5/29/2020 The Darkness 2 Youtube
Jackie Estacado returns in The Darkness II, and he's brought some old friends. The Darkness 2 All. The Darkness 2 - Gameplay Walkthrough - Part 2 HD (X360/PS3/PC).
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;For God did not spare even the angels who sinned. (4-8) Three instances of divine vengeance, proving that great wickedness never goes unpunished.(4) For if God.-The sentence has no proper conclusion. The third instance of God's vengeance is so prolonged by the addition respecting Lot, that the apodosis is wanting, the writer in his eagerness having lost the thread of the construction.
The three instances here are in chronological order (wanton angels, Flood, Sodom and Gomorrha), while those in Jude are not (unbelievers in the wilderness, impure angels, Sodom and Gomorrha). Both arrangements are natural-this as being chronological, that of St. Jude for reasons stated in the Notes there. (See on.)The angels that sinned.-Better, the angels for their sin: it gives the reason why they were not spared, and points to some definite sin. What sin is meant? Not that which preceded the history of the human race, commonly called the fall of the angels-of that there is no record in the Old Testament; and, moreover, it affords no close analogy to the conduct of the false teachers.
Jude is somewhat more explicit ; he says it was for not keeping their own dignity-for deserting their proper home; and the reference, both there and here, is either to a common interpretation of (that by 'the sons of God' are meant 'angels'), or, more probably, to distinct and frequent statements in the Book of Enoch, that certain angels sinned by having intercourse with women- e.g., Enoch vii. 13 (Lawrence's translation). Not improbably these false teachers made use of this book, and possibly of these passages, in their corrupt teaching. Peter uses it as an argumentum ad hominem against them, and St. Jude, recognising the allusion, adopts it and makes it more plain; or both writers, knowing the Book of Enoch well, and calculating on their readers knowing it also, used it to illustrate their arguments and exhortations, just as St.
Paul uses the Jewish belief of the rock following the Israelites. (See Note on.)Cast them down to hell.-The Greek word occurs nowhere else, but its meaning is plain- to cast down to Tartarus; and though 'Tartarus' occurs neither in the Old nor in the New Testament, it probably is the same as Gehenna. (See Note on.)Into chains of darkness.-Critical reasons seem to require us to substitute dens, or caves, for 'chains.' The Greek words for 'chains' and for 'caves' here are almost exactly alike; and 'caves' may have been altered into 'chains' in order to bring this passage into closer harmony with, although the word used by St.
Jude for 'chains' is different. (See Note there.) If 'chains of darkness' be retained, comp. There still remains the doubt whether 'into chains of darkness' should go with 'delivered' or with 'cast down into hell.'
The former arrangement seems the better. For if God spared not the angels that sinned; rather, angels when they sinned; there is no article. Peter is giving proofs of his assertion that the punishment of the ungodly lingereth not. The first is the punishment of angels that sinned. He does not specify the sin, whether rebellion, as in; or uncleanness, as apparently in,. Formally, there is an anacoluthon here, but in thought we have the apodosis in verse 9. But cast them down to hell.
The Greek word, which is found nowhere else in the Greek Scriptures, is ταρταρώσας, 'having cast into Tartarus.' This use of a word belonging to heathen mythology is very remarkable, and without parallel in the New Testament. (The word τάρταρος occurs in the Septuagint,. Compare also the Septuagint rendering of the name of Job's daughter Keren-Happuch, Ἀμαλθαίας κέρας, the horn of Amalthaea; and the word σειρῆνες in.) Apparently, St. Peter regards Tartarus not as equivalent to Gehenna, for the sinful angels are 'reserved unto judgment,' but as a place of preliminary detention. Josephus, quoted by Professor Lumby in the 'Speaker's Commentary,' speaks of the oldest heathen gods as fettered in Tartarus, ἐν Ταρτάρῳ δεδεμένους ('Contra Apion,' 2:33).
And delivered them into chains of darkness. The Revised Version 'pits' represents the reading of the four oldest manuscripts; but the variations in two of them (the Sinaitic and Alexandrine have σειροῖς ζόφοις), and the fact that σειρός seems properly to mean a pit for the storage of corn, throw some doubt upon this reading. The other reading σειραῖς, cords, may possibly have arisen from the parallel passage in, though the Greek word for 'chains' is different there. The chains consist in darkness; the pits are in darkness, Παρέδωκε, delivered, is often used, as Huther remarks, with the implied idea of punishment. It is simpler to connect the chains or pits of darkness with this verb than (as Fronmuller and others) with ταρταρώσας, 'having cast them in bonds of darkness into Tartarus' (comp.
17:2, 16, 17). To be reserved unto judgment; literally, being reserved; but the readings here are very confused. Jude says (verse 6) that the sinful angels are reserved 'unto the judgment of the great day.' Bengel says, 'Possunt autem in terra quoque versari mancipia Tartari (;; etc.) sic ut bello captus etiam extra locum captivitatis potest ambulare.'
But in the case of a mystery of which so little has been revealed, we are scarcely justified in assuming the identity of the angels cast into Tartarus with the evil spirits who tempt and harass us on earth.
When the USS Enterprise crew is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one-man weapon of mass destruction. As our space heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.
The previous Star Trek movie is a tough one to beat. It was (in my eyes) close to perfection (lens flares and all). So this movie had a tough up-hill battle ahead of it. I am happy to report that the writing, direction, cinematography and acting were all terrific. But it's not quite flawless. There are a couple of minor plot holes that distract viewer attention to some degree.
Cumberbatch is brilliant. I won't divulge any spoilers, but I will say that the throw back to the earlier movies is very very clever and well executed. The added depth we see in the characters of Kirk and Spock are icing on an already delicious cake!
Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
March 2023
Categories |