... 12 sin entered the world through one man.[2] I suggest that 5:12–14 makes the case that the law of the old covenant occasioned the sin of Adam and the subsequent curse that it cast on all of humanity. In 5:12 Paul asserts that Adam is the originator of sin and death. That much is clear from verse 12a. But a storm of controversy has centered on the translation and meaning of two Greek words, eph’ h?, that occur in verse 12b. There are four main views of the meaning of this phrase, described in table 1 ...
... (22:3c–5) Interpretive Insights 22:1–2a Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. The river in the original garden flows from Eden (Gen. 2:10) and in Ezekiel it flows from the temple (Ezek. 47:1–2), but here it comes directly from the throne of God and the Lamb.1While the “throne” has previously emphasized God’s majesty and sovereignty, now it represents God’s ...
... and terrible way Adam’s sin becomes our sin. Genesis 3 is the story of every sinful act. All humanity disputes God’s word and usurps God’s authority. In the history of theology verse 12 (also 1 Cor. 15:22) has been the breeding ground of the doctrine of original sin. The OT links sin with death (“when you eat of [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] you shall die,” Gen. 2:17), but it is silent concerning how sin and death were transmitted to the race. By the first century A.D., however, a ...
... that they came to believe, not as a result of showy human effort, but through the working of God’s own power. Paul’s remarks reveal that although humans are God’s agents, God alone is the one who saves humanity. 2:1 Paul recalls his original work among the Corinthians in or about AD 50, approximately five years before his writing of this letter. In referring back to his earlier ministry, Paul continues to explain the basic teaching he had articulated in 1:18–25: God’s work defies and even reverses ...
... 19; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Pss. 29:1; 82:6). The KJV translation, “and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God,” is misleading, suggesting a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus. Such an interpretation reads the NT into the OT rather than discerning the original OT meaning. The author of Daniel clearly understands this fourth man to be an angel (3:28). God visits his people in their trials. He speaks to Job out of the whirlwind (Job 38:1) and goes to be with his people in exile (Ezek. 1; 11:16). But the ...
... . 252). This notion of being weighed by God is also found in 1 Samuel 2:3; Job 31:6; Psalm 62:9; and Proverbs 24:12. The third term that Daniel interprets is Peres (5:28), not parsin. As already noted, this suggests that parsin is not original to verse 25 but was changed by a scribe secondarily. The root prs occurs three times in verse 28. The first is the noun peres, vocalized as the noun “half-mina” (or possibly “half-shekel”). The second is the passive verb form perisat, “is divided” or “is ...
... meant by the first part of Daniel 6:8 is that “it cannot be altered” by some subordinate. In other words, the royal authority is behind it; no one other than the king may change it or make exceptions. The second part of the verse probably was intended originally to say something about the enduring nature of the law. The point was not that it was inflexible and could not be changed but that it would last and not expire or lapse (Collins, Daniel, p. 268; cf. also Esth. 1:19; 8:8). However, in the context ...
... to it (8:12). I have placed the phrase “of the saints” in brackets because it is not in the MT. Nor should it be added in, for the context is the heavenly host or angels, not the Jewish saints. The phrase “to it” is also not original but supplied by the translator. This addition is acceptable, to explain that they are handed over to the horn or evil ruler. Rendering “because of rebellion” is problematic as it implies that what happens is a punishment for the sin of the host. If the heavenly host ...
... :4 The word for knowledge is daʿat, but instead of the equivalent Greek word, the LXX has “evil,” which translated back into Hebrew is raʿah. Since the Hebrew d looks very much like an r and the t compares to the h, it is quite possible that the original text had “evil,” which was accidentally changed to “knowledge” in what was handed down in the MT. 12:5 The term for river is yeʾor (see also 12:6 and 7). While this Hebrew word normally identifies the Nile in Egypt (e.g., Exod. 2:3, 5; 4:9 ...
... the truth, which strikes at the heart of faith itself: Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 6:7; 1 John 1:8; 4:6; 2 Pet. 2:18; 3:17; and frequently in Revelation. Cf. H. Braun, “Planaō,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 242–51. 1:17 The original quotation from which every good and perfect gift is taken may have been, “Every Gift is good and every present is perfect,” which roughly translates “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.” James’ change was simply to add from above or “from heaven,” which altered the ...
... we have from him.” Does “him” (NIV, he) refer to Jesus’ own linking of these commandments in Matthew 22:34–40 (par. Mark 12:28–31; Luke 10:25–28), or perhaps to the “new commandment” of John 13:34? Or is the Elder referring to God as the origin of this teaching on love for God and neighbor in the Torah (Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18)? While the author does not always separate clearly between God and Jesus in his writing, as we noted earlier in several passages (e.g., 1 John 1:5–7; 2:3–6 ...
... there, parents and grandparents began to use the phrase not as a positive in trying new things but as a warning to curious children to check their desire to delve into things that could harm them or cause them trouble. So what was the original phrase about? The original phrase, “Care killed the cat” comes much earlier from the 1500s, in which the meaning was that sorrow or worry could keep one from doing what needed to be done. The cat who plays with the mouse instead of doing what needed to be done ...
... of God. At the age of 81, after decades of insisting that belief in God was ridiculous, has now changed his mind and has now stated that based on scientific evidence, there had to be a super-intelligence, a first-cause, as the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature. Do you know what Dr. Flew had to admit? Design destroys the theory of evolution. It takes out chance and it puts in God. That is why the evolutionist hate the theory of design so much. Let me make this super ...
