Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp prohibitions:

rwp@Galatians:3:19 @{What then is the law?} (\ti oun ho nomos?\). Or, why then the law? A pertinent question if the Abrahamic promise antedates it and holds on afterwards. {It was added because of transgressions} (\tn parabasen charin proseteth\). First aorist passive of \prostithmi\, old verb to add to. It is only in apparent contradiction to verses 15ff.|, because in Paul's mind the law is no part of the covenant, but a thing apart "in no way modifying its provisions" (Burton). \Charin\ is the adverbial accusative of \charis\ which was used as a preposition with the genitive as early as Homer, in favour of, for the sake of. Except in strkjv@1John:3:12| it is post-positive in the N.T. as in ancient Greek. It may be causal (Luke:7:47; strkjv@1John:3:12|) or telic (Titus:1:5,11; strkjv@Jude:1:16|). It is probably also telic here, not in order to create transgressions, but rather "to make transgressions palpable" (Ellicott), "thereby pronouncing them to be from that time forward transgressions of the law" (Rendall). \Parabasis\, from \parabain\, is in this sense a late word (Plutarch on), originally a slight deviation, then a wilful disregarding of known regulations or prohibitions as in strkjv@Romans:2:23|. {Till the seed should come} (\achris an elthi to sperma\). Future time with \achris an\ and aorist subjunctive (usual construction). Christ he means by \to sperma\ as in verse 16|. {The promise hath been made} (\epggeltai\). Probably impersonal perfect passive rather than middle of \epaggellomai\ as in II Macc. strkjv@4:27. {Ordained through angels} (\diatageis di' aggeln\). Second aorist passive participle of \diatass\ (see on ¯Matthew:11:1|). About angels and the giving of the law see on strkjv@Deuteronomy:33:2| (LXX); strkjv@Acts:7:38,52; strkjv@Hebrews:2:2|; Josephus (_Ant_. XV. 5. 3). {By the hand of a mediator} (\en cheiri mesitou\). \En cheiri\ is a manifest Aramaism or Hebraism and only here in the N.T. It is common in the LXX. \Mesits\, from \mesos\ is middle or midst, is a late word (Polybius, Diodorus, Philo, Josephus) and common in the papyri in legal transactions for arbiter, surety, etc. Here of Moses, but also of Christ (1Timothy:2:5; strkjv@Hebrews:8:6; strkjv@9:15; strkjv@12:24|).

rwp@Matthew:10:26 @{Fear them not therefore} (\m oun phobthte autous\). Repeated in verses 28| and 31| (\m phobeisthe\ present middle imperative here in contrast with aorist passive subjunctive in the preceding prohibitions). Note also the accusative case with the aorist passive subjunctive, transitive though passive. See same construction in strkjv@Luke:12:5|. In strkjv@Matthew:10:28| the construction is with \apo\ and the ablative, a translation Hebraism as in strkjv@Luke:12:4| (Robertson, _Grammar of the Greek N.T. in the Light of Historical Research_, p. 577).

rwp@Romans:5:20 @{Came in beside} (\pareislthen\). Second aorist active indicative of double compound \pareiserchomai\, late verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Galatians:2:4| which see. See also \eislthen\ in verse 12|. The Mosaic law came into this state of things, in between Adam and Christ. {That the trespass might abound} (\hina pleonasi to paraptma\). It is usual to explain \hina\ here as final, as God's ultimate purpose. Songs:Denney who refers to strkjv@Galatians:3:19ff.; strkjv@Romans:7:7f|. But Chrysostom explains \hina\ here as \ekbasis\ (result). This is a proper use of \hina\ in the _Koin_ as we have seen. If we take it so here, the meaning is "so that the trespass abounded" (aorist active subjunctive of \pleonas\, late verb, see on ¯2Thessalonians:1:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:15|). This was the actual effect of the Mosaic law for the Jews, the necessary result of all prohibitions. {Did abound more exceedingly} (\hupereperisseusen\). First aorist active indicative of \huperperisseu\. Late verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:7:4| which see. A strong word. If \pleonaz\ is comparative (\pleon\) \perisseu\ is superlative (Lightfoot) and then \huperperisseu\ goes the superlative one better. See \huperpleonaz\ in strkjv@1Timothy:1:14|. The flood of grace surpassed the flood of sin, great as that was (and is).

rwp@Romans:7:7 @{Is the law sin?} (\ho nomos hamartia?\). A pertinent query in view of what he had said. Some people today oppose all inhibitions and prohibitions because they stimulate violations. That is half-baked thinking. {I had not known sin} (\tn hamartian ouk egnn\). Second aorist indicative of \ginsk\, to know. It is a conclusion of a second class condition, determined as unfulfilled. Usually \an\ is used in the conclusion to make it plain that it is second class condition instead of first class, but occasionally it is not employed when it is plain enough without as here (John:16:22,24|). See on ¯Galatians:4:15|. Songs:as to {I had not known coveting} (lust), \epithumian ouk idein\. But all the same the law is not itself sin nor the cause of sin. Men with their sinful natures turn law into an occasion for sinful acts.