OT-POET.filter - rwp Dods:

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE DATE Here again modern scholars differ widely. Westcott places it between A.D. 64 and 67. Harnack and Holtzmann prefer a date between 81 and 96. Marcus Dods argues strongly that the Epistle was written while the temple was still standing. If it was already destroyed, it is hard to understand how the author could have written strkjv@Hebrews:10:1f.|: "Else would they not have ceased to be offered?" And in strkjv@Hebrews:8:13| "nigh to vanishing away" (\eggus aphanismou\) is only intelligible with the temple service still going on. The author makes use of the tabernacle instead of the temple because the temple was patterned after the tabernacle. On the other hand, the mention of Timothy in strkjv@Hebrews:13:23| as being "set free" (\apolelumenon\) raises an inquiry concerning Paul's last plea to Timothy to come to him in Rome (2Timothy:4:11-13|). Apparently Timothy came and was put in prison. If so, since Paul was put to death before Nero's own death (June 8, A.D. 68), there is left only the years 67 to 69 A.D. as probable or even possible. It is thus the last of the New Testament books before the Johannine Writings all of which come towards the close of the century and after the destruction of Jerusalem.

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 huii\ 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} (\lalsas\). 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 prophtais\). As the quickening power of their life (Westcott). strkjv@Songs:4:7|. {By divers portions} (\polumers\). "In many portions." Adverb from late adjective \polumers\ (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} (\polutrops\). "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 (\diaphors\). God spoke by dream, by direct voice, by signs, in different ways to different men (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc.).

rwp@Hebrews:1:2 @{At the end of these days} (\ep' eschatou tn hmern toutn\). In contrast with \palai\ above. {Hath spoken} (\elalsen\). First aorist indicative of \lale\, the same verb as above, "did speak" in a final and full revelation. {In his Son} (\en huii\). In sharp contrast to \en tois prophtais\. "The Old Testament slopes upward to Christ" (J. R. Sampey). No article or pronoun here with the preposition \en\, giving the absolute sense of "Son." Here the idea is not merely what Jesus said, but what he is (Dods), God's Son who reveals the Father (John:1:18|). "The revelation was a _son-revelation_" (Vincent). {Hath appointed} (\ethken\). First aorist (kappa aorist) active of \tithmi\, a timeless aorist. {Heir of all things} (\klronomon pantn\). See strkjv@Mark:12:6| for \ho klronomos\ in Christ's parable, perhaps an allusion here to this parable (Moffatt). The idea of sonship easily passes into that of heirship (Galatians:4:7; strkjv@Romans:8:17|). See the claim of Christ in strkjv@Matthew:11:27; strkjv@28:18| even before the Ascension. {Through whom} (\di' hou\). The Son as Heir is also the Intermediate Agent (\dia\) in the work of creation as we have it in strkjv@Colossians:1:16f.; strkjv@John:1:3|. {The worlds} (\tous ainas\). "The ages" (_secula_, Vulgate). See strkjv@11:3| also where \tous ainas=ton kosmon\ (the world) or the universe like \ta panta\ (the all things) in strkjv@1:3; strkjv@Romans:11:36; strkjv@Colossians:1:16|. The original sense of \ain\ (from \aei\, always) occurs in strkjv@Hebrews:5:20|, but here "by metonomy of the container for the contained" (Thayer) for "the worlds" (the universe) as in LXX, Philo, Josephus.

rwp@Hebrews:1:5 @{Unto which} (\Tini\). "To which individual angel." As a class angels are called sons of God (Elohim) (Psalms:29:1|), but no single angel is called God's Son like the Messiah in strkjv@Psalms:2:7|. Dods takes "have I begotten thee" (\gegennka se\, perfect active indicative of \genna\) to refer to the resurrection and ascension while others refer it to the incarnation. {And again} (\kai palin\). This quotation is from strkjv@2Samuel:7:14|. Note the use of \eis\ in the predicate with the sense of "as" like the Hebrew (LXX idiom), not preserved in the English. See strkjv@Matthew:19:5; strkjv@Luke:2:34|. Like Old English "to" or "for." See strkjv@2Corinthians:6:18; strkjv@Revelation:21:7| for the same passage applied to relation between God and Christians while here it is treated as Messianic.

