NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp Hillel:

rwp@Hebrews:10:29 @{How much} (\posi\). Instrumental case of degree or measure. An argument from the less to the greater, "the first of Hillel's seven rules for exegesis" (Moffatt). {Think ye} (\dokeite\). An appeal to their own sense of justice about apostates from Christ. {Sorer} (\cheironos\). "Worse," comparative of \kakos\ (bad). {Punishment} (\timrias\). Genitive case with \axithsetai\ (first future passive of \axio\, to deem worthy). The word \timria\ originally meant vengeance. Old word, in LXX, only here in N.T. {Who hath trodden under foot the Son of God} (\ho ton huion tou theou katapatsas\). First aorist active articular participle of \katapate\, old verb (Matthew:5:13|) for scornful neglect like strkjv@Zechariah:12:3|. See same idea in strkjv@Hebrews:6:6|. {Wherewith he was sanctified} (\en hi hgiasth\). First aorist passive indicative of \hagiaz\. It is an unspeakable tragedy that should warn every follower of Christ not to play with treachery to Christ (cf. strkjv@6:4-8|). {An unholy thing} (\koinon\). Common in the sense of uncleanness as Peter used it in strkjv@Acts:10:14|. Think of one who thus despises "the blood of Christ wherewith he was sanctified." And yet there are a few today who sneer at the blood of Christ and the gospel based on his atoning sacrifice as "a slaughter house" religion! {Hath done despite} (\enubrisas\). First aorist active participle of \enubriz\, old verb to treat with contumely, to give insult to, here only in the N.T. It is a powerful word for insulting the Holy Spirit after receiving his blessings (6:4|).

rwp@Mark:10:4 @{To write a bill of divorcement and to put her away} (\biblion apostasiou grapsai kai apolusai\). The word for "bill" (\biblion\) is a diminutive and means "little book," like the Latin _libellus_, from which comes our word _libel_ (Vincent). Wycliff has it here "a libel of forsaking." This same point the Pharisees raise in strkjv@Matthew:19:7|, showing probably that they held to the liberal view of Hillel, easy divorce for almost any cause. That was the popular view as now. See on ¯Matthew:19:7| for this and for discussion of "for your hardness of heart" (\sklrokardia\). Jesus expounds the purpose of marriage (Genesis:2:24|) and takes the stricter view of divorce, that of the school of Shammai. See on ¯Matthew:19:1-12| for discussion. strkjv@Mark:10:10| notes that the disciples asked Jesus about this problem "in the house" after they had gone away from the crowd.

rwp@Matthew:7:12 @{That men should do unto you} (\hina poisin hmn hoi anthrpoi\). Luke (Luke:6:31|) puts the Golden Rule parallel with strkjv@Matthew:5:42|. The negative form is in Tobit strkjv@4:15. It was used by Hillel, Philo, Isocrates, Confucius. "The Golden Rule is the distilled essence of that 'fulfilment' (5:17|) which is taught in the sermon" (McNeile). Jesus puts it in positive form.

rwp@Matthew:16:19 @{The Keys of the kingdom} (\tas kleidas ts basileias\). Here again we have the figure of a building with keys to open from the outside. The question is raised at once if Jesus does not here mean the same thing by "kingdom" that he did by "church" in verse 18|. In strkjv@Revelation:1:18; strkjv@3:7| Christ the Risen Lord has "the keys of death and of Hades." He has also "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" which he here hands over to Peter as "gatekeeper" or "steward" (\oikonomos\) provided we do not understand it as a special and peculiar prerogative belonging to Peter. The same power here given to Peter belongs to every disciple of Jesus in all the ages. Advocates of papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others. But this is all quite beside the mark. We shall soon see the disciples actually disputing again (Matthew:18:1|) as to which of them is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven as they will again (20:21|) and even on the night before Christ's death. Clearly neither Peter nor the rest understood Jesus to say here that Peter was to have supreme authority. What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as every preacher and teacher does. To "bind" (\dsis\) in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose" (\lusis\) is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel "loosed" many things that the school of Schammai "bound." The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ. Note the future perfect indicative (\estai dedemenon, estai lelumenon\), a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter's use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ. The binding and loosing is repeated by Jesus to all the disciples (18:18|). Later after the Resurrection Christ will use this same language to all the disciples (John:20:23|), showing that it was not a special prerogative of Peter. He is simply first among equals, _primus inter pares_, because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift away from him.

rwp@Matthew:19:3 @{Pharisees tempting him} (\Pharisaioi peirazontes auton\). They "could not ask a question of Jesus without sinister motives" (Bruce). See strkjv@4:1| for the word (\peiraz\). {For every cause} (\kata pasan aitian\). This clause is an allusion to the dispute between the two theological schools over the meaning of strkjv@Deuteronomy:24:1|. The school of Shammai took the strict and unpopular view of divorce for unchastity alone while the school of Hillel took the liberal and popular view of easy divorce for any passing whim if the husband saw a prettier woman (modern enough surely) or burnt his biscuits for breakfast. It was a pretty dilemma and meant to do Jesus harm with the people. There is no real trouble about the use of \kata\ here in the sense of \propter\ or because of (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 509).

rwp@Matthew:19:9 @{Except for fornication} (\parektos logou porneias\). This is the marginal reading in Westcott and Hort which also adds "maketh her an adulteress" (\poiei autn moicheuthnai\) and also these words: "and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery" (\kai ho apolelumenn gamsas moichatai\). There seems to be a certain amount of assimilation in various manuscripts between this verse and the words in strkjv@5:32|. But, whatever reading is accepted here, even the short one in Westcott and Hort (\m epi porneii\, not for fornication), it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term (\porneia\) which is technically adultery (\moicheia\ from \moicha or moicheu\). Here, as in strkjv@5:31f.|, a group of scholars deny the genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile holds that "the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had already grown up." That in my opinion is gratuitous criticism which is unwilling to accept Matthew's report because it disagrees with one's views on the subject of divorce. He adds: "It cannot be supposed that Matthew wished to represent Jesus as siding with the school of Shammai." Why not, if Shammai on this point agreed with Jesus? Those who deny Matthew's report are those who are opposed to remarriage at all. Jesus by implication, as in strkjv@5:31|, does allow remarriage of the innocent party, but not of the guilty one. Certainly Jesus has lifted the whole subject of marriage and divorce to a new level, far beyond the petty contentions of the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

rwp@Matthew:22:16 @{Their disciples} (\tous mathtas autn\). Students, pupils, of the Pharisees as in strkjv@Mark:2:18|. There were two Pharisaic theological seminaries in Jerusalem (Hillel, Shammai). {The Herodians} (\tn Heridiann\). Not members of Herod's family or Herod's soldiers, but partisans or followers of Herod. The form in \-ianos\ is a Latin termination like that in \Christianos\ (Acts:11:26|). Mentioned also in strkjv@Mark:3:6| combining with the Pharisees against Jesus. {The person of men} (\prospon anthrpn\). Literally, face of men. Paying regard to appearance is the sin of partiality condemned by James (James:2:1,9|) when \prospolmpsia, prospolmptein\ are used, in imitation of the Hebrew idiom. This suave flattery to Jesus implied "that Jesus was a reckless simpleton" (Bruce).