OT-POET.filter - rwp Agap:

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:8 @{Even so, being affectionately desirous of you} (\houts omeiromenoi humn\). Clearly the correct text rather than \himeiromenoi\ from \himeir\, old verb to long for. But the verb \homeiromai\ (Westcott and Hort _om_., smooth breathing) occurs nowhere else except MSS. in strkjv@Job:3:21; strkjv@Psalms:62:2| (Symmachus) and the Lycaonian sepulchral inscription (4th cent. A.D.) about the sorrowing parents \homeiromenoi peri paidos\, {greatly desiring their son} (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). Moulton suggests that it comes from a root \smer\, remember, and that \o-\ is a derelict preposition \o\ like \o-duromai, o-kell, -keanos\. Wohlenberg (Zahn, _Kommentar_) calls the word "a term of endearment," "derived from the language of the nursery" (Milligan). {We were well pleased} (\udokoumen\). Imperfect active of \eudoke\, common verb in later Greek and in N.T. (see on strkjv@Matthew:3:17|), picturing Paul's idea of their attitude while in Thessalonica. Paul often has it with the infinitive as here. {To impart} (\metadounai\). Second aorist active infinitive of \metadidmi\, old verb to share with (see on strkjv@Luke:3:11|). Possible zeugma with {souls} (\psuchas\), though Lightfoot renders "lives." Paul and his associates held nothing back. {Because ye were become very dear to us} (\dioti agaptoi hmin egenthte\). Note \dioti\ (double cause, \dia, hoti\, for that), use of \ginomai\ again for become, and dative \hmin\ with verbal \agaptoi\, beloved and so dear. A beautiful picture of the growth of Paul's affection for them as should be true with every pastor.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:9 @{Concerning love of the brethren} (\peri ts philadelphias\). Late word, love of brothers or sisters. In profane Greek (one papyrus example) and LXX the word means love of those actually kin by blood, but in the N.T. it is the kinship in the love of Christ as here. {Are taught by God} (\theodidaktoi este\). Only here and ecclesiastical writers. Passive verbal adjective in \-tos\ from \didask\ as if \theo-\ in ablative case like \didaktoi theou\ (John:6:45|). {To love one another} (\eis to agapin alllous\). Another example of \eis to\ and the infinitive. Only those taught of God keep on loving one another, love neighbours and even enemies as Jesus taught (Matthew:5:44|). Note the use of \agapa\, not \phile\.

rwp@1Thessalonians:4:10 @{Ye do it} (\poieite auto\). The \auto\ refers to \to agapin alllous\ (to love one another). Delicate praise.

rwp@1Thessalonians:5:8 @{Putting on the breastplate of faith and love} (\endusamenoi thraka pistes kai agaps\). First aorist (ingressive) middle participle of \endu\. The same figure of breastplate in strkjv@Ephesians:6:14|, only there "of righteousness." The idea of watchfulness brings the figure of a sentry on guard and armed to Paul's mind as in strkjv@Romans:13:12| "the weapons of light." The word \thrax\ (breastplate) is common in the LXX. {For a helmet, the hope of salvation} (\perikephalaian elpida strias\). Same figure in strkjv@Ephesians:6:17| and both like strkjv@Isaiah:59:17|. Late word meaning around (\peri\) the head (\kephal\) and in Polybius, LXX, and in the papyri. \Strias\ is objective genitive.

rwp@2Corinthians:13:13 @{The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all} (\h charis tou Kuriou Isou Christou kai h agap tou theou kai h koinnia tou hagiou pneumatos meta pantn humn\). This benediction is the most complete of them all. It presents the persons of the Trinity in full form. From strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:17| it appears that Paul wrote the greeting or benediction with his own hand. We know from strkjv@Romans:15:19| that Paul went round about unto Illyricum before, apparently, he came on to Corinth. When he did arrive (Acts:20:1-3|) the troubles from the Judaizers had disappeared. Probably the leaders left after the coming of Titus and the brethren with this Epistle. The reading of it in the church would make a stir of no small proportions. But it did the work.