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:1:2 @{The same} (\houtos\). "This one," the Logos of verse 1|, repeated for clarity, characteristic of John's style. He links together into one phrase two of the ideas already stated separately, "in the beginning he was with God," "afterwards in time he came to be with man" (Marcus Dods). Thus John clearly states of the Logos Pre-existence before Incarnation, Personality, Deity.

rwp@John:3:23 @{John was also baptizing} (\n de kai ho Ians baptizn\). Periphrastic imperfect picturing the continued activity of the Baptist simultaneous with the growing work of Jesus. There was no real rivalry except in people's minds. {In Aenon near to Salim} (\en Ainn eggus tou Saleim\). It is not clearly known where this place was. Eusebius locates it in the Jordan valley south of Beisan west of the river where are many springs (fountains, eyes). There is a place called Salim east of Shechem in Samaria with a village called 'Aimen, but with no water there. There may have been water there then, of course. {Because there was much water there} (\hoti hudata polla n ekei\). "Because many waters were there." Not for drinking, but for baptizing. "Therefore even in summer baptism by immersion could be continued" (Marcus Dods). {And they came, and were baptized} (\kai pareginonto kai ebaptizonto\). Imperfects both, one middle and the other passive, graphically picturing the long procession of pilgrims who came to John confessing their sins and receiving baptism at his hands.

rwp@John:9:6 @{He spat on the ground} (\eptusen chamai\). First aorist active indicative of the old verb \ptu\ for which see strkjv@Mark:7:33|. \Chamai\ is an old adverb either in the dative or locative (sense suits locative), in N.T. only here and strkjv@John:18:6|. Jesus was not asked to cure this man. The curative effects of saliva are held in many places. The Jews held saliva efficacious for eye-trouble, but it was forbidden on the Sabbath. "That Jesus supposed some virtue lay in the application of the clay is contradicted by the fact that in other cases of blindness He did not use it" (Dods). Cf. strkjv@Mark:8:23|. Why he here accommodated himself to current belief we do not know unless it was to encourage the man to believe. {He made clay} (\epoisen plon\). Only use of \plos\, old word for clay, in N.T. in this chapter and strkjv@Romans:9:21|. The kneading of the clay and spittle added another offence against the Sabbath rules of the rabbis. {Anointed his eyes with the clay} (\epechrisen autou ton plon epi tous ophthalmous\). First aorist active indicative of \epichri\, old verb, to spread on, anoint, here only and verse 11| in N.T. "He spread the clay upon his eyes." B C read \epethken\ (first aorist active indicative of \epitithmi\, to put on).

rwp@John:11:33 @{When Jesus therefore saw her weeping} (\Isous oun hs eiden autn klaiousan\). Proleptic position of "Jesus," "Jesus therefore when he saw." She was weeping at the feet of Jesus, not at the tomb. {And the Jews also weeping} (\kai tous Ioudaious klaiontas\). Mary's weeping was genuine, that of the Jews was partly perfunctory and professional and probably actual "wailing" as the verb \klai\ can mean. \Klai\ is joined with \alalaz\ in strkjv@Mark:5:38|, with \ololuz\ in strkjv@James:5:1|, with \thorube\ in strkjv@Mark:5:39|, with \penthe\ in strkjv@Mark:16:10|. It was an incongruous combination. {He groaned in the spirit} (\enebrimsato ti pneumati\). First aorist middle indicative of \embrimaomai\, old verb (from \en\, and \brim\, strength) to snort with anger like a horse. It occurs in the LXX (Daniel:11:30|) for violent displeasure. The notion of indignation is present in the other examples of the word in the N.T. (Mark:1:43; strkjv@14:5; strkjv@Matthew:9:30|). Songs:it seems best to see that sense here and in verse 38|. The presence of these Jews, the grief of Mary, Christ's own concern, the problem of the raising of Lazarus--all greatly agitated the spirit of Jesus (locative case \ti pneumati\). He struggled for self-control. {Was troubled} (\etaraxen heauton\). First aorist active indicative of \tarass\, old verb to disturb, to agitate, with the reflexive pronoun, "he agitated himself" (not passive voice, not middle). "His sympathy with the weeping sister and the wailing crowd caused this deep emotion" (Dods). Some indignation at the loud wailing would only add to the agitation of Jesus.

