Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-LAW.filter - rwp fourth:


rwp@1Corinthians:1:12 @{Now this I mean} (\leg“ de touto\). Explanatory use of \leg“\. Each has his party leader. \Apoll“\ is genitive of \Apoll“s\ (Acts:18:24|), probably abbreviation of \Apoll“nius\ as seen in Codex Bezae for strkjv@Acts:18:24|. See on Acts for discussion of this "eloquent Alexandrian" (Ellicott), whose philosophical and oratorical preaching was in contrast "with the studied plainness" of Paul (1Corinthians:2:1; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:10|). People naturally have different tastes about styles of preaching and that is well, but Apollos refused to be a party to this strife and soon returned to Ephesus and refused to go back to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:12|). \Cˆphƒ\ is the genitive of \Cˆphƒs\, the Aramaic name given Simon by Jesus (John:1:42|), \Petros\ in Greek. Except in strkjv@Galatians:2:7,8| Paul calls him Cephas. He had already taken his stand with Paul in the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:7-11; strkjv@Galatians:2:7-10|). Paul had to rebuke him at Antioch for his timidity because of the Judaizers (Galatians:2:11-14|), but, in spite of Baur's theory, there is no evidence of a schism in doctrine between Paul and Peter. If strkjv@2Peter:3:15f.| be accepted as genuine, as I do, there is proof of cordial relations between them and strkjv@1Corinthians:9:5| points in the same direction. But there is no evidence that Peter himself visited Corinth. Judaizers came and pitted Peter against Paul to the Corinthian Church on the basis of Paul's rebuke of Peter in Antioch. These Judaizers made bitter personal attacks on Paul in return for their defeat at the Jerusalem Conference. Songs:a third faction was formed by the use of Peter's name as the really orthodox wing of the church, the gospel of the circumcision. {And I of Christ} (\eg“ de Christou\). Still a fourth faction in recoil from the partisan use of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, with "a spiritually proud utterance" (Ellicott) that assumes a relation to Christ not true of the others. "Those who used this cry arrogated the common watchword as their _peculium_" (Findlay). This partisan use of the name of Christ may have been made in the name of unity against the other three factions, but it merely added another party to those existing. In scouting the names of the other leaders they lowered the name and rank of Christ to their level.

rwp@1Corinthians:1:13 @{Is Christ divided?} (\memeristai ho Christos;\). Perfect passive indicative, Does Christ stand divided? It is not certain, though probable, that this is interrogative like the following clauses. Hofmann calls the assertory form a "rhetorical impossibility." The absence of \mˆ\ here merely allows an affirmative answer which is true. The fourth or Christ party claimed to possess Christ in a sense not true of the others. Perhaps the leaders of this Christ party with their arrogant assumptions of superiority are the false apostles, ministers of Satan posing as angels of light (2Corinthians:11:12-15|). {Was Paul crucified for you?} (\Mˆ Paulos estaur“thˆ huper hum“n;\). An indignant "No" is demanded by \mˆ\. Paul shows his tact by employing himself as the illustration, rather than Apollos or Cephas. Probably \huper\, over, in behalf of, rather than \peri\ (concerning, around) is genuine, though either makes good sense here. In the _Koin‚_ \huper\ encroaches on \peri\ as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1|. {Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?} (\eis to onoma Paulou ebaptisthˆte;\). It is unnecessary to say {into} for \eis\ rather than {in} since \eis\ is the same preposition originally as \en\ and both are used with \baptiz“\ as in strkjv@Acts:8:16; strkjv@10:48| with no difference in idea (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 592). Paul evidently knows the idea in strkjv@Matthew:28:19| and scouts the notion of being put on a par with Christ or the Trinity. He is no rival of Christ. This use of \onoma\ for the person is not only in the LXX, but the papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions give numerous examples of the name of the king or the god for the power and authority of the king or god (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, pp. 146ff., 196ff.; _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 121).

rwp@1Corinthians:6:18 @{Flee} (\pheugete\). Present imperative. Have the habit of fleeing without delay or parley. Note abruptness of the asyndeton with no connectives. Fornication violates Christ's rights in our bodies (verses 13-17|) and also ruins the body itself. {Without the body} (\ektos tou s“matos\). Even gluttony and drunkenness and the use of dope are sins wrought on the body, not "within the body" (\entos tou s“matos\) in the same sense as fornication. Perhaps the dominant idea of Paul is that fornication, as already shown, breaks the mystic bond between the body and Christ and hence the fornicator (\ho porneu“n\) {sins against his own body} (\eis to idion s“ma hamartanei\) in a sense not true of other dreadful sins. The fornicator takes his body which belongs to Christ and unites it with a harlot. In fornication the body is the instrument of sin and becomes the subject of the damage wrought. In another sense fornication brings on one's own body the two most terrible bodily diseases that are still incurable (gonorrhea and syphilis) that curse one's own body and transmit the curse to the third and fourth generation. Apart from the high view given here by Paul of the relation of the body to the Lord no possible father or mother has the right to lay the hand of such terrible diseases and disaster on their children and children's children. The moral and physical rottenness wrought by immorality defy one's imagination.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:37 @{Not the body which shall be} (\ou to s“ma to genˆsomenon\). Articular future participle of \ginomai\, literally, "not the body that will become." The new {body} (\s“ma\) is not yet in existence, but only the seed (\kokkos\, grain, old word, as in strkjv@Matthew:13:31|). {It may chance} (\ei tuchoi\). Fourth class condition as in strkjv@14:10| which see. Paul is rich in metaphors here, though usually not so (Howson, _Metaphors of St. Paul_). Paul was a city man. We sow seeds, not plants (bodies). The butterfly comes out of the dying worm.

rwp@Info_1John @ THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION RELATION TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL There are few scholars who deny that the Epistles of John and the Fourth Gospel are by the same writer. As a matter of fact "in the whole of the First Epistle there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel" (Schulze). H. J. Holtzmann (_Jahrbuch fur Protestantische Theologie_, 1882, P. 128) in a series of articles on the "Problem of the First Epistle of St. John in its Relation to the Gospel" thinks that the similarities are closer than those between Luke's Gospel and the Acts. Baur argued that this fact was explained by conscious imitation on the part of one or the other, probably by the author of the Epistle. The solution lies either in identity of authorship or in imitation. If there is identity of authorship, Holtzmann argues that the Epistle is earlier, as seems to me to be true, while Brooke holds that the Gospel is the earlier and that the First Epistle represents the more complete ideas of the author. Both Holtzmann and Brooke give a detailed comparison of likenesses between the First Epistle and the Fourth Gospel in vocabulary, syntax, style, ideas. The arguments are not conclusive as to the priority of Epistle or Gospel, but they are as to identity of authorship. One who accepts, as I do, the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel for the reasons given in Volume V of this series, does not feel called upon to prove the Johannine authorship of the three Epistles that pass under the Apostle's name. Westcott suggests that one compare strkjv@John:1:1-18| with strkjv@1John:1:1-4| to see how the same mind deals with the same ideas in different connections. "No theory of conscious imitation can reasonably explain the subtle coincidences and differences in these two short crucial passages."

rwp@Info_1John @ GNOSTICISM The Epistle is not a polemic primarily, but a letter for the edification of the readers in the truth and the life in Christ. And yet the errors of the Gnostics are constantly before John's mind. The leaders had gone out from among the true Christians, but there was an atmosphere of sympathy that constituted a subtle danger. There are only two passages (1John:2:18f.; strkjv@4:1-6|) in which the false teachers are specifically denounced, but "this unethical intellectualism" (Robert Law) with its dash of Greek culture and Oriental mysticism and licentiousness gave a curious attraction for many who did not know how to think clearly. John, like Paul in Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles, foresaw this dire peril to Christianity. In the second century it gave pure Christianity a gigantic struggle. "The great Gnostics were the first Christian philosophers" (Robert Law, _The Tests of Life_, p. 27) and threatened to undermine the Gospel message by "deifying the devil" (ib., p. 31) along with dethroning Christ. There were two kinds of Gnostics, both agreeing in the essential evil of matter. Both had trouble with the Person of Christ. The Docetic Gnostics denied the actual humanity of Christ, the Cerinthian Gnostics distinguished between the man Jesus and the \aeon\ Christ that came on him at his baptism and left him on the Cross. Some practised asceticism, some licentiousness. John opposes both classes in his Epistles. They claimed superior knowledge (\gn“sis\) and so were called Gnostics (\Gn“stikoi\). Nine times John gives tests for knowing the truth and uses the verb \gin“sk“\ (know) each time (1John:2:3,5; strkjv@3:16,19,24; strkjv@4:2,6,13; strkjv@5:2|). Some of the leaders he calls antichrists. There are stories about John's dread of Cerinthus and his unwillingness to be seen in the same public bath with him. The Apostle of love, as he is, is a real son of thunder when Gnosticism shows its head. Westcott thinks that the Fourth Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity. Certainly both ideas appear in both books.

rwp@Info_1John @ THE DATE The time seems to be considerably removed from the atmosphere of the Pauline and Petrine Epistles. Jerusalem has been destroyed. If John wrote the Fourth Gospel by A.D. 95, then the First Epistle would come anywhere from A.D. 85 to 95. The tone of the author is that of an old man. His urgent message that the disciples, his "little children," love one another is like another story about the aged John, who, when too feeble to stand, would sit in his chair and preach "Little children, love one another." The Muratorian Fragment accepts the First Epistle and Origen makes full use of it, as does Clement of Alexandria. Irenaeus quotes it by name. Polycarp shows knowledge of it also.

rwp@1Peter:3:14 @{But and if ye should suffer} (\all' ei kai paschoite\). "But if ye should also (or even) suffer." Condition of the fourth class with \ei\ and the optative (undetermined with less likelihood), a rare condition in the vernacular _Koin‚_, since the optative was a dying mode. If matters, in spite of the prophetic note of victory in verse 13|, should come to actual suffering "for righteousness' sake" (\dia dikaiosunˆn\) as in strkjv@Matthew:5:10| (\heneken\, not \dia\), then "blessed" (\makarioi\, the very word of Jesus there which see, a word meaning "happy," not \eulogˆtoi\) "are ye" (not in the Greek). If the conclusion were expressed regularly, it would be \eiˆte an\ (ye would be), not \este\ (ye are). It is interesting to note the third-class condition in verse 13| just before the fourth-class one in verse 14|. {Fear not their fear} (\ton phobon aut“n mˆ phobˆthˆte\). Prohibition with \mˆ\ and the first aorist (ingressive) passive subjunctive of \phobeomai\, to fear, and the cognate accusative \phobon\ (fear, terror). "Do not fear their threats" (Bigg). Quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:8:12f|. {Neither be troubled} (\mˆde taraxthˆte\). Prohibition with \mˆde\ and the first aorist (ingressive) subjunctive of \tarass“\, to disturb (Matthew:2:6; strkjv@John:12:27|). Part of the same quotation. Cf. strkjv@3:6|.

rwp@1Peter:3:17 @{Better} (\kreitton\). Comparative of \kratus\ as in strkjv@2Peter:2:21; strkjv@Hebrews:1:4|. Patient endurance not only silences calumny (verse 16|), is Christlike (verse 18|), but it has a value of its own (verse 17|). {If the will of God should so will} (\ei theloi to thelˆma tou theou\). Condition of the fourth class again (\ei--theloi\) with \ei\ and the optative. For a like pleonasm see strkjv@John:7:17|. {For well-doing than for evil-doing} (\agathopoiountas ˆ kakopoiountas\). Accusative plural agreeing with \humƒs\ understood (accusative of general reference with the infinitive \paschein\ (to suffer) of the participles from \agathopoie“\ (see strkjv@2:15|) and \kakopoie“\ (Mark:3:4|, and see strkjv@1Peter:2:14| for \kakopoios\).

rwp@1Peter:5:5 @{Be subject} (\hopotagˆte\). Second aorist passive imperative of \hupotass“\. {Unto the elder} (\presbuterois\). Dative case. Here the antithesis between younger and elder shows that the word refers to age, not to office as in strkjv@5:1|. See a like change in meaning in strkjv@1Timothy:5:1,17|. {All} (\pantes\). All ages, sexes, classes. {Gird yourselves with humility} (\tˆn tapeinophrosunˆn egkomb“sasthe\). First aorist middle imperative of \egkomboomai\, late and rare verb (in Apollodorus, fourth cent. B.C.), here only in N.T., from \en\ and \kombos\ (knot, like the knot of a girdle). \Egkomb“ma\ was the white scarf or apron of slaves. It is quite probable that Peter here is thinking of what Jesus did (John:13:4ff.|) when he girded himself with a towel and taught the disciples, Peter in particular (John:13:9ff.|), the lesson of humility (John:13:15|). Peter had at last learned the lesson (John:21:15-19|). {The proud} (\huperˆphanois\). Dative plural of \huperˆphanos\ (James:4:6; strkjv@Romans:1:30|) after \antitassetai\ (present middle indicative of \antitass“\ as in strkjv@James:4:6| (quoted there as here from strkjv@Proverbs:3:34|).

rwp@2Corinthians:6:15 @{Concord} (\sumph“nˆsis\). Symphony. Late word from \sumph“ne“\, only here and ecclesiastical writers, though \sumph“nˆma\ in the papyri. {Belial} (\Belial\). Transliteration of Hebrew word for worthlessness and applied to Satan (_Book of Jubilees_ 1.20) as here. Paul graphically sums up the contrast between Christ and Belial (Satan), the heads of the contending forces of good and evil. {Portion} (\meris\). The fourth of the words. Here by "unbeliever" (\apistou\) Paul means "disbeliever," not just an unconverted man who yet approves Christ.

rwp@2Corinthians:10:10 @{They say} (\phasin\). Reading of B old Latin Vulgate, but Westcott and Hort prefer \phˆsin\ (says one, the leader). This charge Paul quotes directly. {Weighty and strong} (\bareiai kai ischurai\). These adjectives can be uncomplimentary and mean "severe and violent" instead of "impressive and vigorous." The adjectives bear either sense. {His bodily presence} (\hˆ parousia tou s“matos\). This certainly is uncomplimentary. "The presence of his body." It seems clear that Paul did not have a commanding appearance like that of Barnabas (Acts:14:12|). He had some physical defect of the eyes (Galatians:4:14|) and a thorn in the flesh (2Corinthians:12:7|). In the second century _Acts of Paul and Thecla_ he is pictured as small, short, bow-legged, with eye-brows knit together, and an aquiline nose. A forgery of the fourth century in the name of Lucian describes Paul as "the bald-headed, hook-nosed Galilean." However that may be, his accusers sneered at his personal appearance as "weak" (\asthenˆs\). {His speech of no account} (\ho logos exouthenˆmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \exouthene“\, to treat as nothing (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:1:28|). The Corinthians (some of them) cared more for the brilliant eloquence of Apollos and did not find Paul a trained rhetorician (1Corinthians:1:17; strkjv@2:1,4; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:6|). He made different impressions on different people. "Seldom has any one been at once so ardently hated and so passionately loved as St. Paul" (Deissmann, _St. Paul_, p. 70). "At one time he seemed like a man, and at another he seemed like an angel" (_Acts of Paul and Thecla_). He spoke like a god at Lystra (Acts:14:8-12|), but Eutychus went to sleep on him (Acts:20:9|). Evidently Paul winced under this biting criticism of his looks and speech.