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" (\eklekti kurii\). 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 auts\). As with \eklekt 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 altheii\ (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 egnkotes\). Perfect active articular participle of \ginsk\, "those that have come to know and still know."

rwp@2John:1:5 @{Beseech} (\ert\). For pray as in strkjv@1John:5:16|. {Lady} (\kuria\). Vocative case and in the same sense as in 1|. {As though I wrote} (\hs graphn\). Common idiom \hs\ with the participle (present active) for the alleged reason. {New} (\kainn\). As in strkjv@1John:2:7f.|, which see. {We had} (\eichamen\). Imperfect active (late \-a\ form like \eichan\ in strkjv@Mark:8:7|) of \ech\ and note \eichete\ with \ap' archs\ in strkjv@1John:2:7|. Not literary plural, John identifying all Christians with himself in this blessing. {That we love one another} (\hina agapmen alllous\). Either a final clause after \ert\ as in strkjv@John:17:15| or an object clause in apposition with \entoln\, like strkjv@1John:2:27; strkjv@3:23| and like verse 6|.

rwp@2John:1:6 @{Love} (\h agap\). The love just mentioned. {That we should walk} (\hina peripatmen\). Object clause in nominative case in apposition with \agap\, with \hina\ and the present active subjunctive of \peripate\, "that we keep on walking." {The commandment} (\h entol\). The one just mentioned with the same construction with \hina\ as in strkjv@1John:3:23|. John changes from the first person plural to the second (\kousate\ as in strkjv@1John:2:7|, \peripatte\) as in strkjv@1John:2:5,7|. {In it} (\en auti\). Either to \altheii\ (truth) of verse 4|, \agap\ of this verse, or \entol\ of this verse. Either makes good sense, probably "in love." With \peripate\ (walk) we have often \en\ (1John:1:7,11|, etc.) or \kata\ (according to) as in strkjv@Mark:7:5; strkjv@1Corinthians:3:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:2|, etc.

rwp@2Peter:1:5 @{Yea, and for this very cause} (\kai auto touto de\). Adverbial accusative (\auto touto\) here, a classic idiom, with both \kai\ and \de\. Cf. \kai touto\ (Phillipians:1:29|), \touto men--touto de\ (Hebrews:10:33|). "The soul of religion is the practical part" (Bunyan). Because of the new birth and the promises we have a part to play. {Adding on your part} (\pareisenegkantes\). First aorist active participle of \pareispher\, old double compound, to bring in (\eispher\), besides (\para\), here only in N.T. {All diligence} (\spoudn psan\). Old word from \speud\ to hasten (Luke:19:5f.|). This phrase (\psan spoudn\) occurs in strkjv@Jude:1:3| with \poioumenos\ and on the inscription in Stratonicea (verse 3|) with \ispheresthai\ (certainly a curious coincidence, to say the least, though common in the _Koin_). {In your faith} (\en ti pistei humn\). Faith or \pistis\ (strong conviction as in strkjv@Hebrews:11:1,3|, the root of the Christian life strkjv@Ephesians:2:8|) is the foundation which goes through various steps up to love (\agap\). See similar lists in strkjv@James:1:30; strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:3; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:3f.; strkjv@Galatians:5:22f.; strkjv@Romans:5:3f.; strkjv@8:29f|. Hermas (Vis. iii. 8. 1-7) has a list called "daughters" of one another. Note the use of \en\ (in, on) with each step. {Supply} (\epichorgsate\). First aorist active imperative of \epichorge\, late and rare double compound verb (\epi\ and \chorge\ strkjv@1Peter:4:11| from \chorgos\, chorus-leader, \choros\ and \hgeomai\, to lead), to fit out the chorus with additional (complete) supplies. Both compound and simplex (more common) occur in the papyri. In strkjv@1:11| and already in strkjv@2Corinthians:9:10; strkjv@Galatians:3:5; strkjv@Colossians:2:19|. {Virtue} (\aretn\). Moral power, moral energy, vigor of soul (Bengel). See 3|. {Knowledge} (\gnsin\). Insight, understanding (1Corinthians:16:18; strkjv@John:15:15|).

