OT.filter - rwp pneumatos:

rwp@1Corinthians:2:13 @{Which things also we speak} (\ha kai laloumen\). This onomatopoetic verb \lale\ (from \la-la\), to utter sounds. In the papyri the word calls more attention to the form of utterance while \leg\ refers more to the substance. But \lale\ in the N.T. as here is used of the highest and holiest speech. Undoubtedly Paul employs the word purposely for the utterance of the revelation which he has understood. That is to say, there is revelation (verse 10|), illumination (verse 12|), and inspiration (verse 13|). Paul claims therefore the help of the Holy Spirit for the reception of the revelation, for the understanding of it, for the expression of it. Paul claimed this authority for his preaching (1Thessalonians:4:2|) and for his epistles (2Thessalonians:3:14|). {Not in words which man's wisdom teacheth} (\ouk en didaktois anthrpins sophias logois\). Literally, "not in words taught by human wisdom." The verbal adjective \didaktois\ (from \didask\, to teach) is here passive in idea and is followed by the ablative case of origin or source as in strkjv@John:6:45|, \esontai pantes didaktoi theou\ (from strkjv@Isaiah:54:13|), "They shall all be taught by God." The ablative in Greek, as is well known, has the same form as the genitive, though quite different in idea (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 516). Songs:then Paul claims the help of the Holy Spirit in the utterance (\laloumen\) of the words, "which the Spirit teacheth (\en didaktois pneumatos\), "in words taught by the Spirit" (ablative \pneumatos\ as above). Clearly Paul means that the help of the Holy Spirit in the utterance of the revelation extends to the words. No theory of inspiration is here stated, but it is not _mere_ human wisdom. Paul's own Epistles bear eloquent witness to the lofty claim here made. They remain today after nearly nineteen centuries throbbing with the power of the Spirit of God, dynamic with life for the problems of today as when Paul wrote them for the needs of the believers in his time, the greatest epistles of all time, surcharged with the energy of God. {Comparing spiritual things with spiritual} (\pneumatikois pneumatika sunkrinontes\). Each of these words is in dispute. The verb \sunkrin\, originally meant to combine, to join together fitly. In the LXX it means to interpret dreams (Genesis:40:8,22; strkjv@41:12|) possibly by comparison. In the later Greek it may mean to compare as in strkjv@2Corinthians:10:12|. In the papyri Moulton and Milligan (_Vocabulary_) give it only for "decide," probably after comparing. But "comparing," in spite of the translations, does not suit well here. Songs:it is best to follow the original meaning to combine as do Lightfoot and Ellicott. But what gender is \pneumatikois\? Is it masculine or neuter like \pneumatika\? If masculine, the idea would be "interpreting (like LXX) spiritual truths to spiritual persons" or "matching spiritual truths with spiritual persons." This is a possible rendering and makes good sense in harmony with verse 14|. If \pneumatikois\ be taken as neuter plural (associative instrumental case after \sun\ in \sunkrinontes\), the idea most naturally would be, "combining spiritual ideas (\pneumatika\) with spiritual words" (\pneumatikois\). This again makes good sense in harmony with the first part of verse 13|. On the whole this is the most natural way to take it, though various other possibilities exist.