rwp@2Corinthians:11:32 @{The governor under Aretas} (\ho ethnarchˆs Hareta\). How it came to pass that Damascus, ruled by the Romans after B.C. 65, came at this time to be under the rule of Aretas, fourth of the name, King of the Nabatheans (II Macc. strkjv@5:8), we do not know. There is an absence of Roman coins in Damascus from A.D. 34 to 62. It is suggested (Plummer) that Caligula, to mark his dislike for Antipas, gave Damascus to Aretas (enemy of Antipas). {Guarded} (\ephrourei\). Imperfect active of \phroure“\, old verb (from \phrouros\, a guard) to guard by posting sentries. In strkjv@Acts:9:24| we read that the Jews kept watch to seize Paul, but there is no conflict as they cooperated with the guard set by Aretas at their request. {To seize} (\piasai\). Doric first aorist active infinitive of \piez“\ (Luke:6:38|) for which see on ¯Acts:3:7|.

rwp@Info_2John @ SECOND JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There is little to add to what was said about the First Epistle except that here the author terms himself "the elder" (\ho presbuteros\) and writes to "the elect lady" (\eklektˆi kuriƒi\). There is dispute about both of these titles. Some hold that it is the mythical "presbyter John" of whom Papias may speak, if so understood, but whose very existence is disproved by Dom Chapman in _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). Peter the apostle (1Peter:1:1|) calls himself "fellow-elder" (\sunpresbuteros\) with the other elders (1Peter:5:1|). The word referred originally to age (Luke:15:25|), then to rank or office as in the Sanhedrin (Matthew:16:21; strkjv@Acts:6:12|) and in the Christian churches (Acts:11:30; strkjv@20:17; strkjv@1Timothy:5:17,19|) as here also. A few even deny that the author is the same as in the First Epistle of John, but just an imitator. But the bulk of modern scholarly opinion agrees that the same man wrote all three Epistles and the Fourth Gospel (the Beloved Disciple, and many still say the Apostle John) whatever is true of the Apocalypse. There is no way of deciding whether "the elect lady" is a woman or a church. The obvious way of taking it is to a woman of distinction in one of the churches, as is true of "the co-elect lady in Babylon" (1Peter:5:13|), Peter's wife, who travelled with him (1Corinthians:9:5|). Some even take \kuria\ to be the name of the lady (Cyria). Some also take it to be "Eklecta the lady." Dr. Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 31) holds that Pergamum is the church to which the letter was sent. The same commentaries treat I, II, and III John as a rule, though Poggel has a book on II, III John (1896) and Bresky (1906) has _Das Verhaltnis des Zweiten Johannesbriefes zum dritten_. Dr. J. Rendel Harris has an interesting article in _The Expositor_ of London for March, 1901, on "The Problem of the Address to the Second Epistle of John," in which he argues from papyri examples that \kuria\ here means "my dear" or "my lady." But Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 26) argues that "the qualifying adjunct 'elect' lifts us into the region of Christian calling and dignity." It is not certain that II John was written after I John, though probable. Origen rejected it and the Peshitta Syriac does not have II and III John. strkjv@2John:1:1 @{And her children} (\kai tois teknois autˆs\). As with \eklektˆ kuria\, so here \tekna\ may be understood either literally as in strkjv@1Timothy:3:4|, or spiritually, as in strkjv@Galatians:4:19,25; strkjv@1Timothy:1:2|. For the spiritual sense in \teknia\ see strkjv@1John:2:1,12|. {Whom} (\hous\). Masculine accusative plural, though \teknois\ is neuter plural (dative), construction according to sense, not according to grammatical gender, "embracing the mother and the children of both sexes" (Vincent). See thus \hous\ in strkjv@Galatians:4:19|. {I} (\Eg“\). Though \ho presbuteros\ is third person, he passes at once after the Greek idiom to the first and there is also special emphasis here in the use of \agap“\ with the addition of \en alˆtheiƒi\ (in truth, in the highest sphere, as in strkjv@John:17:19; strkjv@3John:1:1|) and \ouk eg“ monos\ (not I only, "not I alone"). Brooke argues that this language is unsuitable if to a single family and not to a church. But Paul employs this very phrase in sending greetings to Prisca and Aquila (Romans:16:4|). {That know} (\hoi egn“kotes\). Perfect active articular participle of \gin“sk“\, "those that have come to know and still know."

rwp@Info_2Peter @ BOOKS ON II PETER BESIDES THOSE ON I PETER ALSO Abbott, E. A., _The Expositor_ (Jan. to March, 1822). Chase, F. H., _Hastings D B_ (Second Peter). Deuteronomy:Zwaan, _2 Peter en Judas_ (1909). Dietlein, W. O., _Der 2 Brief Petri_ (1851). Grosch, H., _Die Echtheit des zweiten Briefes Petri_ (1889). Henkel, K., _Der zweite Brief des Apostelfursten Petrus_ (1904). Hofmann, J. C., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda (1875) Hundhausen, _Das zweite Pontifkalschreiben des Apostels Petrus_ (1873). James, M. R., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Cambridge Greek Testament, 1912). Lumby, J. R., _2 Peter and Jude_ (in Bible Commentary). Mayor, J. B., _The Epistle of St. Jude:and the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1907). Plummer, A., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Vol. 3, N.T. Commentary for English Readers by Ellicott). Robson, E. I., _Studies in the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1915). Schott, Th., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda_ (1863). Schott, _Der 2 Br. Petri und der Br. Juda Erkl_. (1863). Schweenhorst, H., _Das Verhaltnis des Judasbriefes zum zweiten Petrusbriefe_ (1904). Snyman, D. R., _The Authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter_ (thesis in 1923 for Th.D. degree at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). Spitta, F, _Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1885). Strachan, R. D., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910), Ullman, C., _Der 2 Brief Petri Krit. untersuch._ (1821). Warfield, B. B., _A Defence of 2 Peter_ (Southern Presbyterian Review, January, 1882).,_Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the Genuineness of Second Peter (Southern Presbyterian Review_, 1883). Werdermann, _H., Die Irrlehrer des Judasbriefes und 2 Petrusbriefes_ (1913). Wiesinger, J. T. A., _Der zweite Brief des Apostels Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1862). strkjv@2Peter:1:1 @{Simon Peter} (\Sim“n Petros\). Aleph A K L P have \Syme“n\ as in strkjv@Acts:15:14|, while B has \Sim“n\. The two forms occur indifferently in I Macc. strkjv@2:3, 65 for the same man. {Servant and apostle} (\doulos kai apostolos\). Like strkjv@Romans:1:1; strkjv@Titus:1:1|. {To them that have obtained} (\tois lachousin\). Dative plural articular participle second aorist active of \lagchan“\, old verb, to obtain by lot (Luke:1:9|), here with the accusative (\pistin\) as in strkjv@Acts:1:17|. {Like precious} (\isotimon\). Late compound adjective (\isos\, equal, \timˆ\, honor, price), here only in N.T. But this adjective (Field) is used in two ways, according to the two ideas in \timˆ\ (value, honor), either like in value or like in honor. This second idea is the usual one with \isotimos\ (inscriptions and papyri, Josephus, Lucian), while \polutimos\ has the notion of price like \timˆ\ in strkjv@1:7,19; strkjv@2:4,6f|. The faith which they have obtained is like in honor and privilege with that of Peter or any of the apostles. {With us} (\hˆmin\). Associative-instrumental case after \isotimon\. Equal to \tˆi hˆm“n\ (the faith of us). {In the righteousness} (\en dikaiosunˆi\). Definite because of the preposition \en\ and the following genitive even though anarthrous. The O.T. sense of \dikaiosunˆ\ applied to God (Romans:1:17|) and here to Christ. {Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ} (\tou theou hˆm“n kai s“tˆros Iˆsou Christou\). Songs:the one article (\tou\) with \theou\ and \s“tˆros\ requires precisely as with \tou kuriou hˆm“n kai s“tˆros Iˆsou Christou\ (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in strkjv@1:11| as in strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:2,18|. Songs:in strkjv@1Peter:1:3| we have \ho theos kai patˆr\ (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, _Grammatik_, p. 158) admits: "Grammar demands that one person be meant." Moulton (_Prol._, p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of \theos\ for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in strkjv@Titus:2:13|. The use of \theos\ by Peter as a predicate with Jesus Christ no more disproves the Petrine authorship of this Epistle than a like use in strkjv@John:1:1| disproves the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the same use in strkjv@Titus:2:13| disproves the genuineness of Titus. Peter had heard Thomas call Jesus God (John:20:28|) and he himself had called him the Son of God (Matthew:16:16|).

rwp@Acts:1:12 @{Olivet} (\Elai“nos\). Genitive singular. Vulgate _Olivetum_. Made like \ampel“n\. Here only in the N.T., usually \to oros t“n Elai“n\ (the Mount of Olives), though some MSS. have Olivet in strkjv@Luke:19:29; strkjv@21:37|. Josephus (_Ant_. VII. 9, 2) has it also and the papyri (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 170). {A sabbath day's journey off} (\Sabbatou ech“n hodon\). Luke only says here that Olivet is a Sabbath day's journey from Jerusalem, not that Jesus was precisely that distance when he ascended. In the Gospel Luke (24:50|) states that Jesus led them "over against" (\he“s pros\) Bethany (about two miles or fifteen furlongs). The top of Olivet is six furlongs or three-fourths of a mile. The Greek idiom here is "having a journey of a Sabbath" after "which is nigh unto Jerusalem" (\ho estin eggus Ierousalˆm\), note the periphrastic construction. Why Luke mentions this item for Gentile readers in this form is not known, unless it was in his Jewish source. See strkjv@Exodus:16:29; strkjv@Numbers:35:5; strkjv@Joshua:3:4|. But it does not contradict what he says in strkjv@Luke:24:50|, where he does not say that Jesus led them all the way to Bethany.

rwp@Acts:5:24 @{They were much perplexed} (\diˆporoun\). Imperfect active of \diapore“\ old verb by Luke only in the N.T. See already on strkjv@Acts:2:12|. They continued puzzled. {Whereunto this would grow} (\ti an genoito touto\). More exactly, {As to what this would become}. Second aorist middle optative of \ginomai\ with \an\, the conclusion of a condition of the fourth class (undetermined with less likelihood of determination), the unexpressed condition being "if the thing should be allowed to go on." The indirect question simply retains the optative with \an\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1021, 1044). If they had only known how this grain of mustard seed would grow into the greatest tree on earth and how dwarfed the tree of Judaism would be beside it!

rwp@Acts:17:11 @{More noble than those} (\eugenesteroi t“n\). Comparative form of \eugenˆs\, old and common adjective, but in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:19:12; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26|. Followed by ablative case \t“n\ as often after the comparative. {With all readiness of mind} (\meta pƒsˆs prothumias\). Old word from \prothumos\ (\pro, thumos\) and means eagerness, rushing forward. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:8:11-19; strkjv@9:2|. In Thessalonica many of the Jews out of pride and prejudice refused to listen. Here the Jews joyfully welcomed the two Jewish visitors. {Examining the Scriptures daily} (\kath' hˆmeran anakrinontes tas graphas\). Paul expounded the Scriptures daily as in Thessalonica, but the Beroeans, instead of resenting his new interpretation, examined (\anakrin“\ means to sift up and down, make careful and exact research as in legal processes as in strkjv@Acts:4:9; strkjv@12:19|, etc.) the Scriptures for themselves. In Scotland people have the Bible open on the preacher as he expounds the passage, a fine habit worth imitating. {Whether these things were so} (\ei echoi tauta hout“s\). Literally, "if these things had it thus." The present optative in the indirect question represents an original present indicative as in strkjv@Luke:1:29| (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1043f.). This use of \ei\ with the optative may be looked at as the condition of the fourth class (undetermined with less likelihood of determination) as in strkjv@Acts:17:27; strkjv@20:16; strkjv@24:19; strkjv@27:12| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). The Beroeans were eagerly interested in the new message of Paul and Silas but they wanted to see it for themselves. What a noble attitude. Paul's preaching made Bible students of them. The duty of private interpretation is thus made plain (Hovey).

rwp@Acts:24:19 @{But certain Jews from Asia} (\tines de apo tˆs Alias Ioudaioi\). No verb appears in the Greek for these words. Perhaps he meant to say that "certain Jews from Asia charged me with doing these things." Instead of saying that, Paul stops to explain that they are not here, a thoroughly Pauline anacoluthon (2Corinthians:7:5|) as in strkjv@26:9|. "The passage as it stands is instinct with life, and seems to exhibit the abruptness so characteristic of the Pauline Epistles" (Page). {Who ought to have been here before thee} (\hous edei epi sou pareinai\). This use of \epi\ with genitive of the person is common. The imperfect indicative with verbs of necessity and obligation to express failure to live up to it is common in Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 919-21). "The accusers who were present had not witnessed the alleged offence: those who could have given evidence at first-hand were not present" (Furneaux). There was no case in a Roman court. These Asiatic Jews are never heard of after the riot, though they almost succeeded in killing Paul then. {If they had aught against me} (\ei ti echoien pros eme\). A condition of the fourth class or undetermined with less likelihood of being determined (\ei\ with the optative, Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). This is a "mixed condition" (_op.cit._, p. 1022) with a conclusion of the second class.

rwp@Acts:26:29 @{I would to God} (\euxaimˆn an t“i the“i\). Conclusion of fourth-class condition (optative with \an\), undetermined with less likelihood, the so-called potential optative (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). Polite and courteous wish (first aorist middle optative of \euchomai\). {Whether with little or with much} (\kai en mikr“i kai en megal“i\). Literally, "both in little and in great," or "both with little and with great pains" or "both in some measure and in great measure." Paul takes kindly the sarcasm of Agrippa. {Such as I am} (\toioutous hopoios kai eg“ eimi\). Accusative \toioutous\ with the infinitive \genesthai\. Paul uses these two qualitative pronouns instead of repeating the word "Christian." {Except these bonds} (\parektos t“n desm“n tout“n\). Ablative case with \parektos\ (late preposition for the old \parek\). Paul lifts his right manacled hand with exquisite grace and good feeling.

rwp@Acts:27:12 @{Because the haven was not commodious to winter in} (\aneuthetou tou limenos huparchontos pros paracheimasian\). Genitive absolute again present tense of \huparch“\: "The harbour being unfit (\aneuthetou\, this compound not yet found elsewhere, simplex in strkjv@Luke:9:62; strkjv@14:35; strkjv@Hebrews:6:7|) for wintering" (\paracheimasia\, only here in N.T., but in Polybius and Diodorus, in an inscription A.D. 48, from \paracheimaz“\). {The more part advised} (\hoi pleiones ethento boulˆn\). Second aorist middle indicative of \tithˆmi\, ancient idiom with \boulˆn\, to take counsel, give counsel. Lysias held a council of the officers of the ship on the issue raised by Paul. {If by any means they could reach Phoenix and winter there} (\ei p“s dunainto katantˆsantes eis Phoinika paracheimasai\). The optative \dunainto\ (present middle of \dunamai\) here with \ei\ is a condition of the fourth class with the notion of purpose implied and indirect discourse (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). "We vote for going on the chance that we may be able" (Page). Phoenix is the town of palms (John:12:13|), the modern Lutro, the only town in Crete on the southern coast with a harbour fit for wintering, though Wordsworth and Page argue for Phineka which suits Luke's description better. The verb \paracheimaz“\, to winter, is from \para\ and \cheim“n\ (see also strkjv@28:11|). Used in several _Koin‚_ writers. {Looking northeast and southeast} (\bleponta kata liba kai kata ch“ron\). There are two ways of interpreting this language. \Lips\ means the southwest wind and \ch“ros\ the northwest wind. But what is the effect of \kata\ with these words? Does it mean "facing" the wind? If so, we must read "looking southwest and northwest." But \kata\ can mean down the line of the wind (the way the wind is blowing). If so, then it is proper to translate "looking northeast and southeast." This translation suits Lutro, the other suits Phoenike. Ramsay takes it to be Lutro, and suggests that sailors describe the harbour by the way it looks as they go into it (the subjectivity of the sailors) and that Luke so speaks and means Lutro which faces northeast and southeast. On the whole Lutro has the best of the argument.

