KJV: Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
YLT: 'Wherefore do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they do not wash their hands when they may eat bread.'
Darby: Why do thy disciples transgress what has been delivered by the ancients? for they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.
ASV: Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
| Διὰ | Because of |
|
Parse: Preposition Root: διά Sense: through. |
|
| τί | why |
|
Parse: Interrogative / Indefinite Pronoun, Accusative Neuter Singular Root: τίς Sense: who, which, what. |
|
| μαθηταί | disciples |
|
Parse: Noun, Nominative Masculine Plural Root: μαθητής Sense: a learner, pupil, disciple. |
|
| σου | of You |
|
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Genitive 2nd Person Singular Root: σύ Sense: you. |
|
| παραβαίνουσιν | break |
|
Parse: Verb, Present Indicative Active, 3rd Person Plural Root: παραβαίνω Sense: to go by the side of. |
|
| παράδοσιν | tradition |
|
Parse: Noun, Accusative Feminine Singular Root: παράδοσις Sense: giving up, giving over. |
|
| τῶν | of the |
|
Parse: Article, Genitive Masculine Plural Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
| πρεσβυτέρων | elders |
|
Parse: Adjective, Genitive Masculine Plural Root: πρεσβύτερος Sense: elder, of age,. |
|
| νίπτονται | they wash |
|
Parse: Verb, Present Indicative Middle, 3rd Person Plural Root: νίπτω Sense: to wash. |
|
| χεῖρας | hands |
|
Parse: Noun, Accusative Feminine Plural Root: χείρ Sense: by the help or agency of any one, by means of any one. |
|
| ‹αὐτῶν› | of them |
|
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Genitive Masculine 3rd Person Plural Root: αὐτός Sense: himself, herself, themselves, itself. |
|
| ἄρτον | bread |
|
Parse: Noun, Accusative Masculine Singular Root: ἄρτος Sense: food composed of flour mixed with water and baked. |
|
| ἐσθίωσιν | they shall eat |
|
Parse: Verb, Present Subjunctive Active, 3rd Person Plural Root: ἐσθίω Sense: to eat. |
|
Greek Commentary for Matthew 15:2
This was the oral law, handed down by the elders of the past in ex cathedra fashion and later codified in the Mishna. Handwashing before meals is not a requirement of the Old Testament. It is, we know, a good thing for sanitary reasons, but the rabbis made it a mark of righteousness for others at any rate. This item was magnified at great length in the oral teaching. The washing So it went on ad infinitum. Thus a real issue is raised between Jesus and the rabbis. It was far more than a point of etiquette or of hygienics. The rabbis held it to be a mortal sin. The incident may have happened in a Pharisee‘s house. [source]
Washing before meals was alone regarded as a commandment; washing after meals only as a duty. By and by the more rigorous actually washed between the courses, although this was declared to be purely voluntary. The distinctive designation for washing after meals was the lifting of the hands; while for washing before meat a term was used which meant, literally, to rub. If “holy,” i.e., sacrificial food was to be partaken of, a complete immersion of the hands, and not a mere “uplifting” was prescribed. As the purifications were so frequent, and care had to be taken that the water had not been used for other purposes, or something fallen into it that might discolor or defile it, large vessels or jars were generally kept for the purpose (see John 2:6). It was the practice to draw water out of these with a kind of ladle or bucket - very often of glass - which must hold at least one and a half egg-shells (compare draw out now, John 2:8). The water was poured on both hands, which must be free of anything covering them, such as gravel, mortar, etc. The hands were lifted up so as to make the water run to the wrist, in order to insure that the whole hand was washed, and that the water polluted by the hand did not again run down the fingers. Similarly, each hand was rubbed with the other (the fist), provided the hand that rubbed had been affused; otherwise, the rubbing might be done against the head, or even against a wall. But there was one point on which special stress was laid. In the “first affusion,” which was all that originally was required when the hands were not levitically “defiled,” the water had to run down to the wrist. If the water remained short of the wrist, the hands were not clean. See Mark 7:3 (Edersheim, “Life and Times of Jesus”). [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for Matthew 15:2
