NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp exegesis:

rwp@1Corinthians:1:30 @{Of him} (\ex autou\). Out of God. He chose you. {In Christ Jesus} (\en Christi Isou\). In the sphere of Christ Jesus the choice was made. This is God's wisdom. {Who was made unto us wisdom from God} (\hos egenth sophia hmin apo theou\). Note \egenth\, became (first aorist passive and indicative), not \n\, was, the Incarnation, Cross, and Resurrection. Christ is the wisdom of God (Co strkjv@2:2f.|) "both righteousness and sanctification and redemption" (\dikaiosun te kai hagiasmos kai apolutrsis\), as is made plain by the use of \te--kai--kai\. The three words (\dikaiosun, hagiasmos, apolutrsis\) are thus shown to be an epexegesis of \sophia\ (Lightfoot). All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in Christ Jesus. We are made righteous, holy, and redeemed in Christ Jesus. Redemption comes here last for emphasis though the foundation of the other two. In strkjv@Romans:1:17| we see clearly Paul's idea of the God kind of righteousness (\dikaiosun\) in Christ. In strkjv@Romans:3:24| we have Paul's conception of redemption (\apolutrsis\, setting free as a ransomed slave) in Christ. In strkjv@Romans:6:19| we have Paul's notion of holiness or sanctification (\hagiasmos\) in Christ. These great theological terms will call for full discussion in Romans, but they must not be overlooked here. See also strkjv@Acts:10:35; strkjv@24:25; strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:3-7; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:2|.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:27 @{Unworthily} (\anaxis\). Old adverb, only here in N.T., not genuine in verse 29|. Paul defines his meaning in verse 29f|. He does not say or imply that we ourselves must be "worthy" (\axioi\) to partake of the Lord's Supper. No one would ever partake on those terms. Many pious souls have abstained from observing the ordinance through false exegesis here. {Shall be guilty} (\enochos estai\). Shall be held guilty as in strkjv@Matthew:5:21f.| which see. Shall be guilty of a crime committed against the body and blood of the Lord by such sacrilege (cf. strkjv@Hebrews:6:6; strkjv@10:29|).

rwp@1John:5:7 @{For there are three who bear witness} (\hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes\). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: \en ti ourani ho patr, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en ti gi\ (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to verse 8|. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian's exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus.

rwp@1Peter:3:19 @{In which also} (\en hi kai\). That is, in spirit (relative referring to \pneumati\). But, a number of modern scholars have followed Griesbach's conjecture that the original text was either \Ne kai\ (Noah also), or \Ench kai\ (Enoch also), or \en hi kai Ench\ (in which Enoch also) which an early scribe misunderstood or omitted \Ench kai\ in copying (\homoioteleuton\). It is allowed in Stier and Theile's _Polyglott_. It is advocated by J. Cramer in 1891, by J. Rendel Harris in _The Expositor_ (1901), and _Sidelights on N.T. Research_ (p. 208), by Nestle in 1902, by Moffatt's New Translation of the New Testament. Windisch rejects it as inconsistent with the context. There is no manuscript for the conjecture, though it would relieve the difficulty greatly. Luther admits that he does not know what Peter means. Bigg has no doubt that the event recorded took place between Christ's death and his resurrection and holds that Peter is alluding to Christ's _Descensus ad Inferos_ in strkjv@Acts:2:27| (with which he compares strkjv@Matthew:27:52f.; strkjv@Luke:23:34; strkjv@Ephesians:4:9|). With this Windisch agrees. But Wohlenberg holds that Peter means that Christ in his preexistent state preached to those who rejected the preaching of Noah who are now in prison. Augustine held that Christ was in Noah when he preached. Bigg argues strongly that Christ during the time between his death and resurrection preached to those who once heard Noah (but are now in prison) and offered them another chance and not mere condemnation. If so, why did Jesus confine his preaching to this one group? Songs:the theories run on about this passage. One can only say that it is a slim hope for those who neglect or reject Christ in this life to gamble with a possible second chance after death which rests on very precarious exegesis of a most difficult passage in Peter's Epistle. Accepting the text as we have, what can we make of it? {He went and preached} (\poreutheis ekruxen\). First aorist passive (deponent) participle of \poreuomai\ and first aorist active indicative of \kruss\, the verb commonly used of the preaching of Jesus. Naturally the words mean personal action by Christ "in spirit" as illustration of his "quickening" (verse 18|) whether done before his death or afterwards. It is interesting to observe that, just as the relative \en hi\ here tells something suggested by the word \pneumati\ (in spirit) just before, so in verse 21| the relative \ho\ (which) tells another illustration of the words \di' hudatos\ (by water) just before. Peter jumps from the flood in Noah's time to baptism in Peter's time, just as he jumped backwards from Christ's time to Noah's time. He easily goes off at a word. What does he mean here by the story that illustrates Christ's quickening in spirit? {Unto the spirits in prison} (\tois en phulaki pneumasin\). The language is plain enough except that it does not make it clear whether Jesus did the preaching to spirits in prison at the time or to people whose spirits are now in prison, the point of doubt already discussed. The metaphorical use of \en phulaki\ can be illustrated by strkjv@2Peter:2:4; strkjv@Jude:1:6; strkjv@Revelation:20:7| (the final abode of the lost). See strkjv@Hebrews:12:23| for the use of \pneumata\ for disembodied spirits.