rwp@Info_Ephesians @ THE DESTINATION The oldest documents (Aleph and B) do not have the words \en Ephes“i\ (in Ephesus) in strkjv@Ephesians:1:1| (inserted by a later hand). Origen did not have them in his copy. Marcion calls it the Epistle to the Laodiceans. We have only to put here strkjv@Colossians:4:16| "the letter from Laodicea" to find the probable explanation. After writing the stirring Epistle to the Colossians Paul dictated this so-called Epistle to the Ephesians as a general or circular letter for the churches in Asia (Roman province). Perhaps the original copy had no name in strkjv@Ephesians:1:1| as seen in Aleph and B and Origen, but only a blank space. Marcion was familiar with the copy in Laodicea. Basil in the fourth century mentions some MSS. with no name in the address. Most MSS. were copies from the one in Ephesus and so it came to be called the Epistle to the Ephesians. The general nature of the letter explains also the absence of names in it, though Paul lived three years in Ephesus.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Pastorial @ THE FOURTH GROUP THE PASTORAL EPISTLES FIRST TIMOTHY TITUS SECOND TIMOTHY A.D. 65 TO 68 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION It is necessary to discuss introductory matters concerning the three because they are common to them all. It is true that some modern scholars admit as Pauline the personal passages in strkjv@2Timothy:1:15-18; strkjv@4:9-22| while they deny the genuineness of the rest. But that criticism falls by its own weight since precisely the same stylistic characteristics appear in these admitted passages as in the rest and no earthly reason can be advanced for Paul's writing mere scraps or for the omission of the other portions and the preservation of these by a second century forger.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Pastorial @ Objections on internal grounds are made on the lines laid down by Baur and followed by Renan. They are chiefly four. The "most decisive" as argued by McGiffert (_History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age_, p. 402) is that "the Christianity of the Pastoral Epistles is not the Christianity of Paul." He means as we know Paul in the other Epistles. But this charge is untrue. It is true that Paul here lists faith with the virtues, but he does that in strkjv@Galatians:5:22|. Nowhere does Paul give a loftier word about faith than in strkjv@1Timothy:1:12-17|. Another objection urged is that the ecclesiastical organization seen in the Pastoral Epistles belongs to the second century, not to the time of Paul's life. Now we have the Epistles of Ignatius in the early part of the second century in which "bishop" is placed over "elders" of which there is no trace in the New Testament (Lightfoot). A forger in the second century would certainly have reproduced the ecclesiastical organization of that century instead of the first as we have it in the Pastoral Epistles. There is only here the normal development of bishop (=elder) and deacon. A third objection is made on the ground that there is no room in Paul's life as we know it in the Acts and the other Pauline Epistles for the events alluded to in the Pastoral Epistles and it is also argued on late and inconclusive testimony that Paul was put to death A.D. 64 and had only one Roman imprisonment. If Paul was executed A.D. 64, this objection has force in it, though Bartlet (_The Apostolic Age_) tries to make room for them in the period covered by the Acts. Duncan makes the same attempt for the Pauline scraps admitted by him as belonging to the hypothecated imprisonment in Ephesus. But, if we admit the release of Paul from the first Roman imprisonment, there is ample room before his execution in A.D. 68 for the events referred to in the Pastoral Epistles and the writing of the letters (his going east to Ephesus, Macedonia, to Crete, to Troas, to Corinth, to Miletus, to Nicopolis, to Rome), including the visit to Spain before Crete once planned for (Romans:15:24,28|) and mentioned by Clement of Rome as a fact ("the limit of the west"). The fourth objection is that of the language in the Pastoral Epistles. Probably more men are influenced by this argument than by any other. The ablest presentation of this difficulty is made by P. N. Harrison in _The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles_ (1921). Besides the arguments Dr. Harrison has printed the Greek text in a fashion to help the eye see the facts. Words not in the other Pauline Epistles are in red, Pauline phrases (from the other ten) are underlined, _hapax legomena_ are marked by an asterisk. At a superficial glance one can see that the words here not in the other Pauline Epistles and the common Pauline phrases are about equal. The data as to mere words are broadly as follows according to Harrison: Words in the Pastorals, not elsewhere in the N.T. (Pastoral _hapax legomena_) 175 (168 according to Rutherford); words in the other ten Pauline Epistles not elsewhere in the N.T. 470 (627 according to Rutherford). Variations in MSS. will account for some of the difficulty of counting. Clearly there is a larger proportion of new words in the Pastorals (about twice as many) than in the other Pauline Epistles. But Harrison's tables show remarkable differences in the other Epistles also. The average of such words per page in Romans is 4, but 5.6 in II Corinthians, 6.2 in Philippians, and only 4 in Philemon. Parry (_Comm._, p. CXVIII) notes that of the 845 words in the Pastorals as compared with each other 278 occur only in I Tim., 96 only in Titus, 185 only in II Tim. "If vocabulary alone is taken, this would point to separate authorship of each epistle." And yet the same style clearly runs through all three. After all vocabulary is not wholly a personal problem. It varies with age in the same person and with the subject matter also. Precisely such differences exist in the writings of Shakespeare and Milton as critics have long ago observed. The only problem that remains is whether the differences are so great in the Pastoral Epistles as to prohibit the Pauline authorship when "Paul the aged" writes on the problem of pastoral leadership to two of the young ministers trained by him who have to meet the same incipient Gnostic heresy already faced in Colossians and Ephesians. My judgment is that, all things considered, the contents and style of the Pastoral Epistles are genuinely Pauline, mellowed by age and wisdom and perhaps written in his own hand or at least by the same amanuensis in all three instances. Lock suggests Luke as the amanuensis for the Pastorals.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION UNSETTLED PROBLEMS Probably no book in the New Testament presents more unsettled problems than does the Epistle to the Hebrews. On that score it ranks with the Fourth Gospel, the Apocalypse of John, and Second Peter. But, in spite of these unsolved matters, the book takes high rank for its intellectual grasp, spiritual power, and its masterful portrayal of Christ as High Priest. It is much briefer than the Fourth Gospel, but in a sense it carries on further the exalted picture of the Risen Christ as the King-Priest who reigns and pleads for us now.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ SOME BOOKS ON HEBREWS ANDEL, _Deuteronomy:Brief aan de Hebraer_ (1906). ANDERSON, R., _The Hebrews Epistle in the Light of the Types_ (1911). AYLES, _Destination, Date and Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). BAILEY, _Leading Ideas of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1907). BLASS, F., _Brief an die Hebraer, Text, Angabe der Rhythmen_ (1903). BLEEK, F., _Der Hebraerbrief Erklart_ (1840). BRUCE, A. B., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). DALE, R. W., _The Jewish Temple in the Christian Church_ (1865). DAVIDSON, A. B., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1882). DELITZSCH, F., _Commentary on the Hebrews_ (1857). DIBELIUS, M., _Der Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes_ (1910). DODS, M., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910). DU BOSE, W. P., _High Priesthood and sacrifice_ (1908). EDWARDS, T. C., _Expositor's Bible_ (1888). FARRAR, F. W., _Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1893). GOODSPEED, E. J., _Bible for Home and School_ (1908). GRIFFTH-THOMAS, W. H., _Let Us Go On_ (1923). HEIGL, _Verfalser und Addresse des Briefes an die Hebraer_ (1905). HOLLMANN, _Schriften d. N. T_. 2 Aufl. (1907). KENDRICK, A. C., _American Commentary_ (1890). LIDGETT, J. S., _Sonship and Salvation_ (1921). LOWRIE, _An Explanation of Hebrews_ (1921). LUNEMANN, G., _Meyer Komm_. (1882). MACFADYEN, J. F., _Through the Eternal Spirit_ (1925). MACNEILL, _The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1914). MENEGOZ, E., _Lamentations:Theologie de l'epitre aux Hebreaux_ (1894). MILLIGAN, G., _The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). MOFFATT JAMES, _Int. and Cosit. Comm_. (1924) MOULE, H. C., _Messages from the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1909). MURRAY, ANDREW, _Devotional Commentary_. NAIRNE, A., _The Epistle of Priesthood_ (1913). NAIRNE, A., _The Alexandrian Gospel_ (1917). PEAKE, A. S., _New Century Bible_ (1904). PORTER, S. J., _The Twelve-Gemmed Crown_ (1913). RENDALL, F., _The Theology of the Hebrew Christians_ (1886). RIGGENBACH, M., _Zoeckler Komm_. 2 Aufl. (1913). ROTHERHAM, _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1906). SAPHIR, A., _Exposition of Hebrews_. SCOTT, E. F., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1922). SEEBERG, A., _Der Brief an die Hebraer_ (1912). SLOT, _Deuteronomy:Letterkundige Vorm van den Brief aan de Hebraer (1912). SODEN, VON, _Hand-Comm_. (1899). THOLUCK, A., _Komm. zum Briefe an die Hebraer_. VAUGHAN, C. J., _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). WADE, _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1923). WEISS, B., _Meyer-Komm_. 6 Aufl. (1902). WEISS, B., _Der Hebraerbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher Bekuch- tung_ (1910). WELCH, _Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). WESTCOTT, B. F., _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (3rd ed. 1906). WICKHAM, E. C., _Westminster Comm_. (1910). WINDISCH, H., _Handbuch zum N.T_. (1913). WREDE, W., _Das literarisches Ratsel des Hebraerbriefs_ (1906). strkjv@Hebrews:1:1 @{God} (\ho theos\). This Epistle begins like Genesis and the Fourth Gospel with God, who is the Author of the old revelation in the prophets and of the new in his Son. Verses 1-3| are a _proemium_ (Delitzsch) or introduction to the whole Epistle. The periodic structure of the sentence (1-4|) reminds one of strkjv@Luke:1:1-4, strkjv@Romans:1:1-7, strkjv@1John:1:1-4|. The sentence could have concluded with \en hui“i\ in verse 2|, but by means of three relatives (\hon, di' hou, hos\) the author presents the Son as "the exact counterpart of God" (Moffatt). {Of old time} (\palai\). "Long ago" as in strkjv@Matthew:11:21|. {Having spoken} (\lalˆsas\). First aorist active participle of \lale“\, originally chattering of birds, then used of the highest form of speech as here. {Unto the fathers} (\tois patrasin\). Dative case. The Old Testament worthies in general without "our" or "your" as in strkjv@John:6:58; strkjv@7:22; strkjv@Romans:9:5|. {In the prophets} (\en tois prophˆtais\). As the quickening power of their life (Westcott). strkjv@Songs:4:7|. {By divers portions} (\polumer“s\). "In many portions." Adverb from late adjective \polumerˆs\ (in papyri), both in _Vettius Valens_, here only in N.T., but in Wisdom strkjv@7:22 and Josephus (_Ant_. VIII, 3, 9). The Old Testament revelation came at different times and in various stages, a progressive revelation of God to men. {In divers manners} (\polutrop“s\). "In many ways." Adverb from old adjective \polutropos\, in Philo, only here in N.T. The two adverbs together are "a sonorous hendiadys for 'variously'" (Moffatt) as Chrysostom (\diaphor“s\). God spoke by dream, by direct voice, by signs, in different ways to different men (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc.).

rwp@Hebrews:11:3 @{By faith} (\pistei\). Instrumental case of \pistis\ which he now illustrates in a marvellous way. Each example as far as verse 31| is formally and with rhetorical skill introduced by \pistei\. After that only a summary is given. {We understand} (\nooumen\). Present active indicative of \noe“\, old verb (from \nous\, intellect) as in strkjv@Matthew:15:17; strkjv@Romans:1:20|. The author appeals to our knowledge of the world in which these heroes lived as an illustration of faith. Recent books by great scientists like Eddington and Jeans confirm the position here taken that a Supreme Mind is behind and before the universe. Science can only stand still in God's presence and believe like a little child. {The worlds} (\tous ai“nas\). "The ages" as in strkjv@1:2| (cf. Einstein's fourth dimension, time). Accusative case of general reference. {Have been framed} (\katˆrtisthai\). Perfect passive infinitive of \katartiz“\, to mend, to equip, to perfect (Luke:6:40|), in indirect discourse after \nooumen\. {Songs:that} (\eis to\). As a rule \eis to\ with the infinitive is final, but sometimes as here it expresses result as in strkjv@Romans:12:3| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1003). {Hath been made} (\gegonenai\). Perfect active infinitive of \ginomai\. {What is seen} (\to blepomenon\). Present passive articular participle (accusative case of general reference) of \blep“\. {Of things which do appear} (\ek phainomen“n\). Ablative case with \ek\ (out of) of the present passive participle. The author denies the eternity of matter, a common theory then and now, and places God before the visible universe as many modern scientists now gladly do.

rwp@Info_John @ THE FOURTH GOSPEL BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION GREATEST OF BOOKS The test of time has given the palm to the Fourth Gospel over all the books of the world. If Luke's Gospel is the most beautiful, John's Gospel is supreme in its height and depth and reach of thought. The picture of Christ here given is the one that has captured the mind and heart of mankind. It is not possible for a believer in Jesus Christ as the Son of God to be indifferent to modern critical views concerning the authorship and historical value of this Holy of Holies of the New Testament. Here we find _The Heart of Christ_ (E. H. Sears), especially in chapters strkjv@John:14-17|. If Jesus did not do or say these things, it is small consolation to be told that the book at least has symbolic and artistic value for the believer. The language of the Fourth Gospel has the clarity of a spring, but we are not able to sound the bottom of the depths. Lucidity and profundity challenge and charm us as we linger over it.

rwp@Info_John @ THE BELOVED DISCIPLE The book claims to be written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John:21:20|) who is pointedly identified by a group of believers (apparently in Ephesus) as the writer: "This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true" (John:21:24|). This is the first criticism of the Fourth Gospel of which we have any record, made at the time when the book was first sent forth, made in a postscript to the epilogue or appendix. Possibly the book closed first with strkjv@John:20:31|, but chapter 21 is in precisely the same style and was probably added before publication by the author. The natural and obvious meaning of the language in strkjv@John:21:24| is that the Beloved Disciple wrote the whole book. He is apparently still alive when this testimony to his authorship is given. There are scholars who interpret it to mean that the Beloved Disciple is responsible for the facts in the book and not the actual writer, but that is a manifest straining of the language. There is in this verse no provision made for a redactor as distinct from the witness as is plausibly set forth by Dr. A. E. Garvie in _The Beloved Disciple_ (1922).

rwp@Info_John @ ONLY ONE JOHN OF EPHESUS It is true that an ambiguous statement of Papias (circa A.D. 120) is contained in Eusebius where the phrase "the Elder John " (\ho presbuteros I“annˆs\) occurs. The most natural way to understand Papias is that he is referring to the Apostle John by this phrase as he describes the teachings of the apostles by "the words of the elders" just before. This interpretation of the allusion of Papias has been rendered almost certain by the work of Dom John Chapman, _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). Not before Eusebius is the error found of two Johns in Ephesus, one the apostle, the other the so-called Presbyter. "Papias is no witness for the admission of two Johns of Asia Minor. Irenaeus, too, in any case, knows of but one John of Asia Minor. And this John was an eye-witness of our Lord's Life" (Bousset, _Die Offenbarumg des Joh._, p. 38, translation of Nolloth, _The Fourth Evangelist_, p. 63, note). Let this be admitted and much becomes clear.