Diminutive: little dogs. In Matthew 15:27, Wyc. renders the little whelps, and Tynd., in both verses, whelPsalms The picture is of a family meal, with the pet house-dogs running round the table. [source]
With a loud, importunate cry: from behind. Compare after, Matthew 15:23. [source]
In a Roman centurion and greater than in any of the Jews. In like manner Jesus marvelled at the great faith of the Canaanitish woman (Matthew 15:28). [source]
Very touching. The father identifies himself with the son's misery. Compare the Syro-Phoenician, who makes her daughter's case entirely her own: “Have mercy on me” (Matthew 15:22). [source]
Diminutive. See on Matthew 15:26. [source]
See on Matthew 15:26. This would indicate that the little dogs were pet dogs of the children, their masters. [source]
Instrumental case, with the fist, up to the elbow, rubbing one hand and arm with the other hand clenched. Aleph had πυκνα pukna probably because of the difficulty about πυγμηι pugmēi (kin to Latin pugnus). Schultess considers it a dry wash or rubbing of the hands without water as a ritualistic concession. The middle voice νιπσωνται nipsōntai means their own hands. This verb is often used for parts of the body while λουω louō is used of the whole body (John 13:10). On the tradition of the elders see note on Matthew 15:2. [source]
The departure from Capernaum was a withdrawal from Galilee, the second of the four withdrawals from Galilee. The first had been to the region of Bethsaida Julias in the territory of Herod Philip. This is into distinctly heathen land. It was not merely the edge of Phoenicia, but into the parts of Tyre and Sidon (Matthew 15:21). There was too much excitement among the people, too much bitterness among the Pharisees, too much suspicion on the part of Herod Antipas, too much dulness on the part of the disciples for Jesus to remain in Galilee. [source]
The Jews had the first claim. See the command of Jesus in the third tour of Galilee to avoid the Gentiles and the Samaritans (Matthew 10:5). Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, but he gave the Jew the first opportunity (Romans 2:9.). See note on Matthew 15:24. [source]
She had faith, great faith as Matthew 15:28 shows, but it was her quick and bright repartee that pleased Jesus. He had missed his rest, but it was worth it to answer a call like this. [source]
Matthew 15:39 calls it “the borders of Magadan.” Both names are unknown elsewhere, but apparently the same region of Galilee on the western side of the lake not far from Tiberias. Mark here uses “parts” (μερη merē) in the same sense as “borders” (ορια horia) in Mark 7:24 just as Matthew reverses it with “parts” in Matthew 15:21 and “borders” here in Matthew 15:39. Mark has here “with his disciples” (μετα των ματητων αυτου meta tōn mathētōn autou) only implied in Matthew 15:39. [source]
Ingressive aorist imperative. Do it now. With touching tenderness he makes the boy‘s case his own as the Syrophoenician woman had said, “Have mercy on me” (Matthew 15:21). The leper had said: “If thou wilt” (Mark 1:40). This father says: “If thou canst.” [source]
Too strong. Better asking, as Rev. The word to beseech ( παρακαλέω ) occurs in the next verse. See on Matthew 15:23. [source]
See on Matthew 15:23. Compare Matthew 5:42. [source]
A stronger word than ἐβόησεν , cried, in the previous verse, which is merely to cry or shout, while this is to cry clamorously; to scream or shriek. Compare Matthew 15:23; Mark 5:5; Acts 19:28-34. [source]
See on besought, Matthew 15:23. [source]
Only here in New Testament. A very striking word to describe persistence. Lit., shamelessn ess. As related to prayer, it is illustrated in the case of Abraham's intercession for Sodom (Genesis 18:23-33); and of the Syro-Phoenician woman (Matthew 15:22-28). [source]
From αναιδης anaidēs shameless, and that from α a privative and αιδως aidōs shame, shamelessness, impudence. An old word, but here alone in the N.T. Examples in the papyri. The use of γε ge here, one of the intensive particles, is to be noted. It sharpens the contrast to “though” by “yet.” As examples of importunate prayer Vincent notes Abraham in behalf of Sodom (Genesis 18:23-33) and the Syro-Phoenician woman in behalf of her daughter (Matthew 15:22-28). [source]