rwp@2Peter:1:7 @{Love of the brethren} (\tn philadelphian\). See strkjv@1Peter:1:22|. {Love} (\tn agapn\). By deliberate choice (Matthew:5:44|). Love for Christ as the crown of all (1Peter:1:8|) and so for all men. Love is the climax as Paul has it (1Corinthians:13:13|).

rwp@Ephesians:3:17 @{That Christ may dwell} (\katoiksai ton Christon\). Another infinitive (first aorist active) after \hina di\. \Katoike\ is an old verb to make one's home, to be at home. Christ (\Christon\ accusative of general reference) is asked to make his home in our hearts. This is the ideal, but a deal of fixing would have to be done in our hearts for Christ. {Being rooted and grounded in love} (\en agapi errizmenoi kai tethemelimenoi\). But it is not certain whether \en agapi\ should go with these participles or with the preceding infinitive \katoiksai\ (dwell). Besides, these two perfect passive participles (from \rizo\, old verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Colossians:2:7|, and from \themelio\, see also strkjv@Colossians:1:23|) are in the nominative case and are to be taken with \hina exischuste\ and are proleptically placed before \hina\. Verse 18| should really begin with these participles. Paul piles up metaphors (dwelling, rooted, grounded).

rwp@Ephesians:4:1 @{Wherewith ye were called} (\hs eklthte\). Attraction of the relative \hs\ to the genitive of the antecedent \klses\ (calling) from the cognate accusative \hn\ with \eklthte\ (first aorist passive indicative of \kale\, to call. For the list of virtues here see strkjv@Colossians:3:12|. To \anechomenoi allln\ (Colossians:3:13|) Paul here adds "in love" (\en agapi\), singled out in strkjv@Colossians:3:14|.

rwp@Ephesians:4:3 @{The unity} (\tn henotta\). Late and rare word (from \heis\, one), in Aristotle and Plutarch, though in N.T. only here and verse 13|. {In the bond of peace} (\en ti sundesmi ts eirns\). In strkjv@Colossians:3:14| \agap\ (love) is the \sundesmos\ (bond). But there is no peace without love (verse 2|).

rwp@Ephesians:4:15 @{In love} (\en agapi\). If truth were always spoken only in love! {May grow into him} (\auxsmen eis auton\). Supply \hina\ and then note the final use of the first aorist active subjunctive. It is the metaphor of verse 13| (the full-grown man). We are the body and Christ is the Head. We are to grow up to his stature.

rwp@Ephesians:4:16 @{From which} (\ex hou\). Out of which as the source of energy and direction. {Fitly framed} (\sunarmologoumenon\). See strkjv@2:21| for this verb. {Through that which every joint supplieth} (\dia pass haphs ts epichorgias\). Literally, "through every joint of the supply." See strkjv@Colossians:2:19| for \haph\ and strkjv@Phillipians:1:19| for the late word \epichorgia\ (only two examples in N.T.) from \epichorge\, to supply (Colossians:2:19|). {In due measure} (\en metri\). Just "in measure" in the Greek, but the assumption is that each part of the body functions properly in its own sphere. {Unto the building up of itself} (\eis oikodomn heautou\). Modern knowledge of cell life in the human body greatly strengthens the force of Paul's metaphor. This is the way the body grows by cooperation under the control of the head and all "in love" (\en agapi\).