rwp@2Timothy:2:15 @{Give diligence} (\spoudason\). First aorist active imperative of \spoudaz\, old word, as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:17; strkjv@Galatians:2:10|. {To present} (\parastsai\). First aorist active infinitive of \paristmi\ as in strkjv@Colossians:1:22,28|. {Approved unto God} (\dokimon ti thei\). Dative case \thei\ with \dokimon\, predicate accusative, old adjective (from \dechomai\), for which see strkjv@1Corinthians:11:19; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:18|. {A workman} (\ergatn\). See strkjv@2Corinthians:11:3; strkjv@Phillipians:3:2|. {That needeth not to be ashamed} (\anepaischunton\). Late double compound verbal adjective (\a\ privative, \epaischun\), in Josephus and here alone. {Handling aright} (\orthotomounta\). Present active participle of \orthotome\, late and rare compound (\orthotomos\), cutting straight, \orthos\ and \temn\), here only in N.T. It occurs in strkjv@Proverbs:3:6; strkjv@11:5| for making straight paths (\hodous\) with which compare strkjv@Hebrews:12:13| and "the Way" in strkjv@Acts:9:2|. Theodoret explains it to mean ploughing a straight furrow. Parry argues that the metaphor is the stone mason cutting the stones straight since \temn\ and \orthos\ are so used. Since Paul was a tent-maker and knew how to cut straight the rough camel-hair cloth, why not let that be the metaphor? Certainly plenty of exegesis is crooked enough (crazy-quilt patterns) to call for careful cutting to set it straight.

rwp@Galatians:4:24 @{Which things contain an allegory} (\hatina estin allgoroumena\). Literally, "Which things are allegorized" (periphrastic present passive indicative of \allgore\). Late word (Strabo, Plutarch, Philo, Josephus, ecclesiastical writers), only here in N.T. The ancient writers used \ainittomai\ to speak in riddles. It is compounded of \allo\, another, and \agoreu\, to speak, and so means speaking something else than what the language means, what Philo, the past-master in the use of allegory, calls the deeper spiritual sense. Paul does not deny the actual historical narrative, but he simply uses it in an allegorical sense to illustrate his point for the benefit of his readers who are tempted to go under the burden of the law. He puts a secondary meaning on the narrative just as he uses \tupiks\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:11| of the narrative. We need not press unduly the difference between allegory and type, for each is used in a variety of ways. The allegory in one sense is a speaking parable like Bunyan's _Pilgrim's Progress_, the Prodigal Son in strkjv@Luke:15|, the Good Shepherd in strkjv@John:10|. But allegory was also used by Philo and by Paul here for a secret meaning not obvious at first, one not in the mind of the writer, like our illustration which throws light on the point. Paul was familiar with this rabbinical method of exegesis (Rabbi Akiba, for instance, who found a mystical sense in every hook and crook of the Hebrew letters) and makes skilful use of that knowledge here. Christian preachers in Alexandria early fell victims to Philo's allegorical method and carried it to excess without regard to the plain sense of the narrative. That startling style of preaching survives yet to the discredit of sound preaching. Please observe that Paul says here that he is using allegory, not ordinary interpretation. It is not necessary to say that Paul intended his readers to believe that this allegory was designed by the narrative. He illustrates his point by it. {For these are} (\hautai gar eisin\). Allegorically interpreted, he means. {From Mount Sinai} (\apo orous Sin\). Spoken from Mount Sinai. {Bearing} (\gennsa\). Present active participle of \genna\, to beget of the male (Matthew:1:1-16|), more rarely as here to bear of the female (Luke:1:13,57|). {Which is Hagar} (\htis estin Hagar\). Allegorically interpreted.