Δια Dia and the accusative articular infinitive with accusative of general reference, a causal clause= “because of the being a friend of his.”Yet because of his importunity (δια γε την αναιδιαν αυτου dia ge tēn anaidian autou). From αναιδης anaidēs shameless, and that from α a privative and αιδως aidōs shame, shamelessness, impudence. An old word, but here alone in the N.T. Examples in the papyri. The use of γε ge here, one of the intensive particles, is to be noted. It sharpens the contrast to “though” by “yet.” As examples of importunate prayer Vincent notes Abraham in behalf of Sodom (Genesis 18:23-33) and the Syro-Phoenician woman in behalf of her daughter (Matthew 15:22-28). [source]
See on Matthew 15:23. [source]
Peculiarly of a loud, importunate cry; a shout. Plato uses it of the howling of a dog: “The yelping hound, howling ( κραυγάζουσα ) at her Lord” (“Republic,” 607). Others, of the cries of spectators in the theaters and of the croak of a raven. See on Matthew 15:22. [source]
The verb αἰτέω is used of the asking of an inferior from a superior. Ἑρωτάω is to ask on equal terms, and hence is always used by Christ of His own asking from the Father, in the consciousness of His equal dignity. Hence Martha, as Trench observes, “plainly reveals her poor, unworthy conception of His person, that she recognizes in Him no more than a prophet, when she ascribes that asking ( αἰτεῖσθαι ) to Him which He never ascribes to Himself” (“Synonyms”). Bengel says: “Martha did not speak in Greek, yet John expresses her inaccurate remark, which the Lord kindly tolerated.” See on Matthew 15:23. [source]
Literally, in order that they should ask. See on Matthew 15:23. [source]
Neuter plural, “unto his own things,” the very idiom used in John 19:27 when the Beloved Disciple took the mother of Jesus “to his own home.” The world was “the own home” of the Logos who had made it. See also John 16:32; Acts 21:6. They that were his own In the narrower sense, “his intimates,” “his own family,” “his own friends” as in John 13:1. Jesus later said that a prophet is not without honour save in his own country (Mark 6:4; John 4:44), and the town of Nazareth where he lived rejected him (Luke 4:28.; Matthew 13:58). Probably here οι ιδιοι hoi idioi means the Jewish people, the chosen people to whom Christ was sent first (Matthew 15:24), but in a wider sense the whole world is included in οι ιδιοι hoi idioi Conder‘s The Hebrew Tragedy emphasizes the pathos of the situation that the house of Israel refused to welcome the Messiah when he did come, like a larger and sadder Enoch Arden experience. Received him not Second aorist active indicative of παραλαμβανω paralambanō old verb to take to one‘s side, common verb to welcome, the very verb used by Jesus in John 14:3 of the welcome to his Father‘s house. Cf. κατελαβεν katelaben in John 1:5. Israel slew the Heir (Hebrews 1:2) when he came, like the wicked husbandmen (Luke 20:14). [source]
Cf. Acts 17:23. “You know whom to worship, but you do not know him” (Westcott). The Samaritans rejected the prophets and the Psalms and so cut themselves off from the fuller knowledge of God. We We Jews. Jesus is a Jew as he fully recognizes (Matthew 15:24). That which we know Neuter singular relative as before. The Jews, as the chosen people, had fuller revelations of God (Psalm 147:19.; Romans 9:3-5). But even so the Jews as a whole failed to recognize God in Christ (John 1:11, John 1:26; John 7:28). For salvation is from the Jews “The salvation,” the Messianic salvation which had long been the hope and guiding star of the chosen people (Luke 1:69, Luke 1:71, Luke 1:77; Acts 13:26, Acts 13:47). It was for the whole world (John 3:17), but it comes “out of” (εκ ek) the Jews. This tremendous fact should never be forgotten, however unworthy the Jews may have proved of their privilege. The Messiah, God‘s Son, was a Jew. [source]
Vex is used in the older and stronger sense of torment or oppress. See Exodus 22:21; Numbers 25:17; Matthew 15:22. Its modern usage relates rather to petty annoyances. Rev., better, afflict. [source]
Not principally, nor in preference to the Greek; but first in point of time. Compare John 4:22; Romans 3:1; Romans 9:1; Matthew 15:24. [source]
Hold down as in 1 Corinthians 15:2. Παραδοσις Paradosis (tradition) from παραδιδωμι paradidōmi (παρεδωκα paredōka first aorist active indicative) is an old word and merely something handed on from one to another. The thing handed on may be bad as in Matthew 15:2. (which see) and contrary to the will of God (Mark 7:8.) or it may be wholly good as here. There is a constant conflict between the new and the old in science, medicine, law, theology. The obscurantist rejects all the new and holds to the old both true and untrue. New truth must rest upon old truth and is in harmony with it. [source]
