Exegetical Studies

^^l^ Mk mm I 1 C'l^t ^ PRINCETON, N. J. 'S Seciion . v VDT.'^. .fe .^. • 5'/%^//'. >J^^ ^ ^ '^Â ^.?m->y \r>iti.-i Îf- '^^ EXEGETICAL STUDIES. EXEGETICAL STUDIES. PATON J. GLOAG, D.D, MINISTER OF GALASHIELS, AUTHOR OF "a COMMENTARV ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES," ETC. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. MDCCCLXXXIV. PRINTED BY LORIMER AND GILLIES, FOR T & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, HAMILTON, ADAMS AND CO. DUBLIN, ROBERTSON AND CO. NEW YORK. SCRIBNER AND WELFORD. PREFATORY NOTE. Several of the following papers have already appeared in different Magazines, and are incorporated in this work by the kind permission of the editors of these Magazines. The object of these Exegetical Studies is to bring the result of modern exegesis to bear upon the interpretation of some difficult passages of Scripture. Some of these passages, as for example, " Our Lord's Blessing to Peter," " Saved by Fire," and " The Spirits in Prison," are of great importance, and have given rise to much controversy in the Church of Christ ; while all of them have been very differently understood by leading divines belonging to different schools of theology. Whether in this work anything has been added to their elucida- tion the reader must judge. In discussing them I have endeavoured to be fair and impartial ; nor do I think that the reader will find any trace of that most objectionable of all polemical artifices by which the controversialist attempts to prejudice his reader against his opponent—the odium theologicum. Galashiels Manse, March, 1884. CONTENTS. I. BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST, I IL OUR LORD'S BLESSING TO PETER, 23 III. SALTED WITH FIRE, . 43 IV. THE WOMEN AT THE CROSS, . 58 -^ V. THE GROANING CREATION, 7^ VI. SAVED AS BY FIRE, . 97 VII. WOMEN VEILED BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS, 114 * VIII. BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD, .... 133 IX. PAUL'S THORN IN THE FLESH, . 157 X. DUALITY OF MEDIATION AND UNITY OF GOD, 177 XI. THE COMPLEMENT OF CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS, . XII. EXALTATION OF THE POOR AND HUMILIATION OF THE RICH, .... 213 XIII. THE INDWELLING SPIRIT LUSTETH TO ENVY, 228 XIV. THE SPIRITS IN PRISON, . 243 XV. CHRISTIAN PERFECTION, . 267 XVI. THE THREEFOLD TESTIMONY, . 282 ; EXEGETICAL STUDIES. EXPOSITION I. BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. Matthew xii. 31, 32. Textics receptus.— A/a rcZro Xsyu v/J!,7v, Tlaffa afia^rla xai l3Xaa<prifJ>loc a(psdr,ffSTai roig avdûivoig ' tj ds to\) IlvibiMarog ^Xas- cprifiia ovx d^sdrjffBrai roTg avd^wroig. Kai og av U'rrri "koyov -Aara Tou u'loij Tou avdû'TOu, dpsd^gsrai avrQ ' og d'dv s'l'-ri xard rou IlvBu/jtaTog TOO dyiou, ovx a,<pi6ri(SiTai aWu) o'ors sv rovr(fj rui aiuvi OUTS SV rui fisXXovri. Authorised Version.—Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men : but the blasphemy againsi the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him : but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Revised Version. —Therefore I say unto you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men ; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come. Besides this passage in St. Matthew's gospel, we have two other statements regarding this sin, given — 2 Exegetical Studies, with slight deviations, in the gospel of St. Mark (iii. 28-30) and of St. Luke (xii. ic). In St. Matthew's gospel the sin is spoken of as rov IIvev[xaro<i jSXaa- <f>7]fMia ; whilst in St. Mark's gospel it is 09 B'av ^Xaa- <^r}jxrjari eh ro Uvevfia to ayiov ; and in St. Luke's gospel Tft) et9 TO ajiov Uveviia jBXaatprjfxrjaavTL. There is also a remarkable and well authenticated reading in St. Mark's gospel, in the clause ew^jô? eaTiv alwviov ; /cp/o-ew?, " is in danger of eternal judgment " the best MSS. have o.fxapTrjâTO'i instead of Kpicrecci';, "is guilty of an eternal sin." ^ (Revised Version.) All these three statements declare the sin to consist in blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, but in none of them is there a description of the nature of this sin. The subject is beset with difficulty, and requires much caution in its treatment. This difficulty arises partly from the indefinite nature of the declaration of our Lord,—whether we are to understand it as an asser- tion of the criminality of the Pharisees, whose conduct gave rise to it, or as an admonition addressed to them ; partly because the statement stands by itself apart, there being no direct mention of this sin in other portions of Scripture ; and partly from the mystery which is inseparably connected with the doctrine of the Spirit's agency. Nor would the determination of this sin, or, if that is impossible, at least the negative statement of its nature—showing wherein it does not consist—be of much practical importance, were it not that it has been the occasion of anxiety and trouble ^ Adopted by Griesbach, Tischendorf, Lachmann, Meyer, and Alford. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. 3 to many scrupulous persons, preventing their recep- tion of the consolations of the Gospel, and impairing their usefulness. Numerous opinions have been formed concerning the nature of the sin against the Holy Ghost. With the exception of those who consider the words of our Lord as descriptive of the sin of the Pharisees in ascribing His miracles to the agency of Satan, almost every writer has adopted an opinion of his own. Some suppose that the sin against the Son of Man is an offence against a person which may be forgiven, but that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is an offence against a precept or law, and accordingly irreversible and eternal in its effects. Others have re- solved the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost into final unbelief, impenitence, and hardness of heart, because this state of mind does in its own nature exclude for- giveness. Others have supposed that wilful, deliberate, and presumptuous sins, committed by those who were once awakened, and, for a time, made a fair profession of religion, are unpardonable sins against the Holy Ghost. Others have regarded this sin as equivalent to apostasy, in conformity with the words of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, when he says that it is impossible to restore to repentance those who have fallen away after they have been enlightened, and have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost (Heb. vi. 4). Others have made it to consist in that species of infidelity which manifests itself in sneering at and blaspheming the sacred truths of religion, and in 4 Exegetical Studies. spreading known lies and calumnies against Christ- ianity. Others have regarded it as hatred, directed especially against the Holy Ghost and His operations, and disclosing itself in blasphemous expressions. Others would have it to consist in a malicious opposition to the truth, when they know and are convinced that it is the truth. Others think that it cannot be any particular sin, but a general and total rejection of the only means of recovery from sin. And it is the opinion of not a few that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was the very sin which the Pharisees committed, when they attributed the miracles, which our Lord performed by the agency of the Holy Ghost, to the devil, a sin aggravated by this circumstance that it was committed by those who were eye- witnesses of these miracles, and who had the most convincing proofs of their reality ; and consequently a sin which, at least in its outward form, cannot be committed in the present day, seeing that the miracu- lous gifts of the Spirit are withdrawn from the Church. "The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost," says Meyer, " may be defined to be the sin which a man commits when he rejects the undoubted revelation of the Holy Spirit, and that not merely with a contempt- uous moral indifference, but with the evil will struggling to shut out the light of that revelation ; and even goes the length of expressing in hostile language his deliberate and conscious opposition to this divine principle." And Julius Muller thus expresses his " views of the subject : The nature of this sin is haired Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. 5 of that which is cognised as Divine, and the blasphemy- is the expression of this hatred. He who has observed with some degree of attentiveness the heights of human corruption in its more spiritual forms, will have noticed this remarkable phenomenon, how those, who have reached such heights, cannot rest in their aversion to that which is holy and divine, but as with irresistible violence are impelled to give vent to the same by revilings ; how it furnishes them a vile satis- faction to belch forth their most horrifying blas- phemies." From this variety of opinion it would appear that if any particular sin, any definite act of blasphemy, be meant, which we do not deny may be the case, that act of sin is to us unknown ; unless indeed, we adopt the opinion that it is the particular sin of which the Pharisees were guilty when they attributed our Lord's miracles to Satan ; an opinion which we shall after- wards prove to be erroneous, but which we may at present regard as extremely doubtful.

Load more