rwp@Info_John @ EARLY AND CLEAR WITNESS TO THE APOSTLE JOHN Ignatius (_ad Philad_. vii. 1) about A.D. 110 says of the Spirit that "he knows whence he comes and whither he is going," a clear allusion to strkjv@John:3:8|. Polycarp (_ad Phil_. S 7) quotes strkjv@1John:4:2,3|. Eusebius states that Papias quoted First John. Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius (H.E. V, 20) as saying that he used as a boy to hear Polycarp tell "of his intercourse with John and the others who had seen the Lord." Irenaeus accepted all our Four Gospels. Tatian made his _Diatessaron_ out of the Four Gospels alone. Theophilus of Antioch (_Ad Autol_. ii. 22) calls John the author of the Fourth Gospel. This was about A.D. 180. The Muratorian Canon near the close of the second century names John as the author of the Fourth Gospel. Till after the time of Origen no opposition to the Johannine authorship appears outside of Marcion and the Alogi. No other New Testament book has stronger external evidence.

rwp@Info_John @ THE USE OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS As the latest of the Gospels and by the oldest living apostle, it is only natural that there should be an infrequent use of the Synoptic Gospels. Outside of the events of Passion Week and the Resurrection period the Fourth Gospel touches the Synoptic narrative in only one incident, that of the Feeding of the Five Thousand and the walking on the water. The author supplements the Synoptic record in various ways. He mentions two passovers not given by the other Gospels (John:2:23; strkjv@6:4|) and another (John:5:1|) may be implied. Otherwise we could not know certainly that the ministry of Jesus was more than a year in length. He adds greatly to our knowledge of the first year of our Lord's public ministry ("the year of obscurity," Stalker) without which we should know little of this beginning (John:1:19-4:45|). The Synoptics give mainly the Galilean and Perean and Judean ministry, but John adds a considerable Jerusalem ministry which is really demanded by allusions in the Synoptics. The Prologue (John:1:1-18|) relates the Incarnation to God's eternal purpose as in strkjv@Colossians:1:14-20| and strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-3| and employs the language of the intellectuals of the time (\Logos\ -- Word) to interpret Christ as the Incarnate Son of God.

rwp@Info_John @ A DIFFERENT STYLE OF TEACHING Songs:different is it in fact that some men bluntly assert that Jesus could not have spoken in the same fashion as presented in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel. Such critics need to recall the Socrates of Xenophon's _Memorabilia_ and of Plato's _Dialogues_. There is a difference beyond a doubt, but there is also some difference in the reports in the Synoptics. Jesus for the most part spoke in Aramaic, sometimes in Greek, as to the great crowds from around Palestine (the Sermon on the Mount, for instance). There is the Logia of Jesus (Q of criticism) preserved in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke besides Mark, and the rest of Matthew and Luke. Certain natural individualities are preserved. The difference is greater in the Fourth Gospel, because John writes in the ripeness of age and in the richness of his long experience. He gives his reminiscences mellowed by long reflection and yet with rare dramatic power. The simplicity of the language leads many to think that they understand this Gospel when they fail to see the graphic pictures as in chapters strkjv@John:7-11|. The book fairly throbs with life. There is, no doubt, a Johannine style here, but curiously enough there exists in the Logia (Q) a genuine Johannine passage written long before the Fourth Gospel (Matthew:11:25-30; strkjv@Luke:10:21-24|). The use of "the Father" and "the Son" is thoroughly Johannine. It is clear that Jesus used the Johannine type of teaching also. Perhaps critics do not make enough allowance for the versatility and variety in Jesus.

rwp@Info_John @ HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL It is just here that the chief attack is made on the Fourth Gospel even by some who admit the Johannine authorship. It is now assumed by some that the Fourth Gospel is not on a par with the Synoptics in historical reliability and some harmonies omit it entirely or place it separately at the close, though certainly Tatian used it with the Synoptics in his _Diatessaron_, the first harmony of the Gospels. Some even follow Schmiedel in seeing only a symbolic or parabolic character in the miracles in the Fourth Gospel, particularly in the narrative of the raising of Lazarus in chapter strkjv@John:11| which occurs here alone. But John makes this miracle play quite an important part in the culmination of events at the end. Clearly the author professes to be giving actual data largely out of his own experience and knowledge. It is objected by some that the Fourth Gospel gives an unnatural picture of Christ with Messianic claims at the very start. But the Synoptics give that same claim at the baptism and temptation, not to mention Luke's account of the Boy Jesus in the temple. The picture of the Jews as hostile to Jesus is said to be overdrawn in the Fourth Gospel. The answer to that appears in the Sermon on the Mount, the Sabbath miracles, the efforts of the Pharisees and lawyers to catch Jesus in his talk, the final denunciation in strkjv@Matthew:23|, all in the Synoptics. The opposition to Jesus grew steadily as he revealed himself more clearly. Some of the difficulties raised are gratuitous as in the early cleansing of the temple as if it could not have happened twice, confounding the draught of fishes in chapter strkjv@John:21| with that in strkjv@Luke:5|, making Mary of Bethany at the feast of a Simon in chapter strkjv@John:12| the same as the sinful woman at the feast of another Simon in strkjv@Luke:7|, making John's Gospel locate the last passover meal a day ahead instead of at the regular time as the Synoptics have it. Rightly interpreted these difficulties disappear. In simple truth, if one takes the Fourth Gospel at its face value, the personal recollections of the aged John phrased in his own way to supplement the narratives in the Synoptics, there is little left to give serious trouble. The Jerusalem ministry with the feasts is a case in point. The narrative of the call of the first disciples in chapter strkjv@John:1| is another. The author followed Simon in bringing also his own brother James to Jesus. John was present in the appearance of Christ before Annas, and Pilate. He was at the Cross when no other apostles were there. He took the mother of Jesus to his home and then returned to the Cross. He saw the piercing of the side of Jesus. He knew and saw the deed of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. E. H. Askwith has a most helpful discussion of this whole problem in _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1910).

rwp@Info_John @ LIKE THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES Critics of all classes agree that, whoever was the author of the Fourth Gospel, the same man wrote the First Epistle of John. There is the same inimitable style, the same vocabulary, the same theological outlook. Undoubtedly the same author wrote also Second and Third John, for, brief as they are, they exhibit the same characteristics. In Second and Third John the author describes himself as "the Elder" (\ho presbuteros\), which fact has led some to argue for the mythical "Presbyter John" as the author in place of the Apostle John and so of First John and the Fourth Gospel. It is argued that the Apostle John would have termed himself "the Apostle John" after the fashion of Paul. But the example of the Apostle Peter disposes of that argument, for in addressing the elders (1Peter:5:1|) he calls himself "your fellow-elder" (\ho sunpresbuteros\). In the Epistles John opposes Gnosticism both of the Docetic type which denied the actual humanity of Jesus as in strkjv@1John:1:1-4| and the Cerinthian type which denied the identity of the man Jesus and the _aeon_ Christ which came on Jesus at his baptism and left him at his death on the Cross as in strkjv@1John:2:22|. One of the many stories told about John is his abhorrence of Cerinthus when found in the same public bath with him. As Westcott shows, the Epistles of John prove his actual humanity while assuming his deity, whereas the Fourth Gospel proves his deity while assuming his humanity.

rwp@Info_John @ BUT DIFFERENT FROM THE APOCALYPSE It should be said at once that the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel does not depend on that of the Apocalypse. In fact, some men hold to the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse who deny that of the Gospel while some hold directly the opposite view. Some deny the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, while the majority hold to the Johannine authorship of Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse as was the general rule till after the time of Origen. The author of the Apocalypse claims to be John (Revelation:1:4,9; strkjv@22:8|), though what John he does not say. Denial of the existence of a "Presbyter John" naturally leads one to think of the Apostle John. Origen says that John, the brother of James, was banished to the Isle of Patmos where he saw the Apocalypse. There is undoubted radical difference in language between the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books which will receive discussion when the Apocalypse is reached. Westcott explained these differences as due to the early date of the Apocalypse in the reign of Vespasian before John had become master of the Greek language. Even J. H. Moulton (_Prolegomena_, p. 9, note 4) says bluntly: "If its date was 95 A.D., the author cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time after." Or before, he would say. But the date of the Apocalypse seems definitely to belong to the reign of Domitian. Songs:one ventures to call attention to the statement in strkjv@Acts:4:13| where Peter and John are described as \agrammatoi kai idi“tai\ (unlettered and private or unschooled men). It is curious also that it is precisely in 2Peter and the Apocalypse that we have so many grammatical solecisms and peculiarities. We know that the Fourth Gospel was reviewed by a group of John's friends in Ephesus, while he was apparently alone in the Isle of Patmos. The excitement of the visions would naturally increase the uncouth vernacular of the Apocalypse so much like that in the Greek papyri as seen in Milligan's _Greek Papyri_, for instance. This being true, one is able, in spite of Moulton's dictum, to hold to the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse and not far apart in date.

rwp@Info_John @ ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK The late Dr. C. F. Burney of Oxford wrote a volume called, _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922) in which he tried to prove that the Fourth Gospel is really the first in time and was originally written in Aramaic. The theory excited some interest, but did not convince either Aramaic or Greek scholars to an appreciable extent. Some of the examples cited are plausible and some quite fanciful. This theory cannot be appealed to in any serious interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. The author was beyond doubt a Jew, but he wrote in the _Koin‚_ Greek of his time that is comparatively free from crude Semiticisms, perhaps due in part to the help of the friends in Ephesus.

rwp@Info_John @ JOHN'S PORTRAIT OF CHRIST No one questions that the Fourth Gospel asserts the deity of Christ. It is in the Prologue at the very start: "And the Word was God" (John:1:1|) and in the correct text of strkjv@John:1:18|, "God only begotten" (\theos monogenˆs\). It occurs repeatedly in the book as in the witness of the Baptist: "This is the Son of God" (John:1:34|). It is in the charge of the Pharisees (John:5:18|) and the claim of Christ himself (John:5:20-23; strkjv@6:48; strkjv@8:12,58; strkjv@11:25; strkjv@14:9; strkjv@17:5|) with the full and frank conviction of the author in strkjv@John:20:31|. He has made good his purpose. He has proven that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. With some critics this purpose has vitiated the entire book. The effort has been made to show that Paul, Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Synoptics give a lower view of Christ without the term \theos\ applied to him. In particular it was once argued that Q, the Logia of Jesus, used by Matthew and Luke (the non-Markan portions in both Matthew and Luke), gives a reduced picture of Jesus as on a lower plane than God, the Arian or Ritschlian view at any rate as answering for God to us though not God in actual nature. But in the Logia of Jesus we find the same essential picture of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man as I have shown in my _The Christ of the Logia_ (1924). The only way to get rid of the deity of Christ in the New Testament is to throw overboard all the books in it as legendary or reflections of late theological development away from the original picture. The very earliest picture drawn of Christ that has been preserved to us, that in the Logia of Jesus (drawn W. M. Ramsay believes before Christ's crucifixion), is in essential agreement with the fully drawn portrait in the Fourth Gospel. Each picture in the Four Gospels adds touches of its own, but the features are the same, those of the God-Man Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. The brilliant blind preacher of Edinburgh, George Matheson, sees this clearly (_Studies in the Portrait of the Messiah_, 1900; _St. John's Portrait of Christ_, 1910).