rwp@Hebrews:10:9 @{The which} (\haitines\). "Which very things" (\thusiai\). {Then hath he said} (\tote eirken\). That is Christ. Perfect active indicative with which compare \tote eipon\ (second aorist active) in verse 7| which is quoted again. {He taketh away the first} (\anairei to prton\). Present active indicative of \anaire\, to take up, to abolish, of a man to kill (Matthew:2:16|). By "the first" (\to prton\) he means the system of animal sacrifices in verse 8|. {That he may establish the second} (\hina to deuteron stsi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active (transitive) subjunctive of \histmi\, to place. By "the second" (\to deuteron\) he means doing God's will as shown in verse 9| (following verse 8|). This is the author's exegesis of the Psalm.

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@Luke:6:38 @{Pressed down} (\pepiesmenon\). Perfect passive participle from \piez\, old verb, but here alone in the N.T., though the Doric form \piaz\, to seize, occurs several times (John:7:30,32,44|). {Shaken together} (\sesaleumenon\). Perfect passive participle again from common verb \saleu\. {Running over} (\huperekchunnomenon\). Present middle participle of this double compound verb not found elsewhere save in A Q in strkjv@Joel:2:24|. \Chun\ is a late form of \che\. There is asyndeton here, no conjunction connecting these participles. The present here is in contrast to the two preceding perfects. The participles form an epexegesis or explanation of the "good measure" (\metron kalon\). Into your bosom (\eis ton kolpon humn\). The fold of the wide upper garment bound by the girdle made a pocket in common use (Exodus:4:6; strkjv@Proverbs:6:27; strkjv@Psalms:79:12; strkjv@Isaiah:65:6f.; strkjv@Jeremiah:32:18|). Songs:Isaiah:65:7|: {I will measure their former work unto their bosom. Shall be measured to you again} (\antimetrthsetai\). Future passive indicative of the verb here only in the N.T. save late MSS. in strkjv@Matthew:7:2|. Even here some MSS. have \metrthsetai\. The \anti\ has the common meaning of in turn or back, measured back to you in requital.

rwp@Luke:10:22 @{Knoweth who the Son is} (\ginskei tis estin ho huios\). Knows by experience, \ginskei\. Here strkjv@Matthew:11:27| has \epiginskei\ (fully knows) and simply \ton huion\ (the Son) instead of the "who" (\tis\) clause. Songs:also in "who the Father is" (\tis estin ho pater\). But the same use and contrast of "the Father," "the Son." in both Matthew and Luke, "an aerolite from the Johannean heaven" (Hase). No sane criticism can get rid of this Johannine bit in these Gospels written long before the Fourth Gospel was composed. We are dealing here with the oldest known document about Christ (the Logia) and the picture is that drawn in the Fourth Gospel (see my _The Christ of the Logia_). It is idle to try to whittle away by fantastic exegesis the high claims made by Jesus in this passage. It is an ecstatic prayer in the presence of the Seventy under the rapture of the Holy Spirit on terms of perfect equality and understanding between the Father and the Son in the tone of the priestly prayer in strkjv@John:17|. We are justified in saying that this prayer of supreme Fellowship with the Father in contemplation of final victory over Satan gives us a glimpse of the prayers with the Father when the Son spent whole nights on the mountain alone with the Father. Here is the Messianic consciousness in complete control and with perfect confidence in the outcome. Here as in strkjv@Matthew:11:27| by the use of {willeth to reveal him} (\boultai apokalupsai\). The Son claims the power to reveal the Father "to whomsoever he wills" (\hi an boultai\, indefinite relative and present subjunctive of \boulomai\, to will, not the future indicative). This is divine sovereignty most assuredly. Human free agency is also true, but it is full divine sovereignty in salvation that is here claimed along with possession (\paredoth\, timeless aorist passive indicative) of all power from the Father. Let that supreme claim stand.

rwp@Luke:20:44 @{David therefore} (\Daueid oun\). Without \ei\ as in strkjv@Matthew:22:45|. On the basis of this definite piece of exegesis (\oun\, therefore) Jesus presses the problem (\ps\, how) for an explanation. The deity and the humanity of the Messiah in strkjv@Psalms:110| are thus set forth, the very problems that disturbed the rabbis then and that upset many critics today.