Lit. sinners taken from the Gentiles, or sprung from. Sinners, in the conventional Jewish sense; born heathen, and as such sinners; not implying that Jews are not sinners. The Jew regarded the Gentile as impure, and styled him a dog (Matthew 15:27). See Romans 2:12; 1 Corinthians 6:1; 1 Corinthians 9:21; Ephesians 2:12; Luke 18:32; Luke 24:7. Possibly Paul here cites the very words by which Peter sought to justify his separation from the Gentile Christians, and takes up these words in order to draw from them an opposite conclusion. This is quite according to Paul's habit. [source]
A strong word, expressing deep emotion. The verb originally represents the sound of a croak or harsh scream; thence, generally, an inarticulate cry; an exclamation of fear or pain. The cry of an animal. So Aristoph. Knights, 1017, of the barking of a dog: 285,287, of two men in a quarrel, trying to bawl each other down: Frogs, 258, of the croaking of frogs. This original sense appears in N.T. usage, as Matthew 14:26; Matthew 15:23; Matthew 27:50; Mark 5:5, etc., and is recognized even where the word is used in connection with articulate speech, by adding to it the participles λέγων, λέγοντες sayingor διδάσκων teachingSee Matthew 8:29; Matthew 15:22; Mark 3:11; John 7:28, etc. In Mark 10:47the inarticulate cry and the articulate utterance are distinguished. At the same time, the word is often used of articulate speech without such additions, as Mark 10:48; Mark 11:9; Mark 15:13, Mark 15:14; Luke 18:39; Acts 7:60; Acts 19:34; Romans 8:15. It falls into more dignified association in lxx, where it is often used of prayer or appeal to God, as 4:3; 6:7; Psalm 21:2,5; 27:1,54:16; and in N.T., where it is applied to solemn, prophetic utterance, as Romans href="/desk/?q=ro+9:27&sr=1">Romans 9:27; John 1:15, and is used of Jesus himself, as John 7:28, John 7:37; John 12:44, and of the Holy Spirit, as here. The Spirit gives the inspiration of which the believer is the organ. In Romans 8:15the statement is inverted. The believer cries under the power of the Spirit. [source]
The Pharisaic traditions which had been engrafted on the law. See Matthew 15:2, Matthew 15:6; Mark 7:3, Mark 7:13, and on 2 Thessalonians 2:15. [source]
Rev., correctly, the dogs, referring to a well-known party - the Judaizers. These were nominally Christians who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but as the Savior of Israel only. They insisted that Christ's kingdom could be entered only through the gate of Judaism. Only circumcised converts were fully accepted by God. They appeared quite early in the history of the Church, and are those referred to in Acts 15:1. Paul was the object of their special hatred and abuse. They challenged his birth, his authority, and his motives. “'Paul must be destroyed,' was as truly their watchword as the cry for the destruction of Carthage had been of old to the Roman senator” (Stanley, “Sermons and Lectures on the Apostolic Age”). These are referred to in Phlippians 1:16; and the whole passage in the present chapter, from Phlippians 3:3to Phlippians 3:11, is worthy of study, being full of incidental hints lurking in single words, and not always apparent in our versions; hints which, while they illustrate the main point of the discussion, are also aimed at the assertions of the Judaizers. Dogs was a term of reproach among both Greeks and Jews. Homer uses it of both women and men, implying shamelessness in the one, and recklessness in the other. Thus Helen: “Brother-in-law of me, a mischief devising dog” (“Iliad,” vi., 344). Teucer of Hector: “I cannot hit this raging dog” (“Iliad,” viii., 298). Dr. Thomson says of the dogs in oriental towns: “They lie about the streets in such numbers as to render it difficult and often dangerous to pick one's way over and amongst them - a lean, hungry, and sinister brood. They have no owners, but upon some principle known only to themselves, they combine into gangs, each of which assumes jurisdiction over a particular street; and they attack with the utmost ferocity all canine intruders into their territory. In those contests, and especially during the night, they keep up an incessant barking and howling, such as is rarely heard in any European city. The imprecations of David upon his enemies derive their significance, therefore, from this reference to one of the most odious of oriental annoyances” (“Land and Book,” Central palestine and Phoenicia, 593). See Psalm 59:6; Psalm 22:16. Being unclean animals, dogs were used to denote what was unholy or profane. So Matthew 7:6; Revelation 22:15. The Israelites are forbidden in Deuteronomy to bring the price of a dog into the house of God for any vow: Deuteronomy 23:18. The Gentiles of the Christian era were denominated “dogs” by the Jews, see Matthew 15:26. Paul here retorts upon them their own epithet. [source]