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 archi\). \Arch\ 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} (\n\). 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" (\paraklton echomen pros ton patera\). See \prospon pros prospon\ (face to face, strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|), a triple use of \pros\. There is a papyrus example of \pros\ in this sense \to gnston ts pros alllous suntheias\, "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 n ho logos\). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying \ho theos n 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 agap 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:5:20 @{Loveth} (\philei\). In strkjv@3:35| we have \agapi\ from \agapa\, evidently one verb expressing as noble a love as the other. Sometimes a distinction (21:17|) is made, but not here, unless \phile\ presents the notion of intimate friendship (\philos\, friend), fellowship, the affectionate side, while \agapa\ (Latin _diligo_) is more the intelligent choice. But John uses both verbs for the mystery of love of the Father for the Son. {Greater works than these} (\meizona toutn erga\). \Toutn\ is ablative case after the comparative \meizona\ (from \megas\, great). John often uses \erga\ for the miracles of Christ (5:36; strkjv@7:3,21; strkjv@10:25,32,38|, etc.). It is the Father who does these works (14:10|). There is more to follow. Even the disciples will surpass what Christ is doing in the extent of the work (14:12|). \Deixei\ is future active indicative of \deiknumi\, to show. See also strkjv@10:32|. {That ye may marvel} (\hina humeis thaumazte\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive of \thaumaz\. Wonder belongs to childhood and to men of knowledge. Modern science has increased the occasion for wonder. Clement of Alexandria has a saying of Jesus: "He that wonders shall reign, and he that reigns shall rest."

rwp@John:5:42 @{But I know you} (\alla egnka humas\). Perfect active indicative of \ginsk\, "I have come to know and still know," the knowledge of personal experience (2:24f.|). {The love o' God} (\tn agapn tou theou\). Objective genitive, "the love toward God." See strkjv@Luke:11:42| for this phrase in the same sense (only other instance in the Gospels, but common in 1John (1John:2:5; strkjv@3:17; strkjv@4:7,9; strkjv@5:3|) and in strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:5; strkjv@2Corinthians:13:14; strkjv@Romans:5:5|. The sense of God's love for man occurs in strkjv@1John:3:1; strkjv@4:9,10,16; strkjv@John:15:9f.| of Christ's love for man. These rabbis did not love God and hence did not love Christ.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THIS COMPANION OF PAUL A PHYSICIAN The argument for this position lies in the use of medical terms throughout the Gospel and the Acts. Hobart in his _Medical Language of St. Luke_ proves that the author of both Gospel and Acts shows a fondness for medical terms best explained by the fact that he was a physician. Like most enthusiasts he overdid it and some of his proof does not stand the actual test of sifting. Harnack and Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_ have picked out the most pertinent items which will stand. Cadbury in his _Style and Literary Method of Luke_ denies that Luke uses Greek medical words more frequently in proportion than Josephus, Philo, Plutarch, or Lucian. It is to miss the point about Luke merely to count words. It is mainly the interest in medical things shown in Luke and Acts. The proof that Luke is the author of the books does not turn on this fact. It is merely confirmatory. Paul calls Luke "the beloved physician" (\ho iatros ho agaptos\, strkjv@Colossians:4:14|), "my beloved physician." Together they worked in the Island of Malta (Acts:28:8-10|) where many were healed and Luke shared with Paul in the appreciation of the natives who "came and were healed (\etherapeuonto\) who also honoured us with many honours." The implication there is that Paul wrought miracles of healing (\iasato\), while Luke practised his medical art also. Other notes of the physician's interest will be indicated in the discussion of details like his omitting Mark's apparent discredit of physicians (Mark:5:26|) by a milder and more general statement of a chronic case (Luke:8:43|).

rwp@Luke:7:42 @{Will love him most} (\pleion agapsei auton\). Strictly, comparative {more}, \pleion\, not superlative \pleista\, but most suits the English idiom best, even between two. Superlative forms are vanishing before the comparative in the _Koin_. This is the point of the parable, the attitude of the two debtors toward the lender who forgave both of them (Plummer).

