Bible:
Filter: String:

NT-EPISTLES.filter - rwp Abel:

rwp@1John:2:8 @{Again a new commandment} (\palin entoln kainn\). Paradox, but truth. Old in teaching (as old as the story of Cain and Abel, strkjv@3:11f.), but new in practice. For this use of \palin\ for a new turn see strkjv@John:16:28|. To walk as Christ walked is to put in practice the old commandment and so make it new (ever new and fresh), as love is as old as man and fresh in every new experience. {True in him and in you} (\althes en auti kai en humin\). This newness is shown supremely in Christ and in disciples when they walk as Jesus did (verse 6|). {Because} (\hoti\). Explanation of the paradox. {Is passing away} (\paragetai\). Present middle indicative of \parag\, old verb, to lead by, to go by (intransitive), as in strkjv@Matthew:20:30|. Night does pass by even if slowly. See this verb in verse 17| of the world passing by like a procession. {True} (\althinon\). Genuine, reliable, no false flicker. {Already shineth} (\d phainei\). Linear present active, "is already shining" and the darkness is already passing by. Dawn is here. Is John thinking of the second coming of Christ or of the victory of truth over error, of light over darkness (cf. strkjv@John:1:5-9|), the slow but sure victory of Christ over Satan as shown in the Apocalypse? See strkjv@1:5|.

rwp@1John:3:11 @{Message} (\aggelia\). In N.T. only here and strkjv@1:5|, but \epaggelia\ (promise) fifty-one times. {From the beginning} (\ap' archs\). See strkjv@1:1| for this phrase and strkjv@2:7| for the idea. They had the message of love for the brotherhood from the beginning of the gospel and it goes back to the time of Cain and Abel (verse 12|). {That we should love one another} (\hina agapmen alllous\). Sub-final clause (content of the \aggelia\) with \hina\ and present active subjunctive. John repeats the message of strkjv@2:7f|.

rwp@Hebrews:11:4 @{A more excellent sacrifice} (\pleiona thusian\). Literally, "more sacrifice" (comparative of \polus\, much). For this rather free use of \plein\ with the point implied rather than stated see strkjv@Matthew:6:25; strkjv@Luke:10:31; strkjv@12:23; strkjv@Hebrews:3:3|. {Than Cain} (\para Kain\). For this use of \para\ after comparative see strkjv@1:4,9|. For the incident see strkjv@Genesis:4:4|. {Through which} (\di' hs\). The sacrifice (\thusia\). {He had Witness borne to him} (\emarturth\). First aorist passive indicative of \marture\ as in verse 2|, "he was witnessed to." {That he was righteous} (\einai dikaios\). Infinitive in indirect discourse after \emarturth\, personal construction of \dikaios\ (predicate nominative after \einai\) agreeing with the subject of \emarturth\ (cf. strkjv@Romans:1:22|, \einai sophoi\). {God bearing witness} (\marturountos tou theou\). Genitive absolute with present active participle of \marture\. {Through it} (\di' auts\). Through his faith (as shown by his sacrifice). Precisely why Abel's sacrifice was better than that of Cain apart from his faith is not shown. {Being dead} (\apothann\). Second aorist active participle of \apothnsk\, "having died." {Yet speaketh} (\eti lalei\). Cf. strkjv@Genesis:4:10; strkjv@Hebrews:12:24|. Speaks still through his faith.

rwp@Hebrews:11:32 @{And what shall I more say?} (\Kai ti eti leg;\). Deliberative present active subjunctive (same form as indicative, \leg\). It is both a literary and an oratorical idiom here. He feels helpless to go on in the same style as he has done from Abel to Rahab (11:4-31|). {Will fail me if I tell about} (\epileipsei me digoumenon peri\). Literally, "will leave me telling about." Present middle participle of \digeomai\, to lead through, carry a discussion through, and masculine (disposing of Priscilla as possible author) with \me\. Vivid and picturesque description of the author's embarrassment of riches as he contemplates the long list of the heroes of faith during the long years in Palestine. He mentions six names (Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephtha, David, Samuel) and then summarizes the rest under "the prophets" (\tn prophtn\, the for-speakers for God) of whom Samuel was the leader.