rwp@Info_John @ A BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE (SINCE 1880) ABBOT, EZRA, _On the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_ (1880). ABBOT, PEABODY, and LIGHTFOOT, _The Fourth Gospel_ (1891). ABBOTT, E.A., _Johannine Vocabulary_ (1935).,_Johannine Grammar_ (1906). APPEL, _Die Echtheit des Johannesevangeliums_ (1915). ASKWITH, E.H., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1910). BACON, B.W., _The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate_ (1910). BALDENSPERGER, W., _Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums_ (1898). BARTH, K., _The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels_ (1907). BAUER, W., _Das Johannes-Evangelium_. 2 Aufl. (1925). BELZER, _Das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes_ (1905). BERNARD, J. H., _Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1929), in Int. Crit. Comm. BERT, _Das Evangelium des Johannes_ (1922). BLASS, F., _Evangelium secundum Johannem_ (1902). BROOKE, A. E., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (Cambridge Biblical Essays, pp. 289 to 328. 1909). BURCH, VACHER, _The Structure and Message of St. John's Gospel_ (1928). BURNEY, C. F., _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922). CALMES, _L'Evangile selon S. Jean_ (1904). CANDLER, W. A., _Practical Studies in the Gospel of John_ (3 vols,, 1912-15). CARPENTER, J. ESTLIN, _The Johannine Writings_ (1927). CHAPMAN, DOM JOHN, _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). CHARNWOOD, LORD, _According to St. John_ (1925). CLEMEN, C., _Die Entstehung des Johannesevangeliums_ (1912). D'ALMA, _Lamentations:Controverse du quatrieme evangile_ (1908).,Philo et le quotrieme evangile_ (1911). DAUSCH' _Das Johannesevangelium_ (1909). DELFF, H., _Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt_ (1890).,Neue Beitrage zur Kritik und Erklarung des vierten Evangeliums (1890). DODS, M., _Expositor's Bible_ (2 vols., 1891).,Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1897). DRUMMOND, JAMES, _An Inquiry into the Character and Author- ship of the Fourth Gospel_ (1904). EVANS, H. H., _St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel_ (1888). EWALD, P., _Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage und der Weg zu seiner Losung_ (1890). FOUARD, S., _Jean et la hn de l'age apostolique_ (1904). GARDNER, P., _The Ephesian Gospel_ (1915). GARVIE, A. E., _The Beloved Disciple_ (1922). GOBEL, _Die Reden des Herrn nach Johannes_ (2 vols., 1906, 1910). GODET, F., _Comm. on the Gospel of St. John_ (Tr., 2 vols., 1886--90). GOGUEL, M., _Les sources du recit Johannique de la Passion_ (1910).,Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1924). GORDON, S. D., _Quiet Talks on St. John's Gospel_. GORE, C., _Exposition of the Gospel of John_ (1920). GREEN, A. V., _The Ephesian Canonical Writings_ (1910). GREGORY, C. R., _Wellhausen und Johannes_ (1910). GRILL, J., _Untersuchungen uber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums_ (1902). GUMBEL, _Das Johannesevangelium Eine Erganzung des Lukas ev_. (1911). HARRIS, J. RENDEL, _The Origin of the Prologue to St. John's Gospel_ (1917). HAYES, D. A., _John and His Writings_ (1917). HOERNLE, E. S., _The Record of the Loved Disciple_ etc. (1913). HOLLAND, H. S., _The Philosophy of Faith and the Fourth Gospel_ (1919).,_The Fourth Gospel_ (1923). HOLTZMANN, H. J., _Evangelium, Briefe, und Offenbarung des Johannes_. 3 Aufl. (1908). HOLTZMANN, _Hand-Comm_. 3 Aufl. von Bauer (1908). HOVEY, A. H., _In American Comm_. (1885). HOWARD, W. F., _The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation_ (1931). IVERACH, JAMES, _Gospel of John_ (Int. Stand. Bible Encycl.). JACKSON, H. L., _The Fourth Gospel and Some Recent German Criticism_ (1906).,_The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_ (1918). JOHNSTON, J. S., _The Philosophy of the Fourth Gospel_ (1909). KEISKER, _The Inner Witness of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922). KREYENBUHL, _Neue Losung der Johanneischen Frage_ (1905). LARFIELD, _Die beide Johannes von Ephesus_ (1914). LEATHES, STANLEY, _The Witness of St. John to Christ_. LEPIN, _L'origine du quatrieme evangile_ (1907; 1927).,_Lamentations:valeur historique du quatrieme euangile_ (1910). LEWIS, F. G., _The Irenaeus Testimony to the Fourth Gospel_ (1908). LEWIS, F. G., _Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel_ (1910). LIGHTFOOT, J. B., _Biblical Essays_ (pages 1-198; I-III, 1893). LLOYD, J. P. D., _The Son of Thunder_ (1932). LOISY, A., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1903). LOWRIE, _The Doctrine of John_ (1899). LYMAN, MARY ELY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Life of Today_ (1931). MANSON, W., _The Incarnate Glory_ (1923). MAURICE, F. D., _The Gospel of St. John_ (1906). McGREGoR, G. H., _The Moffatt Commentary_ (1930). MONTGOMERY, J. A., _The Origin of the Gospel According to St. John_ (1923). MOUSE, _Johannes und Paulus_ (1915). MUIRHEAD, L. A., _The Message of the Fourth Gospel_ (1925). NOLLOTH, C. F., _The Fourth Evangelist_ (1925). NUNN, H. P. V., _The Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel (1927). ORR, JAMES, _The Authenticity of St. John's Gospel Deduced from Internal Evidence_. OVERBECK, _Das Johannesevangelium_ (1911). PLUMMER, A., _Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1913). REVILLE, J., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1901). REYNOLDS, H. R., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D. B., 1899). RICHMOND, W., _The Gospel of the Rejection_ (1906). ROBERTSON, A. T., _The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John_ (1916). ROBINSON, A., _The Historical Character of St. John's Gospel_ (1929). ROBINSON, B. W., _The Gospel of John_ (1925). SANDAY, W., _Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_ (1905). SCHLATTER, _Die Sprache und Heimath des vierten Evangelisten_ (1903). SCHMIEDEL, P. W., _The Johannine Writings_ (1908). SCOTT, E. F., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology_ (1906). SCOTT, E. F., _The Historical and Religious Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1903). SCOTT-MONCRIEFF, C. E., _St. John, Apostle, Evangelist and Prophet_ (1909). SELBIE, W. B., _Belief and Life: Studies in the Thought of the Fourth Gospel_ (1916). SMITH, J. R., _The Teaching of the Fourth Gospel_ (1903). SMITH, P. V., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Historical Importance_ (1926). SPEER, R. E., _The Greatest Book in the World_ (1915). SPITTA, F., _Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu_ (1910). STANGE, _Die Eigenart des Johanneischen Produktion_ (1914). STANTON, V. H., _The Fourth Gospel_ (Part III of Gospels as Hist. Documents, 1921). STEVENS, G. B., _The Johannine Theology_ (1898). STRACHAN, R. H., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D C G 1906).,The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environ- ment_ (1917).,The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian_ (1925). TILLMANN, FRITZ, _Das Johannesevangelium Uebersetzt und Erklart_ (1931). VEDDER, H. C., _The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problems_ (1917). WARSCHAUER, J., _The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_. WATKINS, W. H., _Modern Criticism Considered in its Rela- tion to the Fourth Gospel_ (1890). WATSON, H. A., _The Mysticism of St. John's Gospel_ (1916). WEARING, _The World View of the Fourth Gospel_ (1918). WEISS, B., _Meyer Komm_. 9 Aufl. (1902).,_Das Johannesevangelium als einheitliches Werk_ (1911). WELLHAUSEN, J., _Das Evangelium Johannis_ (1908). WENDT, H. H., _The Gospel according to St. John: An Inquiry into its Genesis and Historical Value_ (1911).,_Die Schichten im vierten Evangelium_ (1911). WESTCOTT, B. F., _The Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1908). WHITELAW, _The Gospel of John_ (1888). WINDISCH, H., _Johannes und die Synoptiker_ (1927). WORSLEY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists_ (1911). WREDE, W., _Charakter und Tendenz del Johannesevangelium_ (1903). ZAHN, TH., _Dal Evangelium Johannis (1908). 6 Aufl. (1921). strkjv@John:1:1 @{In the beginning} (\en archˆi\). \Archˆ\ is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew _be reshith_ in strkjv@Genesis:1:1|. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. {Was} (\ˆn\). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of \eimi\ to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (\egeneto\, became) appears in verse 14| for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in strkjv@8:58| "before Abraham came (\genesthai\) I am" (\eimi\, timeless existence). {The Word} (\ho logos\). \Logos\ is from \leg“\, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. \Logos\ is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (\anima mundi\) and Marcus Aurelius used \spermatikos logos\ for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew _memra_ was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in strkjv@Proverbs:8:23|. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (_The Origin of the _Prologue to St. John_, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term \Logos\, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term \Logos\ is applied to Christ only in strkjv@John:1:1,14; strkjv@Revelation:19:13; strkjv@1John:1:1| "concerning the Word of life" (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God" in strkjv@Hebrews:4:12|. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f.; strkjv@Colossians:1:17|) and in strkjv@Hebrews:1:2f.| and in strkjv@John:17:5|. This term suits John's purpose better than \sophia\ (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the \aeon\ Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh" (\sarx egeneto\, verse 14|) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. {With God} (\pros ton theon\). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. \Pros\ with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In strkjv@1John:2:1| we have a like use of \pros\: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (\paraklˆton echomen pros ton patera\). See \pros“pon pros pros“pon\ (face to face, strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|), a triple use of \pros\. There is a papyrus example of \pros\ in this sense \to gn“ston tˆs pros allˆlous sunˆtheias\, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., _Vocabulary_) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, _Origin of Prologue_, p. 8) that the use of \pros\ here and in strkjv@Mark:6:3| is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is _Koin‚_, not old Attic. In strkjv@John:17:5| John has \para soi\ the more common idiom. {And the Word was God} (\kai theos ˆn ho logos\). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying \ho theos ˆn ho logos\. That would mean that all of God was expressed in \ho logos\ and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (\ho logos\) and the predicate without it (\theos\) just as in strkjv@John:4:24| \pneuma ho theos\ can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." Songs:in strkjv@1John:4:16| \ho theos agapˆ estin\ can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 767f. Songs:in strkjv@John:1:14| \ho Logos sarx egeneto\, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

rwp@John:1:12 @{As many as received him} (\hosoi elabon auton\). Effective aorist active indicative of \lamban“\ "as many as did receive him," in contrast with \hoi idioi\ just before, exceptional action on the part of the disciples and other believers. {To them} (\autois\). Dative case explanatory of the relative clause preceding, an anacoluthon common in John 27 times as against 21 in the Synoptists. This is a common Aramaic idiom and is urged by Burney (_Aramaic Origin_, etc., p. 64) for his theory of an Aramaic original of the Fourth Gospel. {The right} (\exousian\). In strkjv@5:27| \ed“ken\ (first aorist active indicative of \did“mi\) \exousian\ means authority but includes power (\dunamis\). Here it is more the notion of privilege or right. {To become} (\genesthai\). Second aorist middle of \ginomai\, to become what they were not before. {Children of God} (\tekna theou\). In the full spiritual sense, not as mere offspring of God true of all men (Acts:17:28|). Paul's phrase \huioi theou\ (Gal strkjv@3:26|) for believers, used also by Jesus of the pure in heart (Matthew:5:9|), does not occur in John's Gospel (but in strkjv@Revelation:21:7|). It is possible that John prefers \ta tekna tou theou\ for the spiritual children of God whether Jew or Gentile (John:11:52|) because of the community of nature (\teknon\ from root \tek-\, to beget). But one cannot follow Westcott in insisting on "adoption" as Paul's reason for the use of \huioi\ since Jesus uses \huioi theou\ in strkjv@Matthew:5:9|. Clearly the idea of regeneration is involved here as in strkjv@John:3:3|. {Even to them that believe} (\tois pisteuousin\). No "even" in the Greek, merely explanatory apposition with \autois\, dative case of the articular present active participle of \pisteu“\. {On his name} (\eis to onoma\). Bernard notes \pisteu“ eis\ 35 times in John, to put trust in or on. See also strkjv@2:23; strkjv@3:38| for \pisteu“ eis to onoma autou\. This common use of \onoma\ for the person is an Aramaism, but it occurs also in the vernacular papyri and \eis to onoma\ is particularly common in the payment of debts (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). See strkjv@Acts:1:15| for \onomata\ for persons.

rwp@John:1:14 @{And the Word became flesh} (\kai ho logos sarx egeneto\). See verse 3| for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than \ˆn\ of verse 1|. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive \sarx\, so that it cannot mean "the flesh became the Word." The Pre-existence of the Logos has already been plainly stated and argued. John does not here say that the Logos entered into a man or dwelt in a man or filled a man. One is at liberty to see an allusion to the birth narratives in strkjv@Matthew:1:16-25; strkjv@Luke:1:28-38|, if he wishes, since John clearly had the Synoptics before him and chiefly supplemented them in his narrative. In fact, one is also at liberty to ask what intelligent meaning can one give to John's language here apart from the Virgin Birth? What ordinary mother or father ever speaks of a child "becoming flesh"? For the Incarnation see also strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Galatians:4:4; strkjv@Romans:1:3; strkjv@8:3; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7f.; strkjv@1Timothy:3:16; strkjv@Hebrews:2:14|. "To explain the exact significance of \egeneto\ in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter" (Bernard). Unless, indeed, as seems plain, John is referring to the Virgin Birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. "The Logos of philosophy is, John declares, the Jesus of history" (Bernard). Thus John asserts the deity and the real humanity of Christ. He answers the Docetic Gnostics who denied his humanity. {Dwelt among us} (\eskˆn“sen en hˆmin\). First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of \skˆno“\, old verb, to pitch one's tent or tabernacle (\skˆnos\ or \skˆnˆ\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:7-15; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@13:6; strkjv@21:3|. In Revelation it is used of God tabernacling with men and here of the Logos tabernacling, God's Shekinah glory here among us in the person of his Son. {We beheld his glory} (\etheasametha tˆn doxan autou\). First aorist middle indicative of \theaomai\ (from \thea\, spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory (\doxa\) of God as James, the brother of Jesus, so describes him (James:2:1|). John employs \theaomai\ again in strkjv@1:32| (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and strkjv@1:38| of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. Songs:also strkjv@4:35; strkjv@11:45; strkjv@1John:1:1f.; strkjv@4:12,14|. By this word John insists that in the human Jesus he beheld the Shekinah glory of God who was and is the Logos who existed before with God. By this plural John speaks for himself and all those who saw in Jesus what he did. {As of the only begotten from the Father} (\h“s monogenous para patros\). Strictly, "as of an only born from a father," since there is no article with \monogenous\ or with \patros\. In strkjv@John:3:16; strkjv@1John:4:9| we have \ton monogenˆ\ referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of \patˆr\ of God in relation to the Logos. \Monogenˆs\ (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in strkjv@1:18|) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children (\tekna\) of God. The word is used of human relationships as in strkjv@Luke:7:12; strkjv@8:42; strkjv@9:38|. It occurs also in the LXX and strkjv@Hebrews:11:17|, but elsewhere in N.T. only in John's writings. It is an old word in Greek literature. It is not clear whether the words \para patros\ (from the Father) are to be connected with \monogenous\ (cf. strkjv@6:46; strkjv@7:29|, etc.) or with \doxan\ (cf. strkjv@5:41,44|). John clearly means to say that "the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son" (Bernard). Cf. strkjv@8:54; strkjv@14:9; strkjv@17:5|. {Full} (\plˆrˆs\). Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with \doxan\ (or genitive with \monogenous\) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 275). As nominative \plˆrˆs\ can agree with the subject of \eskˆn“sen\. {Of grace and truth} (\charitos kai alˆtheias\). Curiously this great word \charis\ (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John's Gospel save in strkjv@1:14,16,17|, though \alˆtheia\ (truth) is one of the keywords in the Fourth Gospel and in 1John, occurring 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Johannine Epistles, 7 times in the Synoptics and not at all in Revelation (Bernard). In strkjv@1:17| these two words picture the Gospel in Christ in contrast with the law of Moses. See Epistles of Paul for origin and use of both words.

rwp@John:1:43 @{On the morrow} (\tˆi epaurion\). The fourth of the days from verse 19|. {He findeth Philip} (\heuriskei Philippon\). Vivid dramatic present as in 41|, though \ˆthelˆsen\ (was minded, wished) is aorist active indicative. Apparently not an accidental finding, possibly due to the efforts of Andrew and Peter. Both Andrew and Philip have Greek names. {Follow me} (\akolouthei moi\). Present active imperative, a direct challenge to Philip. Often Jesus uses this verb to win disciples (Mark:2:14; strkjv@Matthew:8:22; strkjv@9:21; strkjv@19:21; strkjv@Luke:9:59; strkjv@John:21:19|). Already Jesus had four personal followers (Andrew and Simon, John and James). He has begun his work.

rwp@John:2:1 @{The third day} (\tˆi hˆmerƒi tˆi tritˆi\). "On the day the third" (locative case), from the start to Galilee when Philip was found (1:43|), seven days since strkjv@1:19|. {There was a marriage} (\gamos egeneto\). "A wedding (or marriage festival) took place." See on ¯Matthew:22:8|. {In Cana of Galilee} (\en Kana tˆs Galilaias\). This town, the home of Nathanael (21:2|), is only mentioned again in strkjv@4:46| as the home of the nobleman. There was a Cana in Coele-Syria. It is usually located at _Kefr Kenna_ (3 1/2 miles from Nazareth), though _Ain Kana_ and _Khirbet Kana_ are also possible. Bernard thinks that it was probably on Wednesday afternoon the fourth day of the week (usual day for marriage of virgins), when the party of Jesus arrived. {And the mother of Jesus was there} (\kai ˆn hˆ mˆtˆr tou Iˆsou ekei\). When they arrived. John does not mention her name, probably because already well known in the Synoptics. Probably Joseph was already dead. Mary may have been kin to the family where the wedding took place, an intimate friend clearly.

rwp@John:2:4 @{Woman} (\gunai\). Vocative case of \gunˆ\, and with no idea of censure as is plain from its use by Jesus in strkjv@19:26|. But the use of \gunai\ instead of \mˆter\ (Mother) does show her she can no longer exercise maternal authority and not at all in his Messianic work. That is always a difficult lesson for mothers and fathers to learn, when to let go. {What have I to do with thee?} (\Ti emoi kai soi;\). There are a number of examples of this ethical dative in the LXX (Judges:11:12; strkjv@2Samuel:16:10; strkjv@1Kings:17:18; strkjv@2Kings:3:13; strkjv@2Chronicles:35:21|) and in the N.T. (Mark:1:24; strkjv@5:7; strkjv@Matthew:8:29; strkjv@27:19; strkjv@Luke:8:28|). Some divergence of thought is usually indicated. Literally the phrase means, "What is it to me and to thee?" In this instance F.C. Burkitt (_Journal of Theol. Studies_, July, 1912) interprets it to mean, "What is it to us?" That is certainly possible and suits the next clause also. {Mine hour is not yet come} (\oup“ hˆkei hˆ h“ra mou\). This phrase marks a crisis whenever it occurs, especially of his death (7:30; strkjv@8:20; strkjv@12:23; strkjv@13:1; strkjv@17:1|). Here apparently it means the hour for public manifestation of the Messiahship, though a narrower sense would be for Christ's intervention about the failure of the wine. The Fourth Gospel is written on the plane of eternity (W. M. Ramsay) and that standpoint exists here in this first sign of the Messiah.

rwp@John:3:12 @{If I told} (\ei eipon\). Condition of the first class, assumed to be true. {Earthly things} (\ta epigeia\). Things upon the earth like \ta epi tˆs gˆs\ (Colossians:3:2|), not things of an earthly nature or worldly or sinful. The work of the kingdom of God including the new birth which Nicodemus did not understand belongs to \ta epigeia\. {If I tell you heavenly things} (\ean eip“ humin ta epourania\). Condition of the third class, undetermined. What will Nicodemus do in that case? By \ta epourania\ Jesus means the things that take place in heaven like the deep secrets of the purpose of God in the matter of redemption such as the necessity of the lifting up of Christ as shown in verse 14|. Both Godet and Westcott note that the two types of teaching here pointed out by Jesus (the earthly, the heavenly) correspond in general to the difference between the Synoptics (the earthly) and the Fourth Gospel (the heavenly), a difference noted here in the Fourth Gospel as shown by Jesus himself. Hence the one should not be pitted against the other. There are specimens of the heavenly in the Synoptics as in strkjv@Matthew:11:25ff.; strkjv@Luke:10:18ff|.