rwp@John:11:41 @{Songs:they took away the stone} (\ran oun ton lithon\). First aorist active indicative of \air\, but without the explanatory gloss of the Textus Receptus "from the place where the dead was laid" (not genuine). {I thank thee that thou heardest me} (\eucharist soi hoti kousas mou\). See strkjv@6:11| for \euchariste\. Clearly Jesus had prayed to the Father concerning the raising of Lazarus. He has the answer before he acts. "No pomp of incantation, no wrestling in prayer even; but simple words of thanksgiving, as if already Lazarus was restored" (Dods). Jesus well knew the issues involved on this occasion. If he failed, his own claims to be the Son of God (the Messiah), would be hopelessly discredited with all. If he succeeded, the rulers would be so embittered as to compass his own death.

rwp@John:12:5 @{Sold} (\eprath\). First aorist passive indicative of \piprask\, old verb to sell (Matthew:13:46|). {For three hundred pence} (\triakosin dnarin\). Genitive of price. Same item in strkjv@Mark:14:5|, while in strkjv@Matthew:26:9| it is simply "for much" (\pollou\). But all three have "given to the poor" (\edoth ptchois\). First aorist passive indicative of \didmi\ with dative case \ptchois\ (note absence of the article, poor people), real beggars, mendicants (Matthew:19:21; strkjv@Luke:14:13|). But only John singles out Judas as the one who made the protest against this waste of money while Mark says that "some" had indignation and Matthew has it that "the disciples" had indignation. Clearly Judas was the spokesman for the group who chimed in and agreed with his protest. The amount here spent by Mary (ten guineas) would equal a day labourer's wages for a year (Dods).

rwp@John:12:27 @{My soul} (\h psuch mou\). The soul (\psuch\) here is synonymous with spirit (\pneuma\) in strkjv@13:21|. {Is troubled} (\tetaraktai\). Perfect passive indicative of \tarass\, used also in strkjv@11:33; strkjv@13:21| of Jesus. While John proves the deity of Jesus in his Gospel, he assumes throughout his real humanity as here (cf. strkjv@4:6|). The language is an echo of that in strkjv@Psalms:6:4; strkjv@42:7|. John does not give the agony in Gethsemane which the Synoptics have (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:22:42|), but it is quite beside the mark to suggest, as Bernard does, that the account here is John's version of the Gethsemane experience. Why do some critics feel called upon to level down to a dead plane every variety of experience in Christ's life? {And what shall I say?} (\kai ti eip;\). Deliberative subjunctive which expresses vividly "a genuine, if momentary indecision" (Bernard). The request of the Greeks called up graphically to Jesus the nearness of the Cross. {Father, save me from this hour} (\pater, sson me ek ts hras tauts\). Jesus began his prayers with "Father" (11:41|). Dods thinks that this should be a question also. Westcott draws a distinction between \ek\ (out of) and \apo\ (from) to show that Jesus does not pray to draw back from the hour, but only to come safely out of it all and so interprets \ek\ in strkjv@Hebrews:5:7|, but that distinction will not stand, for in strkjv@John:1:44| \ek\ and \apo\ are used in the same sense and in the Synoptics (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:52:42|) we have \apo\. If it holds here, we lose the point there. Here as in Gethsemane the soul of Jesus instinctively and naturally shrinks from the Cross, but he instantly surrenders to the will of God in both experiences. {But for this cause came I unto this hour} (\alla dia touto lthon eis tn hran tautn\). It was only a moment of human weakness as in Gethsemane that quickly passed. Thus understood the language has its natural meaning.