive participle. The act is symbolized by the ordinance. Cf. the purpose of Christ expressed in strkjv@20:28|. There \anti\ and here \peri\. {Unto remission of sins} (\eis aphesin hamarti“n\). This clause is in Matthew alone but it is not to be restricted for that reason. It is the truth. This passage answers all the modern sentimentalism that finds in the teaching of Jesus only pious ethical remarks or eschatological dreamings. He had the definite conception of his death on the cross as the basis of forgiveness of sin. The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins.

rwp@Matthew:27:4 @{See thou to it} (\su opsˆi\). Judas made a belated confession of his sin in betraying innocent blood to the Sanhedrin, but not to God, nor to Jesus. The Sanhedrin ignore the innocent or righteous blood (\haima ath“ion\ or \dikaion\) and tell Judas to look after his own guilt himself. They ignore also their own guilt in the matter. The use of \su opsˆi\ as a volitive future, an equivalent of the imperative, is commoner in Latin (_tu videris_) than in Greek, though the _Koin‚_ shows it also. The sentiment is that of Cain (Grotius, Bruce).

rwp@Romans:8:21 @{The creation itself} (\autˆ hˆ ktisis\). It is the hope of creation, not of the Creator. Nature "possesses in the feeling of her unmerited suffering a sort of presentiment of her future deliverance" (Godet).