rwp@John:5:40 @{And ye will not come to me} (\kai ou thelete elthein pros me\). "And yet" (\kai\) as often in John. "This is the tragedy of the rejection of Messiah by the Messianic race" (Bernard). See strkjv@John:1:11; strkjv@Matthew:23:37| (\kai ouk ˆthelˆsate\, and ye would not). Men loved darkness rather than light (John:3:19|). {That ye may have life} (\hina z“ˆn echˆte\). Life in its simplest form as in strkjv@3:36| (cf. strkjv@3:16|). This is the purpose of John in writing the Fourth Gospel (20:31|). There is life only in Christ Jesus.

rwp@John:5:43 @{In my Father's name} (\en t“i onomati tou patros mou\). Seven times Jesus in John speaks of the "Name" of the Father (5:43; strkjv@10:25; strkjv@12:28; strkjv@17:6,11,12,26|). See strkjv@1:12| for use of \onoma\ (Luke:1:49|). {And ye receive me not} (\kai ou lambanete me\). "And yet ye do not receive me," as in verse 40|, "the Gospel of the Rejection" (1:11; strkjv@3:11,32; strkjv@12:37|) often applied to the Fourth Gospel. {If another come} (\ean allos elthˆi\). Condition of third class (\ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \erchomai\). Note \allos\, not \heteros\, like \allon Iˆsoun\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:4|. Similar prophecies occur in strkjv@Mark:13:6,22| (Matthew:24:5,24|), all general in character like Antichrist in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:8-12|. There is no occasion for a reference to any individual like Barcochba (about A.D. 134) as Pfleiderer and Schmiedel hold. These Messianic upstarts all come "in their own name" and always find a following. {Him ye will receive} (\ekeinon lˆmpsesthe\). "That one," whoever he is, as Jesus said. Future active indicative of \lamban“\. Credulous about the false Messiahs, incredulous about Christ.

rwp@John:6:8 @{One of} (\heis ek\). Songs:in strkjv@12:4|; strkjv@13:23; strkjv@Mark:13:1| without \ek\. {Simon Peter's brother} (\ho adelphos Sim“nos Petrou\). Songs:described in strkjv@1:40|. The great distinction of Andrew was precisely this that he brought Simon to Christ. Philip and Andrew appear together again in strkjv@12:20-22|, but in the Synoptics he is distinguished only in strkjv@Mark:13:3|. In the Muratorian Fragment Andrew received the revelation for John to write the Fourth Gospel.

rwp@John:9:3 @{But that the works of God should be made manifest in him} (\all' hina phaner“thˆi ta erga tou theou en aut“i\). Jesus denies both alternatives, and puts God's purpose (\all' hina\ with first aorist subjunctive of \phanero“\) as the true solution. It is sometimes true that disease is the result of personal sin as in the man in strkjv@5:14| and parents can hand on the effects of sin to the third and fourth generations, but there are cases free from blame like this. There is comfort for many sufferers in the words of Jesus here.

rwp@John:11:39 @{Take ye away the stone} (\arate ton lithon\). First aorist active imperative of \air“\. They could do this much without the exercise of Christ's divine power. It was a startling command to them. {By this time he stinketh} (\ˆdˆ ozei\). Present active indicative of old verb, here only in N.T. (cf. strkjv@Exodus:8:14|). It means to give out an odour, either good or bad. {For he hath been dead four days} (\tetartaios gar estin\). The Greek simply says, "For he is a fourth-day man." It is an old ordinal numeral from \tetartos\ (fourth). Herodotus (ii. 89) has \tetartaios genesthai\ of one four days dead as here. The word is only here in the N.T. The same idiom occurs in strkjv@Acts:28:13| with \deuteraioi\ (second-day men). Lightfoot (_Hor. Hebr._) quotes a Jewish tradition (_Beresh. Rabba_) to the effect that the soul hovers around the tomb for three days hoping to return to the body, but on the fourth day leaves it. But there is no suggestion here that Martha held that notion. Her protest is a natural one in spite of her strong faith in verses 22-27|.

rwp@Jude:1:11 @{Woe to them} (\ouai autois\). Interjection with the dative as is common in the Gospels (Matthew:11:21|). {Went} (\eporeuthˆsan\). First aorist passive (deponent) indicative of \poreuomai\. {In the way of Cain} (\tˆi hod“i tou Kain\). Locative case \hod“i\. Cain is Jude's fourth example. Not in II Peter, but in strkjv@Hebrews:11:4; strkjv@1John:3:11f|. From strkjv@Genesis:4:7|. {Ran riotously} (\exechuthˆsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \ekche“\, to pour out, "they were poured out," vigorous metaphor for excessive indulgence. But it is used also of God's love for us (Romans:5:5|). {In the error of Balaam} (\tˆi planˆi tou Balaam\). The fifth example in Jude. In II Peter also (2Peter:2:15|). Either locative case (in) or instrumental (by). \Planˆ\ (in Peter also) is the common word for such wandering (Matthew:24:4ff.|, etc.). {Perished} (\ap“lonto\). Second aorist middle (intransitive) of \apollumi\. {In the gainsaying of Korah} (\tˆi antilogiƒi tou Kore\). Again either locative or instrumental. The word \antilogia\ is originally answering back (Hebrews:6:16|), but it may be by act also (Romans:10:21|) as here. This is the sixth example in Jude, not in II Peter.

rwp@Info_Luke @ A SKETCH OF LUKE His name is not a common one, and is probably a shortened form of \Lukios\ and \Lukanos\. Some of the manuscripts of the Gospel actually have as the title \Kata Lukanon\. Dean Plumptre suggests that the Latin poet Lucanus was named after Luke who probably was the family physician when he was born. That is conjecture as well as the notion of Hayes that, since the brothers Gallio and Seneca were uncles of Lucanus they were influenced by Luke to be friendly toward Paul both in Corinth and in Rome. It is probable that Luke was a Greek, certainly a Gentile, possibly a freedman. Songs:this man who wrote more than one-fourth of the New Testament was not a Jew. It is not certain whether his home was in Antioch or in Philippi. It is also uncertain whether he was already converted when Paul met him at Troas. The Codex Bezae has a "we" passage after strkjv@Acts:11:27| which, if genuine, would bring Luke in contact with Paul before Troas. Hayes thinks that he was a slave boy in the family of Theophilus at Antioch, several conjectures in one. We do not know that Theophilus lived at Antioch. It may have been Rome. But, whether one of Paul's converts or not, he was a loyal friend to Paul. If he lived at Antioch, he could have studied medicine there and the great medical temple of Aesculapius was at Aegae, not far away. As a Greek physician, Luke was a university man and in touch with the science of his day. Greek medicine is the beginning of the science of medicine as it is known today. Tradition calls him a painter, but of that we know nothing. Certainly he was a humanist and a man of culture and broad sympathies and personal charm. He was the first genuine scientist who faced the problem of Christ and of Christianity. It must be said of him that he wrote his books with open mind and not as a credulous enthusiast.

rwp@Luke:1:62 @{Made signs} (\eneneuon\). Imperfect tense, repeated action as usual when making signs. In strkjv@1:22| the verb used of Zacharias is \dianeu“n\. {What he would have him called} (\to ti an theloi kaleisthai auto\). Note article \to\ with the indirect question, accusative of general reference. The optative with \an\ is here because it was used in the direct question (cf. strkjv@Acts:17:18|), and is simply retained in the indirect. {What would he wish him to be called?} ({if he could speak}), a conclusion of the fourth-class condition.

rwp@Luke:9:22 @{Rejected} (\apodokimasthˆnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \apodokimaz“\, to reject after trial. {The third day} (\tˆi tritˆi hˆmerƒi\). Locative case of time as in strkjv@Matthew:16:21|. Here in the parallel passage strkjv@Mark:8:31| has "after three days" (\meta treis hˆmeras\) in precisely the same sense. That is to say, "after three days" is just a free way of saying "on the third day" and cannot mean "on the fourth day" if taken too literally. For discussion of this plain prediction of the death of Christ with various details see discussion on strkjv@Matthew:16:21; strkjv@Mark:8:31|. It was a melancholy outlook that depressed the disciples as Mark and Matthew show in the protest of Peter and his rebuke.

rwp@Luke:10:22 @{Knoweth who the Son is} (\gin“skei tis estin ho huios\). Knows by experience, \gin“skei\. Here strkjv@Matthew:11:27| has \epigin“skei\ (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} (\boulˆtai apokalupsai\). The Son claims the power to reveal the Father "to whomsoever he wills" (\h“i an boulˆtai\, 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 (\paredothˆ\, timeless aorist passive indicative) of all power from the Father. Let that supreme claim stand.

rwp@Luke:15:26 @{Servants} (\paid“n\). Not \douloi\ (bondslaves) as in verse 22|. The Greeks often used \pais\ for servant like the Latin _puer_. It could be either a hired servant (\misthios\, verse 17|) or slave (\doulos\). {He inquired} (\epunthaneto\). Imperfect middle, inquired repeatedly and eagerly. {What these things might be} (\ti an eiˆ tauta\). Not "poor" Greek as Easton holds, but simply the form of the direct question retained in the indirect. See the direct form as the apodosis of a condition of the fourth class in strkjv@Acts:17:18|. In strkjv@Acts:10:17| we have the construction with \an eiˆ\ of the direct retained in the indirect question. Songs:also in strkjv@Luke:1:62|: See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1044.

rwp@Luke:16:14 @{Who were lovers of money} (\philarguroi huparchontes\). Literally, being lovers of money. \Philarguroi\ is an old word, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@2Timothy:3:2|. It is from \philos\ and \arguros\. {Heard} (\ˆkouon\). Imperfect active, were listening (all the while Jesus was talking to the disciples (verses 1-13|). {And they scoffed at him} (\kai exemuktˆrizon\). Imperfect active again of \ekmuktˆriz“\. LXX where late writers use simple verb. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:23:35|. It means to turn out or up the nose at one, to sneer, to scoff. The Romans had a phrase, _naso adunco suspendere_, to hang on the hooked nose (the subject of ridicule). These money-loving Pharisees were quick to see that the words of Jesus about the wise use of money applied to them. They had stood without comment the three parables aimed directly at them (the lost sheep, the lost coin, the lost son). But now they do not remain quiet while they hear the fourth parable spoken to the disciples. No words were apparently spoken, but their eyes, noses, faces were eloquent with a fine disdain.

rwp@Mark:1:14 @{Jesus came into Galilee} (\ˆlthen ho Iˆsous eis tˆn Galilaian\). Here Mark begins the narrative of the active ministry of Jesus and he is followed by Matthew and Luke. Mark undoubtedly follows the preaching of Peter. But for the Fourth Gospel we should not know of the year of work in various parts of the land (Perea, Galilee, Judea, Samaria) preceding the Galilean ministry. John supplements the Synoptic Gospels at this point as often. The arrest of John had much to do with the departure of Jesus from Judea to Galilee (John:4:1-4|). {Preaching the gospel of God} (\kˆruss“n to euaggelion tou theou\). It is the subjective genitive, the gospel that comes from God. Swete observes that repentance (\metanoia\) is the keynote in the message of the Baptist as gospel (\euaggelion\) is with Jesus. But Jesus took the same line as John and proclaimed both repentance and the arrival of the kingdom of God. Mark adds to Matthew's report the words "the time is fulfilled" (\peplˆr“tai ho kairos\). It is a significant fact that John looks backward to the promise of the coming of the Messiah and signalizes the fulfilment as near at hand (perfect passive indicative). It is like Paul's fulness of time (\plˆr“ma tou chronou\) in strkjv@Galatians:4:4| and fulness of the times (\plˆr“ma ton kair“n\) in strkjv@Ephesians:1:10| when he employs the word \kairos\, opportunity or crisis as here in Mark rather than the more general term \chronos\. Mark adds here also: "and believe in the gospel" (\kai pisteuete en t“i euaggeli“i\). Both repent and believe in the gospel. Usually faith in Jesus (or God) is expected as in John strkjv@14:1|. But this crisis called for faith in the message of Jesus that the Messiah had come. He did not use here the term Messiah, for it had come to have political connotations that made its use at present unwise. But the kingdom of God had arrived with the presence of the King. It does make a difference what one believes. Belief or disbelief in the message of Jesus made a sharp cleavage in those who heard him. "Faith in the message was the first step; a creed of some kind lies at the basis of confidence in the Person of Christ, and the occurrence of the phrase \pistuete en t“i euaggeli“i\ in the oldest record of the teaching of our Lord is a valuable witness to this fact" (Swete).

rwp@Mark:3:14 @{He appointed twelve} (\epoiˆsen d“deka\). This was a second selection out of those invited to the hills and after the night of prayer and after day came (Luke:6:13|). Why he chose twelve we are not told, probably because there were twelve tribes in Israel. It was a good round number at any rate. They were to be princes in the new Israel (cf. strkjv@Matthew:19:28; strkjv@Luke:22:30; strkjv@Revelation:21:14,15|). Luke (Luke:6:13-16|) also gives the list of the twelve at this point while Matthew (Matthew:10:1-4|) postpones giving the names till they are sent out in Galilee. There is a fourth list in strkjv@Acts:1:13|. See discussion of the names of the apostles on ¯Matthew:10:1-4| and pp. 271-3 of my _Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ_. The three groups of four begin alike (Simon, Philip, James). There are some difficulties. {Whom he also named apostles} (\hous kai apostolous “nomasen\). Margin of Revised Version, the text of Westcott and Hort after Aleph, B, C, etc. Genuine in strkjv@Luke:6:13| and probably so here. The meaning is that Jesus himself gave the name apostle or missionary (\apostell“\, to send) to this group of twelve. The word is applied in the New Testament to others besides as delegates or messengers of churches (2Corinthians:8:23; strkjv@Phillipians:2:25|), and messenger (John:13:16|). It is applied also to Paul on a par with the twelve (Galatians:1:1,11f.|, etc.) and also to Barnabas (Acts:14:14|), and perhaps also to Timothy and Silas (1Timothy:2:6f.|). Two purposes of Jesus are mentioned by Mark in the choice of these twelve, {that they might be with him} (\hina “sin met' autou\), {and that he might send them forth} (\kai hina apostellˆi autous\). They were not ready to be sent forth till they had been with Jesus for some time. This is one of the chief tasks of Christ to train this group of men. See Bruce's _The Training of the Twelve_. The very word \apostolos\ is from \apostell“\. There were two purposes in sending them forth expressed by two infinitives, one to preach (\kˆrussein\, from \kˆrux\, herald), the other to have power to cast out demons (\echein exousian ekballein ta daimonia\). This double ministry of preaching and healing was to mark their work. The two things are, however, different, and one does not necessarily involve the other.

rwp@Mark:6:48 @{Seeing them distressed in rowing} (\id“n autous basanizomenous en t“i elaunein\). See also strkjv@Matthew:8:29| for the word \basaniz“\, to torture, torment (Matthew:4:24|) with a touch-stone, then to distress as here. Papyri have \dia basan“n\ used on slaves like our third degree for criminals. \Elaunein\ is literally to drive as of ships or chariots. They drove the boat with oars. Common in Xenophon for marching. {About the fourth watch of the night} (\peri tetartˆn phulakˆn tˆs nuktos\). That is, between three and six A.M. The wind was {contrary to them} (\enantios autois\), that is in their faces and rowing was difficult, "a great wind" (John:6:18|), and as a result the disciples had made little progress. They should have been over long before this. {And he would have passed by them} (\kai ˆthelen parelthein autous\). Only in Mark. He wished to pass by them, _praeterire eos_ (Vulgate). Imperfect tense \ˆthelen\. {They thought} (\edoxan\). A natural conclusion. {And cried out} (\anekraxan\). {Cried up}, literally, a shriek of terror, or scream.