... church and Enrich the world. I. Enriches A. First, let's look at the word enriches. God does enrich our lives in the food industry sense. You see, because of the fall, because we have been disobedient, because we've turned away or drifted away from God, that original relationship has been stripped and lost. We've become a broken people. And in the process, our relationship with God is broken. B. On May 21, 1972, during the 11:30 a.m. worship service at the Vatican in St. Peter's Basilica, a man leaped over ...
... from Peter. Peter wants to know how many times he has to forgive another in order to remain in good standing with Jesus. He thought he had all his bases covered by suggesting seventy times seven. Peter's question was just the pious arrogance of an original sinner. It assumes that he has got to do something, forgive so many times, in order to please Jesus, and then everything will be okay. Jesus tells him the parable of the unforgiving servant to show him how wrong his question was to begin with. Only ...
... story in which Jesus spat in the dirt and made mud and rubbed it onto the eyes of a blind man and healed the man’s sight after telling him to go wash it off in the Pool of Siloam. We don’t know where the phrase comes from originally. But it is an amazing coincidence if it has no connection to our lesson. Let me refresh your memory concerning this old, old story. One day Jesus came upon a man blind from birth. This was not unusual. There were many persons with various handicapping conditions begging for ...
... 2 Corinthians 1:15–16, however, Paul outlines two visits to Corinth: one directly after sailing from Ephesus, and the other following a visit to Macedonia. In this way, the Corinthians could send him finally on his way to Judea with the collection. Is the original plan for an extended stay in Corinth thereby scrapped? If so, this would have been interpreted as a gesture of contempt, since there had been so much conflict between Paul and the Corinthians. In the revised plan that Paul gives in verse 15, the ...
... imperative). The text indicates that the letter is addressed to God’s people who live in Ephesus, although the NIV footnote indicates that there is a textual question concerning the inclusion of the phrase in Ephesus. Most likely the destination was not present in the original manuscript because the epistle was intended to be a universal letter to be circulated among a number of churches (see Introduction). 1:2 The greeting ends with Paul’s usual mention of grace and peace (cf. Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 ...
... entrusted with the gospel. This description complements the reference in verse 2 to “his gospel”—the gospel is God’s in terms of its origin and his to entrust to its preachers (see disc. on 1:5). As for the preachers, the verb dokimazō applied to them was used ... the Thessalonians, such that they were pleased “to spend and be spent” in their interest (2 Cor. 12:15). The divine origin of the gospel is again indicated by the subjective genitive, “of God” (see disc. on 1:5). To preach such a ...
... ) or Ephesus (2 Cor. 1:1–11) or Rome [?] (Phil. 1:1, 12–18)? The answer to this lies in what we noted as early as the thanksgiving (1:3–5), namely, that part of the appeal to loyalty made in this letter is to remind Timothy of his origins. It is Paul’s way of saying: “Look, you were there in Lystra when I was stoned. You recall that such sufferings were visible to you from the time you began your Christian walk. So don’t bail out now in the midst of this present—and coming—distress.” Since ...
... , unlike the way in which the author has presented the quotation in v. 9f., correctly reflect the meaning of the OT text. Both the rebellion and the anger may be said to have characterized the forty-year period. 3:18 Here instead of “my rest,” as in the original quotation (cf. v. 11), the text reads his rest (cf. also 4:10). The author uses the oaths or solemn promises of God much to the advantage of his argument in the epistle. Besides the references in this chapter, see also 4:3; 6:13; and 7:21. The ...
... in 8:5 (see note there). The same word, however, does not underlie copy in v. 24, where the Greek word is antitypos (which occurs in the rest of the NT only in 1 Pet. 3:21). “Anti-type” here refers to that which corresponds to the original as an impression to the die. The “anti-type” is thus contrasted with the “true things.” Elsewhere (as in 1 Pet. 3:21) the opposite is the case, namely, that “anti-type” is the reality to which a “type” points. For heavenly things, the author uses the ...
... readers are indeed God’s children. Their character will be like Christ, a central teaching of 3:2–3, 5–7. But the antichrists (2:18, 22), who are trying to lead the readers astray (2:26) and who continually practice sin (3:4, 6.), have a different origin; they are of the devil. The reason for this assertion is given in v. 8b: because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. If a life of continual rebellion (anomia, 3:4) and sin (3:6) characterizes the Elder’s opponents, it is clear that they ...
... and evil. In the Hebrew, in contrast to the wording of the NIV, the tree of life was the tree in the middle of the garden. 2:10–14 A parenthetical paragraph gives information either to anchor the garden of Eden to a definite geography, to place the origin of four great rivers in primeval time, or both. Rising from a huge spring fed by the great deep, the river flowed through Eden and then divided into four branches that brought water to the various quarters of the earth. Two of the rivers are the Tigris ...
... sake of the gospel or in teaching the church. Paul has identified the principle at the heart of the law and redirected its authority in support of Christian responsibilities. His rhetorical question, “Is it about oxen that God is concerned?” is not a denial of the original intention of the law (which obviously is a sign of God’s concern for oxen), but a leading question designed to show that a God who cares about the daily food of an ox would not care any less about the material needs of those humans ...