rwp - sayest

rwp@John:1:22 @{They said therefore} (\eipan oun\). Second aorist active indicative of defective verb \eipon\ with \a\ instead of usual \o\. Note \oun\, inferential here as in verse 21| though often merely transitional in John. {Who art thou?} (\Tis ei;\). Same question as at first (verse 19|), but briefer. {That we give answer} (\hina apokrisin dmen\). Final use of \hina\ with second aorist active subjunctive of \didmi\ with \apokrisin\ from \apokrinomai\, above, old substantive as in strkjv@Luke:2:47|. {To those that sent} (\tois pempsasin\). Dative case plural of the articular participle first aorist active of \pemp\. {What sayest thou of thyself?} (\Ti legeis peri seautou;\). This time they opened wide the door without giving any hint at all.

rwp@John:8:5 @{Commanded} (\eneteilato\). First aorist middle indicative of \entell\, old verb to enjoin (Matthew:4:6|). {To stone such} (\tas toiautas lithazein\). Present active infinitive of \lithaz\ (from \lithos\), from Aristotle on. Stoning was specified for the case of a betrothed woman guilty of adultery (Deuteronomy:22:23f.|) and for a priest's daughter if guilty. In other cases just death was commanded (Leviticus:20:10; strkjv@Deuteronomy:22:22|). The Talmud prescribes strangulation. This case may have strictly come within the regulation as a betrothed virgin. {What then sayest thou of her?} (\su oun ti legeis;\). "Thou then, what dost thou say?" This was the whole point, to catch Jesus, not to punish the woman.

rwp@John:12:34 @{Out of the law} (\ek tou nomou\). That is, "out of the Scriptures" (10:34; strkjv@15:25|). {The Christ abideth forever} (\ho Christos menei eis ton aina\). Timeless present active indicative of \men\, to abide, remain. Perhaps from strkjv@Psalms:89:4; strkjv@110:4; strkjv@Isaiah:9:7; strkjv@Ezekiel:37:25; strkjv@Daniel:7:14|. {How sayest thou?} (\ps legeis su;\). In opposition to the law (Scripture). {The Son of man} (\ton huion tou anthrpou\). Accusative case of general reference with the infinitive \hupsthnai\ (first aorist passive of \hupso\ and taken in the sense of death by the cross as Jesus used it in verse 32|). Clearly the crowd understand Jesus to be "the Son of man" and take the phrase to be equivalent to "the Christ." This is the obvious way to understand the two terms in their reply, and not, as Bernard suggests, that they saw no connexion between "the Christ" (the Messiah) and "the Son of man." The use of "this" (\houtos\) in the question that follows is in contrast to verse 32|. The Messiah (the Son of man) abides forever and is not to be crucified as you say he "must" (\dei\) be.

rwp@John:18:37 @{Art thou a king then?} (\oukoun basileus ei su;\). Compound of \ouk\ and \oun\ and is clearly ironical expecting an affirmative answer, only here in the N.T., and in LXX only in A text in strkjv@2Kings:5:23|. {Thou sayest that} (\su legeis hoti\). In strkjv@Matthew:27:11; strkjv@Mark:15:2; strkjv@Luke:23:3|, \su legeis\ clearly means "yes," as \su eipas\ (thou saidst) does in strkjv@Matthew:26:64| (= "I am," \eg eimi\, in strkjv@Mark:41:62|). Hence here \hoti\ had best be taken to mean "because": "Yes, because I am a king." {Have I been born} (\eg gegennmai\). Perfect passive indicative of \genna\. The Incarnation was for this purpose. Note repetition of \eis touto\ (for this purpose), explained by \hina marturs ti altheii\ (that I may bear witness to the truth), \hina\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \marture\. Paul (1Timothy:6:13|) alludes to this good confession when Christ bore witness (\martursantos\) before Pilate. Jesus bore such witness always (John:3:11,32; strkjv@7:7; strkjv@8:14; strkjv@Revelation:1:5|).

CONCORD sayest