rwp@John:10:30 @{One} (\hen\). Neuter, not masculine (\heis\). Not one person (cf. \heis\ in strkjv@Galatians:3:28|), but one essence or nature. By the plural \sumus\ (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by \unum\ Arius. Songs:Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father (John:5:18|). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (5:19-30|). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (17:11, 21|). Note \hen\ used in strkjv@1Corinthians:3:3| of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in strkjv@17:11,23| of the hoped for unity of Christ's disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ's claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son). They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger.

rwp@Luke:3:23 @{Jesus Himself} (\autos Isous\). Emphatic intensive pronoun calling attention to the personality of Jesus at this juncture. When he entered upon his Messianic work. {When he began to teach} (\archomenos\). The words "to teach" are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version "began to be about thirty years of age," is an impossible translation. The Revised Version rightly supplies "to teach" (\didaskein\) after the present participle \archomenos\. Either the infinitive or the participle can follow \archomai\, usually the infinitive in the _Koin_. It is not necessary to supply anything (Acts:1:22|). {Was about thirty years of age} (\n hsei etn triakonta\). Tyndale has it right "Jesus was about thirty yere of age when he beganne." Luke does not commit himself definitely to precisely thirty years as the age of Christ. The Levites entered upon full service at that age, but that proves nothing about Jesus. God's prophets enter upon their task when the word of God comes to them. Jesus may have been a few months under or over thirty or a year or two less or more. {Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli} (\n huios hs enomizeto Isph tou Helei\). For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus see on ¯Matthew:1:1-17|. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to "Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ" (Matthew:1:16|). Matthew employs the word "begot" each time, while Luke has the article \tou\ repeating \huiou\ (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that "Jacob begat Joseph" while Luke calls "Joseph the son of Heli." There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase "as was supposed" (\hs enomizeto\). His own narrative in strkjv@Luke:1:26-38| has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, \huios\ must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses "begat" for descent, so does Luke employ "son" in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in strkjv@Matthew:1:16,18-25| that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds "the Son of God" after Adam (3:38|). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception.

rwp@Luke:11:51 @{From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zachariah} (\apo haimatos Abel hes haimatos Zachariou\). The blood of Abel is the first shed in the Old Testament (Genesis:4:10|), that of Zacharias the last in the O.T. canon which ended with Chronicles (2Chronicles:24:22|). Chronologically the murder of Uriah by Jehoiakim was later (Jeremiah:26:23|), but this climax is from Genesis to II Chronicles (the last book in the canon). See on ¯Matthew:23:35| for discussion of Zachariah as "the son of Barachiah" rather than "the son of Jehoiada." {Between the altar and the sanctuary} (\metaxu tou thusiastriou kai tou oikou\). Literally, between the altar and the house (Matthew:23:35| has temple, \naou\).

rwp@Matthew:23:35 @{Zachariah son of Barachiah} (\Zachariou huiou Barachiou\). Broadus gives well the various alternatives in understanding and explaining the presence of "son of Barachiah" here which is not in strkjv@Luke:11:51|. The usual explanation is that the reference is to Zachariah the son of Jehoiada the priest who was slain in the court of the temple (2Chronicles:24:20ff.|). How the words, "son of Barachiah," got into Matthew we do not know. A half-dozen possibilities can be suggested. In the case of Abel a reckoning for the shedding of his blood was foretold (Genesis:4:10|) and the same thing was true of the slaying of Zachariah (2Chronicles:24:22|).

rwp@Revelation:11:4 @{The two olive trees} (\hai duo elaiai\). The article seems to point to what is known. For this original use of \elaia\ see strkjv@Romans:11:17,24|. In strkjv@Zechariah:4:2,3,14| the lampstand or candlestick (\luchnia\) is Israel, and the two olive trees apparently Joshua and Zerubbabel, but John makes his own use of this symbolism. Here the two olive trees and the candlesticks are identical. {Standing} (\hesttes\). Masculine perfect active participle agreeing with \houtoi\ instead of \hestsai\ (read by P and cursives) agreeing with \elaiai kai luchniai\, even though \hai\ (feminine plural article) be accepted before \enpion tou kuriou\ (before the Lord).