rwp@Mark:8:23 @{Brought him out of the village} (\exˆnegken auton ex“ tˆs k“mˆs\). It had been a village, but Philip had enlarged it and made it a town or city (\polis\), though still called a village (verses 23,26|). As in the case of the deaf and dumb demoniac given also alone by Mark (Mark:7:31-37|), so here Jesus observes the utmost secrecy in performing the miracle for reasons not given by Mark. It was the season of retirement and Jesus is making the fourth withdrawal from Galilee. That fact may explain it. The various touches here are of interest also. Jesus led him out by the hand, put spittle on his eyes (using the poetical and _Koin‚_ papyri word \ommata\ instead of the usual \opthalmous\), and laid his hands upon him, perhaps all this to help the man's faith.

rwp@Mark:8:31 @{He began to teach them} (\ˆrxato didaskein autous\). Mark is fond of this idiom, but it is not a mere rhetorical device. strkjv@Matthew:16:21| expressly says "from that time." They had to be told soon about the approaching death of Jesus. The confession of faith in Jesus indicated that it was a good time to begin. Death at the hands of the Sanhedrin (elders, chief priests, and scribes) in which Pharisees and Sadducees had about equal strength. The resurrection on the third day is mentioned, but it made no impression on their minds. This rainbow on the cloud was not seen. {After three days} (\meta treis hˆmeras\). strkjv@Matthew:16:21| has "the third day" (\tˆi tritˆi hˆmerƒi\) in the locative case of point of time (so also strkjv@Luke:9:22|). There are some people who stickle for a strict interpretation of "after three days" which would be "on the fourth day," not "on the third day." Evidently Mark's phrase here has the same sense as that in Matthew and Luke else they are hopelessly contradictory. In popular language "after three days" can and often does mean "on the third day," but the fourth day is impossible.

rwp@Mark:11:12 @{On the morrow} (\tˆi epaurion\). strkjv@Matthew:21:18| has "early" (\pr“i\), often of the fourth watch before six A.M. This was Monday morning. The Triumphal Entry had taken place on our Sunday, the first day of the week.

rwp@Mark:16:2 @{When the sun was risen} (\anateilantos tou hˆliou\). Genitive absolute, aorist participle, though some manuscripts read \anatellontos\, present participle. strkjv@Luke:24:1| has it "at early dawn" (\orthrou batheos\) and strkjv@John:20:1| "while it was yet dark." It was some two miles from Bethany to the tomb. Mark himself gives both notes of time, "very early" (\lian pr“i\), "when the sun was risen." Probably they started while it was still dark and the sun was coming up when they arrived at the tomb. All three mention that it was on the first day of the week, our Sunday morning when the women arrive. The body of Jesus was buried late on Friday before the sabbath (our Saturday) which began at sunset. This is made clear as a bell by strkjv@Luke:23:54| "and the sabbath drew on." The women rested on the sabbath (Luke strkjv@23:56|). This visit of the women was in the early morning of our Sunday, the first day of the week. Some people are greatly disturbed over the fact that Jesus did not remain in the grave full seventy-two hours. But he repeatedly said that he would rise on the third day and that is precisely what happened. He was buried on Friday afternoon. He was risen on Sunday morning. If he had really remained in the tomb full three days and then had risen after that, it would have been on the fourth day, not on the third day. The occasional phrase "after three days" is merely a vernacular idiom common in all languages and not meant to be exact and precise like "on the third day." We can readily understand "after three days" in the sense of "on the third day." It is impossible to understand "on the third day" to be "on the fourth day." See my _Harmony of the Gospels_, pp. 289-91.

rwp@Info_Matthew @ THE TITLE The Textus Receptus has "The Holy Gospel according to Matthew" (\to kata Matthaion hagion Euaggelion\), though the Elzevirs omit "holy," not agreeing here with Stephanus, Griesbach, and Scholz. Only minuscules (cursive Greek manuscripts) and all late have the adjective. Other minuscules and nine uncials including W (the Washington Codex of the fifth century), C of the fifth century (the palimpsest manuscript) and Delta of the ninth together with most Latin manuscripts have simply "Gospel according to Matthew" (\Euaggelion kata Matthaion\). But Aleph and B the two oldest and best Greek uncials of the fourth century have only "According to Matthew" (\Kata Maththaion\) (note double th) and the Greek uncial D of the fifth or sixth century follows Aleph and B as do some of the earliest Old Latin manuscripts and the Curetonian Syriac. It is clear, therefore, that the earliest form of the title was simply "According to Matthew." It may be doubted if Matthew (or the author, if not Matthew) had any title at all. The use of "according to" makes it plain that the meaning is not "the Gospel of Matthew," but the Gospel as given by Matthew, \secundum Matthaeum\, to distinguish the report by Matthew from that by Mark, by Luke, by John. Least of all is there any authority in the manuscripts for saying "Saint Matthew," a Roman Catholic practice observed by some Protestants.

rwp@Matthew:11:25 @{At that season Jesus answered and said} (\en ekein“i t“i kair“i apokritheis eipen\). Spoke to his Father in audible voice. The time and place we do not know. But here we catch a glimpse of Jesus in one of his moods of worship. "It is usual to call this golden utterance a prayer, but it is at once prayer, praise, and self-communing in a devout spirit" (Bruce). Critics are disturbed because this passage from the Logia of Jesus or Q of Synoptic criticism (Matthew:11:25-30; strkjv@Luke:10:21-24|) is so manifestly Johannine in spirit and very language, "the Father" (\ho patˆr\), "the son" (\ho huios\), whereas the Fourth Gospel was not written till the close of the first century and the Logia was written before the Synoptic Gospels. The only satisfying explanation lies in the fact that Jesus did have this strain of teaching that is preserved in John's Gospel. Here he is in precisely the same mood of elevated communion with the Father that we have reflected in John 14 to 17. Even Harnack is disposed to accept this Logion as a genuine saying of Jesus. The word "thank" (\homologoumai\) is better rendered "praise" (Moffatt). Jesus praises the Father "not that the \sophoi\ were ignorant, but that the \nˆpioi\ knew" (McNeile).

rwp@Matthew:12:40 @{The whale} (\tou kˆtous\). Sea-monster, huge fish. In strkjv@Jonah:2:1| the LXX has \kˆtei megal“i\. "Three days and three nights" may simply mean three days in popular speech. Jesus rose "on the third day" (Matthew:16:21|), not "on the fourth day." It is just a fuller form for "after three days" (Mark:8:31; strkjv@10:34|).

rwp@Matthew:14:1 @{Herod the tetrarch} (\Hˆr“idˆs tetraarchˆs\). Herod Antipas ruler of Galilee and Perea, one-fourth of the dominion of Herod the Great. {The report concerning Jesus} (\tˆn akouˆn Iˆsou\). See on ¯4:24|. Cognate accusative, heard the hearing (rumour), objective genitive. It is rather surprising that he had not heard of Jesus before.

rwp@Matthew:16:2 @{Fair weather} (\eudia\). An old poetic word from \eu\ and \Zeus\ as the ruler of the air and giver of fair weather. Songs:men today say "when the sky is red at sunset." It occurs on the Rosetta Stone and in a fourth century A.D. Oxyr. papyrus for "calm weather" that made it impossible to sail the boat. Aleph and B and some other MSS. omit verses 2 and 3. W omits part of verse 2. These verses are similar to strkjv@Luke:12:54-56|. McNeile rejects them here. Westcott and Hort place in brackets. Jesus often repeated his sayings. Zahn suggests that Papias added these words to Matthew.

rwp@Matthew:16:21 @{From that time began} (\apo tote ˆrxato\). It was a suitable time for the disclosure of the greatest secret of his death. It is now just a little over six months before the cross. They must know it now to be ready then. The great confession of Peter made this seem an appropriate time. He will repeat the warnings (17:22f.| with mention of betrayal; strkjv@20:17-19| with the cross) which he now "began." Songs:the necessity (\dei\, must) of his suffering death at the hands of the Jerusalem ecclesiastics who have dogged his steps in Galilee is now plainly stated. Jesus added his resurrection "on the third day" (\tˆi tritˆi hˆmerƒi\), not "on the fourth day," please observe. Dimly the shocked disciples grasped something of what Jesus said.

rwp@Matthew:25:32 @{All the nations} (panta ta ethnˆ). Not just Gentiles, but Jews also. Christians and non-Christians. This program for the general judgment has been challenged by some scholars who regard it as a composition by the evangelist to exalt Christ. But why should not Christ say this if he is the Son of Man and the Son of God and realized it? A "reduced" Christ has trouble with all the Gospels, not merely with the Fourth Gospel, and no less with Q and Mark than with Matthew and Luke. This is a majestic picture with which to close the series of parables about readiness for the second coming. Here is the program when he does come. "I am aware that doubt is thrown on this passage by some critics. But the doubt is most wanton. Where is the second brain that could have invented anything so original and so sublime as vv. 35-40,42-45|?" (Sanday, _Life of Christ in Recent Research_, p. 128). {As the shepherd separates} (\h“sper ho poimˆn aphorizei\). A common figure in Palestine. The sheep are usually white and the goats black. There are kids (\eriph“n, eriphia\) which have grazed together. The goats devastate a field of all herbage. "Indeed they have extirpated many species of trees which once covered the hills" (Tristram, _Natural History of the Bible_, pp. 89f.). The shepherd stands at the gate and taps the sheep to go to the right and the goats to the left.

rwp@Matthew:26:17 @{To eat the passover} (\phagein to pascha\). There were two feasts rolled into one, the passover feast and the feast of unleavened bread. Either name was employed. Here the passover meal is meant, though in strkjv@John:18:28| it is probable that the passover feast is referred to as the passover meal (the last supper) had already been observed. There is a famous controversy on the apparent disagreement between the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel on the date of this last passover meal. My view is that the five passages in John (John:13:1f.,27; strkjv@18:28; strkjv@19:14,31|) rightly interpreted agree with the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew:26:17,20; strkjv@Mark:14:12,17; strkjv@Luke:22:7,14|) that Jesus ate the passover meal at the regular time about 6 P.M. beginning of 15 Nisan. The passover lamb was slain on the afternoon of 14 Nisan and the meal eaten at sunset the beginning of 15 Nisan. According to this view Jesus ate the passover meal at the regular time and died on the cross the afternoon of 15 Nisan. See my _Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ_, pp.279-284. The question of the disciples here assumes that they are to observe the regular passover meal. Note the deliberative subjunctive (\hetoimas“men\) after \theleis\ with \hina\. For the asyndeton see Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 935.

rwp@Matthew:26:36 @{Gethsemane} (\Gethsˆmanei\). The word means oil-press in the Hebrew, or olive vat. The place (\ch“rion\) was an enclosed plot or estate, "garden," or orchard (\kˆpos\). It is called _villa_ in the Vulgate according to strkjv@John:18:1|. It was beyond the torrent Kedron at the foot of the Mount of Olives about three-fourths of a mile from the eastern walls of Jerusalem. There are now eight old olive trees still standing in this enclosure. One cannot say that they are the very trees near which Jesus had his Agony, but they are very old. "They will remain so long as their already protracted life is spared, the most venerable of their race on the surface of the earth. Their guarded trunks and scanty foliage will always be regarded as the most affecting of the sacred memorials in or about Jerusalem" (Stanley, _Sinai and Palestine_). {Here} (\autou\), {Yonder} (\ekei\). Jesus clearly pointed to the place where he would pray. Literally "there."

rwp@Revelation:1:9 @{I John} (\Eg“ I“anˆs\). strkjv@Songs:22:8|. In apocalyptic literature the personality of the writer is always prominent to guarantee the visions (Daniel:8:1; strkjv@10:2|). {Partaker with you} (\sunkoin“nos\). See already strkjv@1Corinthians:9:23|. "Co-partner with you" (Romans:11:17|). One article with \adelphos\ and \sunkoin“nos\ unifying the picture. The absence of \apostolos\ here does not show that he is not an apostle, but merely his self-effacement, as in the Fourth Gospel, and still more his oneness with his readers. Songs:there is only one article (\tˆi\) with \thlipsei\ (tribulation), \basileiƒi\ (kingdom), \hupomonˆi\ (patience), ideas running all through the book. Both the tribulation (see strkjv@Matthew:13:21| for \thlipsis\) and the kingdom (see strkjv@Matthew:3:2| for \basileia\) were present realities and called for patience (\hupomonˆ\ being "the spiritual alchemy" according to Charles for those in the kingdom, for which see strkjv@Luke:8:15; strkjv@James:5:7|). All this is possible only "in Jesus" (\en Iˆsou\), a phrase on a par with Paul's common \en Christ“i\ (in Christ), repeated in strkjv@14:13|. Cf. strkjv@3:20; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:5|. {Was} (\egenomˆn\). Rather, "I came to be," second aorist middle indicative of \ginomai\. {In the isle that is called Patmos} (\en tˆi nˆs“i tˆi kaloumenˆi Patm“i\). Patmos is a rocky sparsely settled island some ten miles long and half that wide, one of the Sporades group in the Aegean Sea, south of Miletus. The present condition of the island is well described by W. E. Geil in _The Isle That Is Called Patmos_ (1905). Here John saw the visions described in the book, apparently written while still a prisoner there in exile. {For the word of God and the testimony of Jesus} (\dia ton logon tou theou kai tˆn marturian Iˆsou\). The reason for (\dia\ and the accusative) John's presence in Patmos, naturally as a result of persecution already alluded to, not for the purpose of preaching there or of receiving the visions. See verse 2| for the phrase.

rwp@Revelation:5:5 @{One of the elders} (\heis ek t“n presbuter“n\). "One from among the elders" of strkjv@4:4,10| (\ek\ with the ablative 8 times in the Apocalypse, 12 in the Fourth Gospel, 10 in rest of the N.T., in place of the mere partitive genitive). No particular reason for one elder as the agent over another (7:13|). {Saith} (\legei\). Dramatic vivid present. {Weep not} (\mˆ klaie\). "Cease weeping" (prohibition with \mˆ\ and the present active imperative of \klai“\. {The Lion} (\ho le“n\). Satan is called a lion by Peter (1Peter:5:8|), but the metaphor belongs to Jesus also. Judah is called a lion in the blessing of Jacob (Genesis:49:9|) and Jesus as the greatest of the tribe of Judah, "the Root of David" (\hˆ riza Daueid\, strkjv@Isaiah:11:1,10|) or the Branch from this root (the Messiah). {Hath overcome} (\enikˆsen\). First aorist active indicative of \nika“\, "did overcome," coming first in the sentence as "the great historical fact of the victory of the Christ" (Swete).