For glory see on 1 Thessalonians 2:12. Ἱσχὺς powernot often in Paul. It is indwelling power put forth or embodied, either aggressively or as an obstacle to resistance: physical power organized or working under individual direction. An army and a fortress are both ἰσχυρὸς. The power inhering in the magistrate, which is put forth in laws or judicial decisions, is ἰσχὺς , and makes the edicts ἰσχυρὰ validand hard to resist. Δύναμις is the indwelling power which comes to manifestation in ἰσχὺς The precise phrase used here does not appear elsewhere in N.T. In lxx, Isaiah 2:10, Isaiah 2:19, Isaiah 2:21. The power ( δύναμις ) and glory of God are associated in Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27; Revelation 4:11; Revelation 19:1. Comp. κράτος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ strengthof his glory, Colossians 1:11. Additional Note on ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον eternaldestruction, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 Ἁιών transliterated eon is a period of time of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. Aristotle ( περὶ οὐρανοῦ , i. 9,15) says: “The period which includes the whole time of each one's life is called the eon of each one.” Hence it often means the life of a man, as in Homer, where one's life ( αἰών ) is said to leave him or to consume away (Il. v. 685; Od. v. 160). It is not, however, limited to human life; it signifies any period in the course of events, as the period or age before Christ; the period of the millennium; the mytho-logical period before the beginnings of history. The word has not “a stationary and mechanical value” (De Quincey). It does not mean a period of a fixed length for all cases. There are as many eons as entities, the respective durations of which are fixed by the normal conditions of the several entities. There is one eon of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow's life, another of an oak's life. The length of the eon depends on the subject to which it is attached. It is sometimes translated world; world representing a period or a series of periods of time. See Matthew 12:32; Matthew 13:40, Matthew 13:49; Luke 1:70; 1 Corinthians 1:20; 1 Corinthians 2:6; Ephesians 1:21. Similarly οἱ αἰῶνες theworlds, the universe, the aggregate of the ages or periods, and their contents which are included in the duration of the world. 1 Corinthians 2:7; 1 Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 11:3. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting. To deduce that meaning from its relation to ἀεί is absurd; for, apart from the fact that the meaning of a word is not definitely fixed by its derivation, ἀεί does not signify endless duration. When the writer of the Pastoral Epistles quotes the saying that the Cretans are always ( ἀεί ) liars (Titus 1:12), he surely does not mean that the Cretans will go on lying to all eternity. See also Acts 7:51; 2 Corinthians 4:11; 2 Corinthians 6:10; Hebrews 3:10; 1 Peter 3:15. Ἁεί means habitually or continually within the limit of the subject's life. In our colloquial dialect everlastingly is used in the same way. “The boy is everlastingly tormenting me to buy him a drum.”-DIVIDER- In the New Testament the history of the world is conceived as developed through a succession of eons. A series of such eons precedes the introduction of a new series inaugurated by the Christian dispensation, and the end of the world and the second coming of Christ are to mark the beginning of another series. See Ephesians 3:11. Paul contemplates eons before and after the Christian era. Ephesians 1:21; Ephesians 2:7; Ephesians 3:9, Ephesians 3:21; 1 Corinthians 10:11; comp. Hebrews 9:26. He includes the series of eons in one great eon, ὁ αἰὼν τῶν αἰώνων theeon of the eons (Ephesians 3:21); and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews describes the throne of God as enduring unto the eon of the eons (Hebrews 1:8). The plural is also used, eons of the eons, signifying all the successive periods which make up the sum total of the ages collectively. Romans 16:27; Galatians 1:5; Philemon 4:20, etc. This plural phrase is applied by Paul to God only. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The adjective αἰώνιος in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting. They may acquire that sense by their connotation, as, on the other hand, ἀΐ̀διος , which means everlasting, has its meaning limited to a given point of time in Judges 1:6. Ἁιώνιος means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods. Thus the phrase εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα , habitually rendered forever, is often used of duration which is limited in the very nature of the case. See, for a few out of many instances, lxx, Exodus 21:6; Exodus 29:9; Exodus 32:13; Joshua 14:9; 1 Samuel 8:13; Leviticus 25:46; Deuteronomy 15:17; 1 Chronicles 28:4. See also Matthew 21:19; John 13:8; 1 Corinthians 8:13. The same is true of αἰώνιος . Out of 150 instances in lxx, four-fifths imply limited duration. For a few instances see Genesis 48:4; Numbers 10:8; Numbers 15:15; Proverbs 22:28; Jonah 2:6; Habakkuk 3:6; Isaiah 61:8. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Words which are habitually applied to things temporal or material can not carry in themselves the sense of endlessness. Even when applied to God, we are not forced to render αἰώνιος everlastingOf course the life of God is endless; but the question is whether, in describing God as αἰώνιος , it was intended to describe the duration of his being, or whether some different and larger idea was not contemplated. That God lives longer than men, and lives on everlastingly, and has lived everlastingly, are, no doubt, great and significant facts; yet they are not the dominant or the most impressive facts in God's relations to time. God's eternity does not stand merely or chiefly for a scale of length. It is not primarily a mathematical but a moral fact. The relations of God to time include and imply far more than the bare fact of endless continuance. They carry with them the fact that God transcends time; works on different principles and on a vaster scale than the wisdom of time provides; oversteps the conditions and the motives of time; marshals the successive eons from a point outside of time, on lines which run out into his own measureless cycles, and for sublime moral ends which the creature of threescore and ten years cannot grasp and does not even suspect. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- There is a word for everlasting if that idea is demanded. That αἰώνιος occurs rarely in the New Testament and in lxx does not prove that its place was taken by αἰώνιος . It rather goes to show that less importance was attached to the bare idea of everlastingness than later theological thought has given it. Paul uses the word once, in Romans 1:20, where he speaks of “the everlasting power and divinity of God.” In Romans 16:26he speaks of the eternal God ( τοῦ αἰωνίου θεοῦ ); but that he does not mean the everlasting God is perfectly clear from the context. He has said that “the mystery” has been kept in silence in times eternal ( χρόνοις αἰωνίοις ), by which he does not mean everlasting times, but the successive eons which elapsed before Christ was proclaimed. God therefore is described as the God of the eons, the God who pervaded and controlled those periods before the incarnation. To the same effect is the title ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν αἰώνων theKing of the eons, applied to God in 1 Timothy 1:17; Revelation 15:3; comp. 2Timothy href="/desk/?q=2ti+1:9&sr=1">2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2), cannot mean before everlasting times. To say that God bestowed grace on men, or promised them eternal life before endless times, would be absurd. The meaning is of old, as Luke 1:70. The grace and the promise were given in time, but far back in the ages, before the times of reckoning the eons. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Ζωὴ αἰώνιος eternallife, which occurs 42 times in N.T., but not in lxx, is not endless life, but life pertaining to a certain age or eon, or continuing during that eon. I repeat, life may be endless. The life in union with Christ is endless, but the fact is not expressed by αἰώνιος . Κόλασις αἰώνιος , rendered everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46), is the punishment peculiar to an eon other than that in which Christ is speaking. In some cases ζωὴ αἰώνιος does not refer specifically to the life beyond time, but rather to the eon or dispensation of Messiah which succeeds the legal dispensation. See Matthew 19:16; John 5:39. John says that ζωὴ αἰώνιος is the present possession of those who believe on the Son of God, John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:47, John 6:64. The Father's commandment is ζωὴ αἰώσιος , John 12:50; to know the only true God and Jesus Christ is ζωὴ αἰώνιος , John 17:3. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Bishop Westcott very justly says, commenting upon the terms used by John to describe life under different aspects: “In considering these phrases it is necessary to premise that in spiritual things we must guard against all conclusions which rest upon the notions of succession and duration. 'Eternal life' is that which St. Paul speaks of as ἡ ὄντως ζωὴ thelife which is life indeed, and ἡ ζωὴ τοῦ θεοῦ thelife of God. It is not an endless duration of being in time, but being of which time is not a measure. We have indeed no powers to grasp the idea except through forms and images of sense. These must be used, but we must not transfer them as realities to another order.”-DIVIDER- Thus, while αἰώνιος carries the idea of time, though not of endlessness, there belongs to it also, more or less, a sense of quality. Its character is ethical rather than mathematical. The deepest significance of the life beyond time lies, not in endlessness, but in the moral quality of the eon into which the life passes. It is comparatively unimportant whether or not the rich fool, when his soul was required of him (Luke 12:20), entered upon a state that was endless. The principal, the tremendous fact, as Christ unmistakably puts it, was that, in the new eon, the motives, the aims, the conditions, the successes and awards of time counted for nothing. In time, his barns and their contents were everything; the soul was nothing. In the new life the soul was first and everything, and the barns and storehouses nothing. The bliss of the sanctified does not consist primarily in its endlessness, but in the nobler moral conditions of the new eon, - the years of the holy and eternal God. Duration is a secondary idea. When it enters it enters as an accompaniment and outgrowth of moral conditions. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- In the present passage it is urged that ὄλεθρον destructionpoints to an unchangeable, irremediable, and endless condition. If this be true, if ὄλεθρος isextinction, then the passage teaches the annihilation of the wicked, in which case the adjective αἰώνιος is superfluous, since extinction is final, and excludes the idea of duration. But ὄλεθρος does not always mean destruction or extinction. Take the kindred verb ἀπόλλυμι todestroy, put an end to, or in the middle voice, to be lost, to perish. Peter says, “the world being deluged with water, perished ” ( ἀπολοῦνται 2 Peter 3:6); but the world did not become extinct, it was renewed. In Hebrews 1:11, Hebrews 1:12quoted from Isaiah href="/desk/?q=isa+51:6&sr=1">Isaiah 51:6, Isaiah 51:16; Isaiah 65:17; Isaiah 66:22; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1. Similarly, “the Son of man came to save that which was lost ” ( ἀπολωλός ), Luke 19:10. Jesus charged his apostles to go to the lost ( ἀπολωλότα ) sheep of the house of Israel, Matthew 10:6, comp. Matthew 15:24. “He that shall lose ( ἀπολέσῃ ) his life for my sake shall find it,” Matthew 16:25. Comp. Luke 15:6, Luke 15:9, Luke 15:32. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- In this passage the word destruction is qualified. It is “destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power, “ at his second coming, in the new eon. In other words, it is the severance, at a given point of time, of those who obey not the gospel from the presence and the glory of Christ. Ἁιώνιος may therefore describe this severance as continuing during the millennial eon between Christ's coming and the final judgment; as being for the wicked prolonged throughout that eon and characteristic of it, or it may describe the severance as characterizing or enduring through a period or eon succeeding the final judgment, the extent of which period is not defined. In neither case is αἰώνιος to be interpreted as everlasting or endless.sa180 [source]