rwp@1Peter:1:2 @{According to} (\kata\). Probably to be connected with \eklektois\ rather than with \apostolos\ in spite of a rather loose arrangement of words and the absence of articles in verses 1,2|. {The foreknowledge} (\prognsin\). Late substantive (Plutarch, Lucian, papyri) from \proginsk\ (1:20|), to know beforehand, only twice in N.T. (here and strkjv@Acts:2:23| in Peter's sermon). In this Epistle Peter often uses substantives rather than verbs (cf. strkjv@Romans:8:29|). {Of God the Father} (\theou patros\). Anarthous again and genitive case. See \patr\ applied to God also in strkjv@1:3,17| as often by Paul (Romans:1:7|, etc.). Peter here presents the Trinity (God the Father, the Spirit, Jesus Christ). {In sanctification of the Spirit} (\en hagiasmi pneumatos\). Clearly the Holy Spirit, though anarthrous like \theou patros\. Late word from \hagiaz\, to render holy (\hagios\), to consecrate, as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:7|. The subjective genitive here, sanctification wrought by the Spirit as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:13| (where the Trinity mentioned as here). {Unto obedience} (\eis hupakon\). Obedience (from \hupakou\, to hear under, to hearken) to the Lord Jesus as in strkjv@1:22| "to the truth," result of "the sanctification." {And sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ} (\rantismon haimatos Isou Christou\). Late substantive from \rantiz\, to sprinkle (Hebrews:9:13|), a word used in the LXX of the sacrifices (Numbers:19:9,13,20|, etc.), but not in any non-biblical source so far as known, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:12:24| (of the sprinkling of blood). Reference to the death of Christ on the Cross and to the ratification of the New Covenant by the blood of Christ as given in strkjv@Hebrews:9:19f.; strkjv@12:24| with allusion to strkjv@Exodus:24:3-8|. Paul does not mention this ritual use of the blood of Christ, but Jesus does (Matthew:26:28; strkjv@Mark:14:24|). Hence it is not surprising to find the use of it by Peter and the author of Hebrews. Hort suggests that Peter may also have an ulterior reference to the blood of the martyrs as in strkjv@Revelation:7:14f.; strkjv@12:11|, but only as illustration of what Jesus did for us, not as having any value. The whole Epistle is a commentary upon \prognsis theou, hagiasmos pneumatos, haima Christou\ (Bigg). Peter is not ashamed of the blood of Christ. {Be multiplied} (\plthunthei\). First aorist passive optative (volitive) of \plthun\, old verb (from \plthus\, fulness), in a wish. Songs:in strkjv@2Peter:1:2; strkjv@Jude:1:2|, but nowhere else in N.T. salutations. Grace and peace (\charis kai eirn\) occur together in strkjv@2Peter:1:2|, in strkjv@2John:1:2| (with \eleos\), and in all Paul's Epistles (with \eleos\ added in I and II Timothy).

rwp@Hebrews:9:8 @{The Holy Ghost this signifying} (\touto dlountos tou pneumatos tou hagiou\). Genitive absolute with present active participle of \dlo\, to make plain. Used as in strkjv@12:27|. {The way into the Holy place} (\tn tn hagin hodon\). Here as in verses 12,25| \tn hagin\ is used for the very Presence of God as in strkjv@8:2| and is in the objective genitive. \Hodon\ is the accusative of general reference with the infinitive. {Hath not yet been made manifest} (\mp pephanersthai\). Perfect passive infinitive of \phanero\, to make plain (\phaneros\) in indirect discourse after \dlountos\ with negative \mp\. {While as the first tabernacle is yet standing} (\eti ts prts skns echouss stasin\). Another genitive absolute with present active participle of \ech\ (having standing \stasin\), "the first tabernacle still having a place." The veil at the entrance kept the people out of the first tent as the second veil (verse 3|) kept the priests out of the Holy of Holies (the very Presence of God).

rwp@Matthew:1:18 @{Of the Holy Ghost} (\ek pneumatos hagiou\). The discovery that Mary was pregnant was inevitable and it is plain that she had not told Joseph. She "was found with child" (\heureth en gastri echousa\). This way of putting it, the usual Greek idiom, plainly shows that it was the discovery that shocked Joseph. He did not as yet know what Matthew plainly asserts that the Holy Ghost, not Joseph and not any man, was responsible for the pregnancy of Mary. The problem of the Virgin Birth of Jesus has been a disturbing fact to some through all the ages and is today to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the Son of God, before his Incarnation on earth. This is the primal fact about the Birth of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ is clearly stated by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|; and involved in strkjv@Colossians:1:15-19|) and by John (John:1:14; strkjv@17:5|). If one frankly admits the actual pre-existence of Christ and the real Incarnation, he has taken the longest and most difficult step in the matter of the supernatural Birth of Christ. That being true, no merely human birth without the supernatural element can possibly explain the facts. Incarnation is far more than the Indwelling of God by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. To admit real incarnation and also full human birth, both father and mother, creates a greater difficulty than to admit the Virgin Birth of Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew here says, and born of the Virgin Mary. It is true that only Matthew and Luke tell the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus, though strkjv@John:1:14| seems to refer to it. Mark has nothing whatever concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus and so cannot be used as a witness on the subject. Both Matthew and Luke present the birth of Jesus as not according to ordinary human birth. Jesus had no human father. There is such a thing in nature as parthenogenesis in the lower orders of life. But that scientific fact has no bearing here. We see here God sending his Son into the world to be the world's Saviour and he gave him a human mother, but not a human father so that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of Man, the God Man. Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph as Luke gives it from the standpoint of Mary. The two narratives harmonize with each other. One credits these most wonderful of all birth narratives according as he believes in the love and power of Almighty God to do what he wills. There is no miracle with God who has all power and all knowledge. The laws of nature are simply the expression of God's will, but he has not revealed all his will in the laws that we discover. God is Spirit. He is Person. He holds in his own power all life. strkjv@John:3:16| is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us.