rwp@Luke:7:47 @{Are forgiven} (\aphentai\). Doric perfect passive form. See strkjv@Luke:5:21,23|. {For she loved much} (\hoti gapsen polu\). Illustration or proof, not reason for the forgiveness. Her sins had been already forgiven and remained forgiven. {But to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little} (\Hi de oligon aphietai oligon agapi\). This explanation proves that the meaning of \hoti\ preceding is proof, not cause.

rwp@Matthew:24:12 @{Shall wax cold} (\psugsetai\). Second future passive indicative from \psuch\. To breathe cool by blowing, to grow cold, "spiritual energy blighted or chilled by a malign or poisonous wind" (Vincent). {The love of many} (\h agap tn polln\). Love of the brotherhood gives way to mutual hatred and suspicion.

rwp@Revelation:12:11 @{They overcame him} (\autoi eniksan\). First aorist active indicative of \nika\, the verb used by Jesus of his own victory (John:16:33|) and about him (Revelation:3:21; strkjv@5:5|). "The victory of the martyrs marks the failure of Satan's endeavours" (Swete). {Because of the blood of the Lamb} (\dia to haima tou arniou\). As in strkjv@1:5; strkjv@5:6,9; strkjv@7:14|. The blood of Christ is here presented by \dia\ as the ground for the victory and not the means, as by \en\ in strkjv@1:5; strkjv@5:9|. Both ideas are true, but \dia\ with the accusative gives only the reason. The blood of Christ does cleanse us from sin (John:1:29; strkjv@1John:1:7|). Christ conquered Satan, and so makes our victory possible (Luke:11:21f.; strkjv@Hebrews:2:18|). "Thus the Lamb is the true \sungoros\ (like Michael) of the New Israel, its \parakltos pros ton patera\ (1John:2:1|)" (Swete). {Because of the Word of their testimony} (\dia ton logon ts marturias autn\). The same use of \dia\, "because of their testimony to Jesus" as in John's own case in strkjv@1:9|. These martyrs have been true to their part. {They loved not their life even unto death} (\ouk gapsan ten psuchn autn achri thanatou\). First aorist active indicative of \agapa\. They did resist "unto blood" (\mechris haimatos\ strkjv@Hebrews:12:4|) and did not put their own lives before loyalty to Christ. There is a direct reference to the words of Jesus in strkjv@John:12:25| as illustrated also in strkjv@Mark:8:35; strkjv@Matthew:10:39; strkjv@16:25; strkjv@Luke:9:24; strkjv@17:33|. Paul's own example is pertinent (Acts:21:13; strkjv@Phillipians:1:20ff.|). Jesus himself had been "obedient unto death" (Phillipians:2:8|). These martyrs seem to be still alive on earth, but their heroism is proleptically pictured.

rwp@Romans:11:28 @{As touching the gospel} (\kata to euaggelion\). "According to (\kata\ with the accusative) the gospel" as Paul has shown in verses 11-24|, the gospel order as it has developed. {Enemies} (\echthroi\). Treated as enemies (of God), in passive sense, because of their rejection of Christ (verse 10|), just as \agaptoi\ (beloved) is passive. {As touching the election} (\kata tn eklogn\). "According to the election" (the principle of election, not as in verses 5f.| the elect or abstract for concrete). {For the fathers' sake} (\dia tous pateras\). As in strkjv@9:4; strkjv@11:16f|.

rwp@Romans:12:9 @{Without hypocrisy} (\anupokritos\). Late double compound adjective for which see strkjv@2Corinthians:6:6|. Hypocritical or pretended love is no love at all as Paul describes \agap\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:13|. {Abhor} (\apostugountes\). Old verb with intensive (\apo\) dislike, only here in N.T. The present active participle is here employed in the sense of the present active indicative as sometimes happens with the independent participle (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1132ff.). This same idiom appears with \kollmenoi\ (cleaving) for which verb see on ¯1Corinthians:6:17|, with \progoumenoi\ (preferring) in verse 10| (old verb here only in N.T.), and with the participles in verses 11-13| and again in verses 16-18|. One can supply \este\ if he prefers.