NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp 2-6:

rwp@1Corinthians:2:14 @{Now the natural man} (\psuchikos de anthrpos\). Note absence of article here, "A natural man" (an unregenerate man). Paul does not employ modern psychological terms and he exercises variety in his use of all the terms here present as \pneuma\ and \pneumatikos, psuch\ and \psuchikos, sarx\ and \sarkinos\ and \sarkikos\. A helpful discussion of the various uses of these words in the New Testament is given by Burton in his _New Testament Word Studies_, pp. 62-68, and in his {Spirit, Soul, and Flesh}. The papyri furnish so many examples of \sarx, pneuma\, and \psuch\ that Moulton and Milligan make no attempt at an exhaustive treatment, but give a few miscellaneous examples to illustrate the varied uses that parallel the New Testament. \Psuchikos\ is a qualitative adjective from \psuch\ (breath of life like \anima\, life, soul). Here the Vulgate renders it by _animalis_ and the German by _sinnlich_, the original sense of animal life as in strkjv@Jude:1:19; strkjv@James:3:15|. In strkjv@1Corinthians:15:44,46| there is the same contrast between \psuchikos\ and \pneumatikos\ as here. The \psuchikos\ man is the unregenerate man while the \pneumatikos\ man is the renewed man, born again of the Spirit of God. {Receiveth not} (\ou dechetai\). Does not accept, rejects, refuses to accept. In strkjv@Romans:8:7| Paul definitely states the inability (\oude gar dunatai\) of the mind of the flesh to receive the things of the Spirit untouched by the Holy Spirit. Certainly the initiative comes from God whose Holy Spirit makes it possible for us to accept the things of the Spirit of God. They are no longer "foolishness" (\mria\) to us as was once the case (1:23|). Today one notes certain of the _intelligentsia_ who sneer at Christ and Christianity in their own blinded ignorance. {He cannot know them} (\ou dunatai gnnai\). He is not able to get a knowledge (ingressive second aorist active infinitive of \ginsk\). His helpless condition calls for pity in place of impatience on our part, though such an one usually poses as a paragon of wisdom and commiserates the deluded followers of Christ. {They are spiritually judged} (\pneumatiks anakrinetai\). Paul and Luke are fond of this verb, though nowhere else in the N.T. Paul uses it only in I Corinthians. The word means a sifting process to get at the truth by investigation as of a judge. In strkjv@Acts:17:11| the Beroeans scrutinized the Scriptures. These \psuchikoi\ men are incapable of rendering a decision for they are unable to recognize the facts. They judge by the \psuch\ (mere animal nature) rather than by the \pneuma\ (the renewed spirit).

rwp@1Corinthians:15:29 @{Else} (\epei\). Otherwise, if not true. On this use of \epei\ with ellipsis see on ¯5:10; strkjv@7:14|. {Which are baptized for the dead} (\hoi baptizomenoi huper tn nekrn\). This passage remains a puzzle. Stanley gives thirteen interpretations, no one of which may be correct. Over thirty have been suggested. The Greek expositors took it to be about the dead (\huper\ in sense of \peri\ as often as in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:6|) since baptism is a burial and a resurrection (Romans:6:2-6|). Tertullian tells of some heretics who took it to mean baptized in the place of dead people (unsaved) in order to save them. Some take it to be baptism over the dead. Others take it to mean that Paul and others were in peril of death as shown by baptism (see verse 30|). {At all} (\hols\). See on ¯5:1|.

rwp@1Peter:3:21 @{Which also} (\ho kai\). Water just mentioned. {After a true likeness} (\antitupon\). Water in baptism now as an anti-type of Noah's deliverance by water. For \baptisma\ see on ¯Matthew:3:7|. For \antitupon\ see on ¯Hebrews:9:24| (only other N.T. example) where the word is used of the earthly tabernacle corresponding (\antitupa\) to the heavenly, which is the pattern (\tupon\ strkjv@Hebrews:8:5|) for the earthly. Songs:here baptism is presented as corresponding to (prefigured by) the deliverance of Noah's family by water. It is only a vague parallel, but not over-fanciful. {Doth now save you} (\humas nun szei\). Simplex verb (\sz\, not the compound \diasz\). The saving by baptism which Peter here mentions is only symbolic (a metaphor or picture as in strkjv@Romans:6:2-6|), not actual as Peter hastens to explain. {Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh} (\ou sarkos apothesis rupou\). \Apothesis\ is old word from \apotithmi\ (2:1|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@2Peter:1:14|. \Rupou\ (genitive of \rupos\) is old word (cf. \ruparos\, filthy, in strkjv@James:2:2; strkjv@Revelation:22:11|), here only in N.T. (cf. strkjv@Isaiah:3:3; strkjv@4:4|). Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh either in a literal sense, as a bath for the body, or in a metaphorical sense of the filth of the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience (Hebrews:9:13f.|). Peter here expressly denies baptismal remission of sin. {But the interrogation of a good conscience toward God} (\alla suneidses agaths epertma eis theon\). Old word from \eperta\ (to question as in strkjv@Mark:9:32; strkjv@Matthew:16:1|), here only in N.T. In ancient Greek it never means answer, but only inquiry. The inscriptions of the age of the Antonines use it of the Senate's approval after inquiry. That may be the sense here, that is, avowal of consecration to God after inquiry, having repented and turned to God and now making this public proclamation of that fact by means of baptism (the symbol of the previous inward change of heart). Thus taken, it matters little whether \eis theon\ (toward God) be taken with \epertma\ or \suneidses\. {Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ} (\di' anastases Isou Christou\). For baptism is a symbolic picture of the resurrection of Christ as well as of our own spiritual renewal (Romans:6:2-6|). See strkjv@1:3| for regeneration made possible by the resurrection of Jesus.