rwp@Revelation:6:8 @{A pale horse} (\hippos chl“ros\). Old adjective. Contracted from \chloeros\ (from \chloˆ\, tender green grass) used of green grass (Mark:6:39; strkjv@Revelation:8:7; strkjv@9:4|), here for yellowish, common in both senses in old Greek, though here only in N.T. in this sense, greenish yellow. We speak of a sorrel horse, never of a green horse. Zechariah (Zechariah:6:3|) uses \poikilos\ (grizzled or variegated). Homer used \chl“ros\ of the ashen colour of a face blanched by fear (pallid) and so the pale horse is a symbol of death and of terror. {His name was Death} (\onoma aut“i ho thanatos\). Anacoluthon in grammatical structure like that in strkjv@John:3:1| (cf. strkjv@Revelation:2:26|) and common enough. Death is the name of this fourth rider (so personified) and there is with Death "his inseparable comrade, Hades (1:16; strkjv@20:13f.|)" (Swete). Hades (\hƒidˆs\, alpha privative, and \idein\, to see, the unseen) is the abode of the dead, the keys of which Christ holds (Revelation:1:18|). {Followed} (\ˆkolouthei\). Imperfect active of \akolouthe“\, kept step with death, whether on the same horse or on another horse by his side or on foot John does not say. {Over the fourth part of the earth} (\epi to tetarton tˆs gˆs\). Partitive genitive \gˆs\ after \tetarton\. Wider authority (\exousia\) was given to this rider than to the others, though what part of the earth is included in the fourth part is not indicated. {To kill} (\apokteinai\). First aorist active infinitive of \apoktein“\, explanation of the \exousia\ (authority). The four scourges of strkjv@Ezekiel:14:21| are here reproduced with instrumental \en\ with the inanimate things (\romphaiƒi, lim“i thanat“i\) and \hupo\ for the beasts (\thˆri“n\). Death here (\thanat“i\) seems to mean pestilence as the Hebrew does (\loimos\ -- cf. \limos\ famine). Cf. the "black death" for a plague.

rwp@Revelation:10:6 @{Sware} (\“mosen\). First aorist indicative of \omnu“\ to swear. {By him that liveth} (\en t“i z“nti\). This use of \en\ after \omnu“\ instead of the usual accusative (James:5:12|) is like the Hebrew (Matthew:5:34,36|). "The living one for ages of ages" is a common phrase in the Apocalypse for God as eternally existing (1:18; strkjv@4:9,10; strkjv@15:7|). This oath proves that this angel is not Christ. {Who created} (\hos ektisen\). First aorist active indicative of \ktiz“\, a reference to God's creative activity as seen in strkjv@Genesis:1:1ff.; strkjv@Exodus:20:11; strkjv@Isaiah:37:16; strkjv@42:5; strkjv@Psalms:33:6; strkjv@145:6|, etc. {That there shall be time no longer} (\hoti chronos ouketi estai\). Future indicative indirect discourse with \hoti\. But this does not mean that \chronos\ (time), Einstein's "fourth dimension" (added to length, breadth, height), will cease to exist, but only that there will be no more delay in the fulfillment of the seventh trumpet (verse 7|), in answer to the question, "How long?" (6:10|).

rwp@Revelation:12:10 @{A great voice saying} (\ph“nˆn megalˆn legousan\). Accusative after \ˆkousa\ in this phrase as in strkjv@5:11; strkjv@10:4; strkjv@14:2; strkjv@18:4|, but the genitive \ph“nˆs legousˆs\ in strkjv@11:12; strkjv@14:13|. We are not told whence this voice or song comes, possibly from one of the twenty-four elders (Swete) or some other heavenly beings (11:15|) who can sympathize with human beings (19:10|), the martyrs in heaven (Charles). {Now is come} (\arti egeneto\). \Arti\ (John:13:33|) shows how recent the downfall of Satan here proleptically pictured as behind us in time (aorist tense \egeneto\). {The salvation} (\hˆ s“tˆria\). Here "the victory" as in strkjv@7:10; strkjv@19:1|. {The power} (\hˆ dunamis\). Gods power over the dragon (cf. strkjv@7:12; strkjv@11:17; strkjv@19:1|). {The kingdom} (\hˆ basileia\). "The empire of God" as in strkjv@11:15|. {The authority of his Christ} (\hˆ exousia tou Christou autou\). Which Christ received from the Father (Matthew:28:18; strkjv@John:17:2|). See strkjv@11:15| (Psalms:2:2|) for "his Anointed." {The accuser} (\ho katˆg“r\). The regular form, \katˆgoros\, occurs in strkjv@John:8:10; strkjv@Acts:23:30,35; strkjv@25:16,18| and in many MSS. here in strkjv@Revelation:12:10|, but A reads \katˆg“r\, which Westcott and Hort accept. It was once considered a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew word, but Deissmann (_Light_, etc., p. 93f.) quotes it from a vernacular magical papyrus of the fourth century A.D. with no sign of Jewish or Christian influence, just as \diak“n\ appears as a vernacular form of \diakonos\. Only here is the word applied to Satan in the N.T. In late Judaism Satan is the accuser, and Michael the defender, of the faithful. {Of our brethren} (\t“n adelph“n hˆm“n\). The saints still on earth battling with Satan and his devices. {Which accuseth them} (\ho katˆgor“n autous\). Articular present active participle of \katˆgore“\, old verb, to accuse, usually with the genitive of the person (John:5:45|), but here with the accusative. This is the devil's constant occupation (Job:1:6f.|). {Day and night} (\hˆmeras kai nuktos\). Genitive of time. "By day and by night."

rwp@Revelation:14:6 @{Another angel} (\allon aggelon\). A new turn in the drama comes with each angel (7:2; strkjv@8:3,13; strkjv@10:1|). Here the angel is seen "flying in mid heaven" (\petomenon en mesouranˆmati\), while in strkjv@8:13| John heard him "flying in mid heaven" (genitive case of same participle, which see). This one is in the sight and hearing of all. {Having} (\echonta\). Accusative singular agreeing with \aggelon\ like \petomenon\ (flying), but \leg“n\ in verse 7| is nominative, as if a new sentence like \leg“n\ in strkjv@4:1|. {An eternal gospel} (\euaggelion ai“nion\). The only use of \euaggelion\ in John's writings, though the verb \euaggelisai\ (first aorist active infinitive epexegetical with \echonta\ like strkjv@John:16:12|) occurs here and in strkjv@10:7|. Here it is not \to euaggelion\ (the gospel), but merely a proclamation of God's eternal (\ai“nios\ here alone in the Apocalypse, though common in the Fourth Gospel and I John) purpose. Origen even took this "eternal gospel" to be another book to be written! Note the double use of \epi\ (with accusative after \euaggelisai\ and the genitive with \gˆs\). See strkjv@5:9| for the races, etc.

rwp@Revelation:14:18 @{Another angel} (\allos aggelos\). The fifth angel above Swete terms "the Angel of vengeance." He responds to the call of the sixth angel here as Christ does to the call of the fourth angel in verse 15|. {Out from the altar} (\ek tou thusiastˆriou\). From the altar of incense where he is in charge of the fire (\exousian epi tou puros\). If it is the altar of burnt offering (6:9; strkjv@11:1|), we are reminded of the blood of the martyrs (Swete), but if the altar of incense (8:3,5; strkjv@9:13; strkjv@16:7|), then of the prayers of the saints. {The sharp sickle} (\to drepanon to oxu\). Useful for vintage as for harvesting. Songs:"send forth" (\pempson\) as in verse 15|. {Gather} (\trugˆson\). First aorist active imperative of \truga“\, old verb (from \trugˆ\ dryness, ripeness), in N.T. only strkjv@Revelation:15:18f.| and strkjv@Luke:6:44|. {The clusters} (\tous botruas\). Old word \botrus\, here only in N.T. (Genesis:40:10|). {Her grapes} (\hai staphulai autˆs\). Old word again for grapes, bunch of grapes, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Matthew:7:16; strkjv@Luke:6:44|. {Are fully ripe} (\ˆkmasan\). Old and common verb (from \akmˆ\, strkjv@Matthew:15:16|), to come to maturity, to reach its acme, here only in N.T.

rwp@Revelation:16:8 @{Upon the sun} (\epi ton hˆlion\). Not \eis\ (into) as in verses 2,3,4|. The fourth trumpet (8:12|) affected a third of the sun, moon, and stars with a plague of darkness, but here it is a plague of extreme heat. {To scorch with fire} (\kaumatisai en puri\). First aorist active infinitive of \kaumatiz“\, late (Plutarch, Epictetus) causative verb (from \kauma\, heat), in N.T. only here and verse 9; strkjv@Matthew:13:6; strkjv@Mark:4:6|. The addition of \en puri\ (in fire, with fire) intensifies the picture.

rwp@Revelation:19:6 @{As it were the voice} (\h“s ph“nˆn\). Used here three times, as once in verse 1|: once of a second great multitude (\ochlou pollou\), not of angels as in verse 1|, but the innumerable multitude of the redeemed of strkjv@7:9|; then "of many waters" (\hudat“n poll“n\) as in strkjv@1:15; strkjv@14:2| like "the roar of a cataract" (Swete); and once more "the voice of mighty thunders" (\bront“n ischur“n\) as in strkjv@6:1; strkjv@10:3ff|. {Saying} (\legont“n\). The best attested reading, genitive plural of \leg“\, agreeing with \ochlou\ (genitive singular), for roll of the waters and the roar of the thunders were not articulate. Some MSS. have \legontes\ (nominative plural) referring also to \ochlou\, though nominative instead of genitive. The fourth "Hallelujah" comes from this vast multitude. {The Lord our God, the Almighty} (\Kurios, ho theos, ho pantokrat“r\). For this designation of God see also strkjv@1:8; strkjv@4:8; strkjv@11:17; strkjv@15:3; strkjv@16:7,14; strkjv@19:15; strkjv@21:22|. Cf. _deus et dominus noster_ used of the Roman emperor. {Reigneth} (\ebasileusen\). First aorist active of \basileu“\. Probably ingressive prophetic aorist, "God became king" in fulness of power on earth with the fall of the world power.

rwp@Revelation:19:9 @{Write} (\Grapson\). First aorist active imperative of \graph“\ as in strkjv@1:11; strkjv@14:13|. The speaker may be the angel guide of strkjv@17:1|. {It is another beatitude} (\makarioi\, Blessed) like that in strkjv@14:13| (fourth of the seven in the book). {They which are bidden} (\hoi keklˆmenoi\). Articular perfect passive participle of \kale“\, like strkjv@Matthew:22:3; strkjv@Luke:14:17|. Cf. strkjv@Revelation:17:14|. This beatitude reminds us of that in strkjv@Luke:14:15|. (Cf. strkjv@Matthew:8:11; strkjv@26:29|.) {These are true words of God} (\Houtoi hoi logoi alˆthinoi tou theou eisin\). Undoubtedly, but one should bear in mind that apocalyptic symbolism "has its own methods and laws of interpretation, and by these the student must be guided" (Swete).

rwp@Info_Revelation @ POOR STATE OF THE TEXT There are only five uncials that give the text of John's Apocalypse (Aleph A C P Q). Of these Aleph belongs to the fourth century, A and C to the fifth, Q (really B2, B ending with strkjv@Hebrews:9:13|, both in the Vatican Library) to the eighth, P to the ninth. Only Aleph A Q (=B2) are complete, C lacking strkjv@Revelation:1:1, strkjv@3:19-5:14, strkjv@7:14-17, strkjv@8:5-9:16, strkjv@10:10-11:3,14:13-18:2, strkjv@19:5-21|, P lacking strkjv@Revelation:16:12--17:1, strkjv@19:21-20:9,22:6-21|. Both C and P are palimpsests. In the 400 verses of the book "over 1,600 variants have been counted" (Moffatt). Erasmus had only one cursive (of the twelfth century numbered Ir) for his first edition, and the last six verses of the Apocalypse, save verse 20, were a translation from the Vulgate. The result is that the versions are of special importance for the text of the book, since in no single MS. or group of MSS. do we have a fairly accurate text, though Aleph A C and A C Vulgate are the best two groups.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ RELATION TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL Here scholars divide again. Many who deny the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles accept the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse, Baur, for instance. Hort, Lightfoot, and Westcott argued for the Johannine authorship on the ground that the Apocalypse was written early (time of Nero or Vespasian) when John did not know Greek so well as when the Epistles and the Gospel were written. There are numerous grammatical laxities in the Apocalypse, termed by Charles a veritable grammar of its own. They are chiefly retention of the nominative case in appositional words or phrases, particularly participles, many of them sheer Hebraisms, many of them clearly intentional (as in strkjv@Revelation:1:4|), all of them on purpose according to Milligan (_Revelation_ in Schaff's Pop. Comm.) and Heinrici (_Der Litterarische Charakter der neutest. Schriften_, p. 85). Radermacher (_Neutestamentliche Grammatik_, p. 3) calls it "the most uncultured literary production that has come down to us from antiquity," and one finds frequent parallels to the linguistic peculiarities in later illiterate papyri. J. H. Moulton (_Grammar_, Vol. II, Part I, p. 3) says: "Its grammar is perpetually stumbling, its idiom is that of a foreign language, its whole style that of a writer who neither knows nor cares for literary form." But we shall see that the best evidence is for a date in Domitian's reign and not much later than the Fourth Gospel. It is worth noting that in strkjv@Acts:4:13| Peter and John are both termed by the Sanhedrin \agrammatoi kai idi“tai\ (unlettered and unofficial men). We have seen the possibility that II Peter represents Peter's real style or at least that of a different amanuensis from Silvanus in strkjv@1Peter:5:12|. It seems clear that the Fourth Gospel underwent careful scrutiny and possibly by the elders in Ephesus (John:21:24|). If John wrote the Apocalypse while in Patmos and so away from Ephesus, it seems quite possible that here we have John's own uncorrected style more than in the Gospel and Epistles. There is also the added consideration that the excitement of the visions played a part along with a certain element of intentional variations from normal grammatical sequence. An old man's excitement would bring back his early style. There are numerous coincidences in vocabulary and style between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse.

rwp@Romans:9:3 @{I could wish} (\ˆuchomˆn\). Idiomatic imperfect, "I was on the point of wishing." We can see that \euchomai\ (I do wish) would be wrong to say. \An ˆuchomˆn\ would mean that he does not wish (conclusion of second class condition). \An ˆuchomˆn\ would be conclusion of fourth class condition and too remote. He is shut up to the imperfect indicative (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 886). {Anathema} (\anathema\). See for this word as distinct from \anathˆma\ (offering) strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3; strkjv@Galatians:1:8f.| {I myself} (\autos eg“\). Nominative with the infinitive \einai\ and agreeing with subject of \ˆuchomˆn\. {According to the flesh} (\kata sarka\). As distinguished from Paul's Christian brethren.

rwp@Romans:9:5 @{Of whom} (\ex h“n\). Fourth relative clause and here with \ex\ and the ablative. {Christ} (\ho Christos\). The Messiah. {As concerning the flesh} (\to kata sarka\). Accusative of general reference, "as to the according to the flesh." Paul limits the descent of Jesus from the Jews to his human side as he did in strkjv@1:3f|. {Who is over all, God blessed for ever} (\ho on epi pant“n theos eulogˆtos\). A clear statement of the deity of Christ following the remark about his humanity. This is the natural and the obvious way of punctuating the sentence. To make a full stop after \sarka\ (or colon) and start a new sentence for the doxology is very abrupt and awkward. See strkjv@Acts:20:28; strkjv@Titus:2:13| for Paul's use of \theos\ applied to Jesus Christ.

rwp@Romans:16:23 @{Gaius my host} (\Gaios ho xenos mou\). Perhaps the same Gaius of strkjv@1Corinthians:1:14| (Acts:19:29; strkjv@20:4|), but whether the one of strkjv@3John:1:1| we do not know. \Xenos\ was a guest friend, and then either a stranger (Matthew:25:35|) or a host of strangers as here. This Gaius was plainly a man of some means as he was the host of all the church. Erastus (2Timothy:4:20|) was "the treasurer of the city" (\ho oikonomos tˆs pole“s\), one of the outstanding men of Corinth, the "steward" (house-manager) or city manager. See strkjv@Luke:12:42; strkjv@16:1|. He is probably the administrator of the city's property. {Quartus} (\Kouartos\). Latin name for fourth.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Mon Jul 1 15:46:34 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020