rwp@Mark:4:2 @{He taught them} (\edidasken autous\). Imperfect tense describing it as going on. {In parables} (\en parabolais\). As in strkjv@3:23|, only here more extended parables. See on ¯Matthew:13| for discussion concerning Christ's use of parables. Eight are given there, one (the Lamp both in strkjv@Mark:4:21| and strkjv@Luke:8:16| (both Sower and the Lamp in Luke), one alone in strkjv@Mark:4:26-29| (seed growing of itself) not in Matthew or Luke, ten on this occasion. Only four are mentioned in strkjv@Mark:4:1-34| (The Sower, the Lamp, the Seed Growing of Itself, the Mustard Seed). But Mark adds (4:34|) "without a parable spake he not unto them," clearly meaning that Jesus spoke many others on this occasion and Matt. after mentioning eight (Matthew:13:34|) makes the same statement. Manifestly, therefore, Jesus spoke many parables on this day and all theories of exegesis or dispensations on the basis of the number of these kingdom parables are quite beside the mark. In beginning Jesus said: {Hearken} (\Akouete\). It is significant that even Jesus had to ask people to listen when he spoke. See also verse 9|.

rwp@Mark:9:12 @{Restoreth all things} (\apokatistanei panta\). This late double compound verb, usual form \apokathistmi\ in the papyri, is Christ's description of the Baptist as the promised Elijah and Forerunner of the Messiah. See on ¯Matthew:17:10-13|. The disciples had not till now understood that the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy in strkjv@Malachi:3:5f|. They had just seen Elijah on the mountain, but Jesus as Messiah preceded this coming of Elijah. But Jesus patiently enlightens his dull pupils as they argue about the exegesis of the scribes.

rwp@Revelation:6:12 @{There was a great earthquake} (\seismos megas egeneto\). "There came a great earthquake." Jesus spoke of earthquakes in his great eschatological discourse (Mark:13:8|). In strkjv@Matthew:24:29| the powers of the heavens will be shaken. \Seismos\ is from \sei\, to shake, and occurs also in strkjv@Revelation:8:5; strkjv@11:13,19; strkjv@16:18|. The reference is not a local earthquake like those so common in Asia Minor. {As sackcloth of hair} (\hs sakkos trichinos\). \Sakkos\ (Attic \sakos\), Latin _saccus_, English _sack_, originally a bag for holding things (Genesis:42:25,35|), then coarse garment of hair (\trichinos\, old word from \thrix\, here only in N.T.) clinging to one like a sack, of mourners, suppliants, prophets leading austere lives (Matthew:3:4; strkjv@11:21; strkjv@Luke:10:13|). Here the hair is that of the black goat (Isaiah:50:3|). Cf. strkjv@Joel:2:10; strkjv@Ezekiel:32:7f.; strkjv@Isaiah:13:10; strkjv@Mark:13:24f|. See strkjv@Ecclesiastes:12:2| for eclipses treated as symbols of old age. Apocalyptic pictures all have celestial phenomena following earthquakes. {As blood} (\hs haima\). In strkjv@Acts:2:20| we find Peter interpreting the apocalyptic eschatological language of strkjv@Joel:2:31| about the sun being turned into darkness and the moon into blood as pointing to the events of the day of Pentecost as also "the great day of the Lord." Peter's interpretation of Joel should make us cautious about too literal an exegesis of these grand symbols.

rwp@Revelation:20:5 @{The rest of the dead} (\hoi loipoi tn nekrn\). "All except the martyrs, both the righteous and the unrighteous" (Beckwith). But some take this to mean only the wicked. {Lived not until the thousand years should be finished} (\ouk ezsan achri telesthi ta chilia et\). See verse 4| for the items here. "To infer from this statement, as many expositors have done, that the \ezsan\ of v. 4| must be understood of bodily resuscitation, is to interpret apocalyptic prophecy by methods of exegesis which are proper to ordinary narrative" (Swete). I sympathize wholly with that comment and confess my own ignorance therefore as to the meaning of the symbolism without any predilections for post-millennialism or premillennialism. {This is the first resurrection} (\haut h anastasis h prt\). Scholars differ as to the genuineness of this phrase. Accepting it as genuine, Swete applies it to "the return of the martyrs and confessors to life at the beginning of the Thousand Years." According to this view the first resurrection is a special incident in the present life before the Parousia. It has no parallel with strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:16|, where the dead in Christ are raised before those living are changed. Some think that John here pictures the "Regeneration" (\palingenesia\) of strkjv@Matthew:19:28| and the "Restoration" (\apokatastasis\) of strkjv@Acts:3:21|. No effort is here made to solve this problem, save to call attention to the general judgment out of the books in strkjv@20:12| and to the general resurrection in strkjv@John:5:29; strkjv@Acts:24:15|.