OT-LAW.filter - rwp Matthew:1:19:

rwp@Colossians:2:15 @{Having put off from himself} (\apekdusamenos\). Only here and strkjv@3:9| and one MS. of Josephus (\apekdus\). Both \apodu\ and \ekdu\ occur in ancient writers. Paul simply combines the two for expression of complete removal. But two serious problems arise here. Is God or Christ referred to by \apekdusamenos\? What is meant by "the principalities and the powers" (\tas archas kai tas exousias\)? Modern scholars differ radically and no full discussion can be attempted here as one finds in Lightfoot, Haupt, Abbott, Peake. On the whole I am inclined to look on God as still the subject and the powers to be angels such as the Gnostics worshipped and the verb to mean "despoil" (American Standard Version) rather than "having put off from himself." In the Cross of Christ God showed his power openly without aid or help of angels. {He made a show of them} (\edeigmatisen\). First aorist active indicative of \deigmatiz\, late and rare verb from \deigma\ (Jude:1:7|), an example, and so to make an example of. Frequent in the papyri though later than \paradeigmatiz\ and in N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:1:19| of Joseph's conduct toward Mary. No idea of disgrace is necessarily involved in the word. The publicity is made plain by "openly" (\en parrsii\). {Triumphing over them on it} (\thriambeusas autous en auti\). On the Cross the triumph was won. This late, though common verb in _Koin_ writers (\ekthriambeu\ in the papyri) occurs only twice in the N.T., once "to lead in triumph" (2Corinthians:2:14|), here to celebrate a triumph (the usual sense). It is derived from \thriambos\, a hymn sung in festal procession and is kin to the Latin _triumphus_ (our triumph), a triumphal procession of victorious Roman generals. God won a complete triumph over all the angelic agencies (\autous\, masculine regarded as personal agencies). Lightfoot adds, applying \thriambeusas\ to Christ: "The convict's gibbet is the victor's car." It is possible, of course, to take \auti\ as referring to \cheirographon\ (bond) or even to Christ.

rwp@Hebrews:6:6 @{It is impossible to renew them again} (\adunaton palin anakainizein\). The \adunaton\ (impossible) comes first in verse 4| without \estin\ (is) and there is no "them" in the Greek. There are three other instances of \adunaton\ in Hebrews (6:18; strkjv@10:4; strkjv@11:6|). The present active infinitive of \anakainiz\ (late verb, \ana, kainos\, here only in the N.T., but \anakaino\, strkjv@2Corinthians:4:16; strkjv@Colossians:3:10|) with \adunaton\ bluntly denies the possibility of renewal for apostates from Christ (cf. strkjv@3:12-4:2|). It is a terrible picture and cannot be toned down. The one ray of light comes in verses 8-12|, not here. {Seeing they crucify to themselves afresh} (\anastraurountas heautois\). Present active participle (accusative plural agreeing with \tous... parapesontas\) of \anastauro\, the usual verb for crucify in the old Greek so that \ana-\ here does not mean "again" or "afresh," but "up," _sursum_, not _rursum_ (Vulgate). This is the reason why renewal for such apostates is impossible. They crucify Christ. {And put him to an open shame} (\kai paradeigmatizontas\). Present active participle of \paradeigmatiz\, late verb from \paradeigma\ (example), to make an example of, and in bad sense to expose to disgrace. Simplex verb \deigmatisai\ in this sense in strkjv@Matthew:1:19|.

rwp@Matthew:1:19 @{A Righteous Man} (\dikaios\). Or just, not benignant or merciful. The same adjective is used of Zacharias and Elizabeth (Luke:1:6|) and Simeon (Luke:2:25|). "An upright man," the _Braid Scots_ has it. He had the Jewish conscientiousness for the observance of the law which would have been death by stoning (Deuteronomy:22:23|). Though Joseph was upright, he would not do that. "As a good Jew he would have shown his zeal if he had branded her with public disgrace" (McNeile). {And yet not willing} (\kai m theln\). Songs:we must understand \kai\ here, "and yet." Matthew makes a distinction here between "willing" (\theln\) and "wishing" (\eboulth\), that between purpose (\thel\) and desire (\boulomai\) a distinction not always drawn, though present here. It was not his purpose to "make her a public example" (\deigmatisai\), from the root (\deiknumi\ to show), a rare word (Colossians:2:15|). The Latin Vulgate has it _traducere_, the Old Latin _divulgare_, Wycliff _pupplische_ (publish), Tyndale _defame_, Moffatt _disgrace_, Braid Scots "Be i the mooth o' the public." The substantive (\deigmatismos\) occurs on the Rosetta Stone in the sense of "verification." There are a few instances of the verb in the papyri though the meaning is not clear (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). The compound form appears (\paradeigmatiz\) in strkjv@Hebrews:6:6| and there are earlier instances of this compound than of the uncompounded, curiously enough. But new examples of the simple verb, like the substantive, may yet be found. The papyri examples mean to furnish a sample (P Tebt. 5.75), to make trial of (P Ryl. I. 28.32). The substantive means exposure in (P Ryl. I. 28.70). At any rate it is clear that Joseph "was minded to put her away privily." He could give her a bill of divorcement (\apolusai\), the \gt\ laid down in the Mishna, without a public trial. He had to give her the writ (\gt\) and pay the fine (Deuteronomy:24:1|). Songs:he proposed to do this privately (\lathrai\) to avoid all the scandal possible. One is obliged to respect and sympathize with the motives of Joseph for he evidently loved Mary and was appalled to find her untrue to him as he supposed. It is impossible to think of Joseph as the actual father of Jesus according to the narrative of Matthew without saying that Matthew has tried by legend to cover up the illegitimate birth of Jesus. The Talmud openly charges this sin against Mary. Joseph had "a short but tragic struggle between his legal conscience and his love" (McNeile).