That is, “in faith,” feminine demonstrative referring to πιστις pistis The elders More nearly like “the fathers,” not the technical sense of elders (officers) usual in the N.T., but more like “the tradition of the elders” (Mark 7:3, Mark 7:5; Matthew 15:2). Had witness borne to them First aorist passive of μαρτυρεω martureō (cf. Hebrews 7:8), “were testified to.” [source]
See Hebrews 8:2 for σκηνη skēnē Large tents usually had two divisions (the outer and the inner or the first and the second). Note πρωτη prōtē for the first of two as with the first covenant (Hebrews 8:7, Hebrews 8:13; Hebrews 9:1). The large outer tent was entered first and was called αγια Hagia (Holy), the first division of the tabernacle. The two divisions are here termed two tabernacles. Was prepared First aorist passive of κατασκευαζω kataskeuazō See Hebrews 3:3. For the furniture see Exod 25; 26. Three items are named here: the candlestick (η λυχνια hē luchnia late word for λυχνιον luchnion) or lampstand, necessary since there were no windows (Exodus 25:31-39); the table (η τραπεζα hē trapeza old word, Matthew 15:27) for the bread (Exodus 25:23-30; Leviticus 24:6 of pure gold); the shewbread (η προτεσις των αρτων hē prothesis tōn artōn) as in Exodus 25:30; Exodus 40:23; Leviticus 24:5-9. Probably a hendiadys for the table with the loaves of God‘s Presence. [source]
See on ἠρώτων , besought, Matthew 15:23. [source]
First aorist passive indicative of λυτροω lutroō old verb from λυτρον lutron (ransom for life as of a slave, Matthew 20:28), to set free by payment of ransom, abundant examples in the papyri, in N.T. only here, Luke 24:21; Titus 2:14. The ransom is the blood of Christ. Peter here amplifies the language in Isaiah 52:3.Not with corruptible things (ου πταρτοις ou phthartois). Instrumental case neuter plural of the late verbal adjective from πτειρω phtheirō to destroy or to corrupt, and so perishable, in N.T. here, 1 Peter 1:23; 1 Corinthians 9:25; 1 Corinthians 15:53.; Romans 1:23. Αργυριωι η χρυσιωι Arguriōi ē chrusiōi (silver or gold) are in explanatory apposition with πταρτοις phthartois and so in the same case. Slaves were set free by silver and gold.From your vain manner of life “Out of” This adjective, though predicate in position, is really attributive in idea, like χειροποιητου cheiropoiētou in Ephesians 2:11 (Robertson, Grammar, p. 777), like the French idiom. This double compound verbal adjective (πατερ παρα διδωμι paterparadidōmi), though here alone in N.T., occurs in Diodorus, Dion. Halic, and in several inscriptions (Moulton and Milligan‘s Vocabulary; Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 266f.). The Jews made a wrong use of tradition (Matthew 15:2.), but the reference here seems mainly to Gentiles (1 Peter 2:12). [source]
“Out of” This adjective, though predicate in position, is really attributive in idea, like χειροποιητου cheiropoiētou in Ephesians 2:11 (Robertson, Grammar, p. 777), like the French idiom. This double compound verbal adjective (πατερ παρα διδωμι paterparadidōmi), though here alone in N.T., occurs in Diodorus, Dion. Halic, and in several inscriptions (Moulton and Milligan‘s Vocabulary; Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 266f.). The Jews made a wrong use of tradition (Matthew 15:2.), but the reference here seems mainly to Gentiles (1 Peter 2:12). [source]
This adjective, though predicate in position, is really attributive in idea, like χειροποιητου cheiropoiētou in Ephesians 2:11 (Robertson, Grammar, p. 777), like the French idiom. This double compound verbal adjective The Jews made a wrong use of tradition (Matthew 15:2.), but the reference here seems mainly to Gentiles (1 Peter 2:12). [source]
The A.V. omits the article “the dogs.” Compare Philemon 3:2. This was the term of reproach with which the Judaizers stigmatized the Gentiles as impure. In the Mosaic law the word is used to denounce the moral profligacies of heathen worship (Deuteronomy 23:18). Compare Matthew 15:26. Here the word is used of those whose moral impurity excludes them from the New Jerusalem. “As a term of reproach, the word on the lips of a Jew, signified chiefly impurity; of a Greek, impudence. The herds of dogs which prowl about Eastern cities, without a home and without an owner, feeding on the refuse and filth of the streets, quarreling among themselves, and attacking the passer-by, explain both applications of the image” (Lightfoot, on Philemon 3:2). [source]