rwp@2Corinthians:7:9 @{Now I rejoice} (\nun chair\). Now that Titus has come and told him the good news from Corinth (2:12f.|). This was the occasion of the noble outburst in strkjv@2:12-6:10|. {Unto repentance} (\eis metanoian\). Note the sharp difference here between "sorrow" (\lup\) which is merely another form of \metamelomai\ (regret, remorse) and "repentance" (\metanoia\) or change of mind and life. It is a linguistic and theological tragedy that we have to go on using "repentance" for \metanoia\. But observe that the "sorrow" has led to "repentance" and was not Itself the repentance. {After a godly sort} (\kata theon\). In God's way. "God's way as opposed to man's way and the devil's way" (Plummer). It was not mere sorrow, but a change in their attitude that counted. {That ye might suffer loss by us in nothing} (\hina en mdeni zmithte ex humn\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and first aorist passive subjunctive of \zmio\, old verb to suffer damage. See on ¯Matthew:16:26|. This was God's intention and so he overruled their sorrow to good.

rwp@Galatians:5:18 @{Under the law} (\hupo nomon\). Instead of "under the flesh" as one might expect. See strkjv@Galatians:3:2-6| for contrast between law and spirit. The flesh made the law weak (Rom strkjv@8:3; strkjv@Hebrews:9:10,13|). They are one and the same in result. See same idea in strkjv@Romans:8:14|. Note present tense of \agesthe\ (if you are continually led by the Spirit). See verse 23|.

rwp@John:12:14 @{Found} (\heurn\). Second aorist active participle of \heurisk\. Through the disciples, of course, as in strkjv@Mark:11:2-6| (Matthew:21:2-3,6; strkjv@Luke:19:30f.|). {A young ass} (\onarion\). Late diminutive of \onos\, in Epictetus and the papyri (even the double diminitive, \onaridion\), only here in the N.T. See discussion of ¯Matthew:21:5| where \kai\ has been wrongly rendered "and" instead of "even." Rightly understood Matthew has Jesus riding only the colt like the rest.

rwp@John:15:2 @{Branch} (\klma\). Old word from \kla\, to break, common in LXX for offshoots of the vine, in N.T. only here (verses 2-6|), elsewhere in N.T. \klados\ (Mark:4:32|, etc.), also from \kla\, both words meaning tender and easily broken parts. {In me} (\en emoi\). Two kinds of connexion with Christ as the vine (the merely cosmic which bears no fruit, the spiritual and vital which bears fruit). The fruitless (not bearing fruit, \m pheron karpon\) the vine-dresser "takes away" (\airei\) or prunes away. Probably (Bernard) Jesus here refers to Judas. {Cleanseth} (\kathairei\). Present active indicative of old verb \kathair\ (clean) as in verse 3|, only use in N.T., common in the inscriptions for ceremonial cleansing, though \kathariz\ is more frequent (Hebrews:10:2|). {That it may bear more fruit} (\hina karpon pleiona pheri\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive of \pher\, "that it may keep on bearing more fruit" (more and more). A good test for modern Christians and church members.

rwp@Matthew:1:1 @{The Son of David, the son of Abraham} (\huiou Daueid huiou Abraam\). Matthew proposes to show that Jesus Christ is on the human side the son of David, as the Messiah was to be, and the son of Abraham, not merely a real Jew and the heir of the promises, but the promise made to Abraham. Songs:Matthew begins his line with Abraham while Luke traces his line back to Adam. The Hebrew and Aramaic often used the word son (\bn\) for the quality or character, but here the idea is descent. Christians are called sons of God because Christ has bestowed this dignity upon us (Romans:8:14; strkjv@9:26; strkjv@Galatians:3:26; strkjv@4:5-7|). Verse 1 is the description of the list in verses 2-17|. The names are given in three groups, Abraham to David (2-6|), David to Babylon Removal (6-11|), Jechoniah to Jesus (12-16|). The removal to Babylon (\metoikesias Babulnos\) occurs at the end of verse 11|, the beginning of verse 12|, and twice in the resume in verse 17|. This great event is used to mark off the two last divisions from each other. It is a good illustration of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The Babylon removal could mean either to Babylon or from Babylon or, indeed, the removal of Babylon. But the readers would know the facts from the Old Testament, the removal of the Jews to Babylon. Then verse 17| makes a summary of the three lists, fourteen in each by counting David twice and omitting several, a sort of mnemonic device that is common enough. Matthew does not mean to say that there were only fourteen in actual genealogy. The names of the women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba the wife of Uriah) are likewise not counted. But it is a most interesting list.

rwp@Matthew:10:41 @{In the name of a prophet} (\eis onoma prophtou\). "Because he is a prophet" (Moffatt). In an Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 37 (A.D. 49) we find \onomati eleutherou\ in virtue of being free-born. "He that receiveth a prophet from no ulterior motive, but simply _qua_ prophet (_ut prophetam_, Jer.) would receive a reward in the coming age equal to that of his guest" (McNeile). The use of \eis\ here is to be noted. In reality \eis\ is simply \en\ with the same meaning. It is not proper to say that \eis\ has always to be translated "into." Besides these examples of \eis onoma\ in verses 41| and 43| see strkjv@Matthew:12:41| \eis to krugma In\ (see Robertson's _Grammar_, p. 593). {Unto one of these little ones} (\hena tn mikrn toutn\). Simple believers who are neither apostles, prophets, or particularly righteous, just "learners," "in the name of a disciple" (\eis onoma mathtou\). Alford thinks that some children were present (cf. strkjv@Matthew:18:2-6|).