OT-POET.filter - rwp Genesis:

rwp@1Corinthians:6:5 @{I say this to move you to shame} (\pros entropn humin leg\). Old word \entrop\ from \entrep\, to turn in (1Corinthians:4:14| which see). In N.T. only here and strkjv@15:34|. {One wise man} (\sophos\). From sarcasm to pathos Paul turns. {Does there not exist} (\eni\, short form for \enesti\)? With double negative \ouk--oudeis\, expecting the answer yes. Surely {one} such man exists in the church. {Who} (\hos\). Almost consecutive in idea, of such wisdom that he will be able. {To decide between his brethren} (\diakrinai ana meson tou adelphou autou\). \Krinai\ is to judge or decide (first aorist active infinitive of \krin\ and \dia\ (two) carries on the idea of between. Then \ana meson\ makes it still plainer, in the midst as {arbitrator} between brother and brother like \ana meson emou kai sou\ (Genesis:23:15|). It is even so a condensed expression with part of it unexpressed (\ana meson kai tou adelphou autou\) between brother and his brother. The use of \adelphos\ has a sharp reflection on them for their going to heathen judges to settle disputes between brothers in Christ.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:31 @{I protest by that glorying in you} (\n tn humeteran kauchsin\). No word for "I protest." Paul takes solemn oath by the use of \n\ (common in Attic) with the accusative. Only here in N.T., but in LXX (Genesis:42:15f.|). For other solemn oaths by Paul see strkjv@2Corinthians:1:18,23; strkjv@11:10f.,31; strkjv@Romans:9:1|. For \kauchsis\ see on ¯1Thessalonians:2:19|. The possessive pronoun (\humeteran\) is objective as \emn\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:24|. {I die daily} (\kath' hmeran apothnsk\). I am in daily peril of death (2Corinthians:4:11; strkjv@11:23; strkjv@Romans:8:36|).

rwp@2Peter:2:6 @{Turning into ashes} (\tephrsas\). First aorist participle of \tephro\, late word from \tephra\, ashes (in Dio Cassius of an eruption of Vesuvius, Philo), here alone in N.T. {The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah} (\poleis Sodomn kai Gomorrs\). Genitive of apposition after \poleis\ (cities), though it makes sense as possessive genitive, for strkjv@Jude:1:7| speaks of the cities around these two. The third example, the cities of the plain. See Genesis:19:24f|. {Condemned them} (\katekrinen\). First aorist active indicative of \katakrin\, still part of the protasis with \ei\. {With an overthrow} (\katastrophi\). Instrumental case or even dative like \thanati\ with \katakrin\ in strkjv@Matthew:20:18|. But Westcott and Hort reject the word here because not in B C Coptic. {Having made them} (\tetheiks\). Perfect active participle of \tithmi\. {An example} (\hupodeigma\). For which see strkjv@James:5:10; strkjv@John:13:15|. Cf. strkjv@1Peter:2:21|. {Unto those that should live ungodly} (\mellontn asebesin\). Rather, "unto ungodly men of things about to be" (see strkjv@Hebrews:11:20| for this use of \mellontn\). But Aleph A C K L read \asebein\ (present active infinitive) with \mellontn\=\asebsontn\ (future active participle of \asebe\), from which we have our translation.

rwp@Acts:20:33 @{No man's silver or gold or apparel} (\arguriou chrusiou himatismou oudenos\). Genitive case after \epethumsa\. One of the slanders against Paul was that he was raising this collection, ostensibly for the poor, really for himself (2Corinthians:12:17f.|). He includes "apparel" because oriental wealth consisted largely in fine apparel (not old worn out clothes). See Genesis:24:53; strkjv@2Kings:5:5; strkjv@Psalms:45:13f.; strkjv@Matthew:6:19|. Paul did not preach just for money.

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:1:3 @{Being} (\n\). Absolute and timeless existence (present active participle of \eimi\) in contrast with \genomenos\ in verse 4| like \n\ in strkjv@John:1:1| (in contrast with \egeneto\ in strkjv@1:14|) and like \huparchn\ and \genomenos\ in strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f|. {The effulgence of his glory} (\apaugasma ts doxs\). The word \apaugasma\, late substantive from \apaugaz\, to emit brightness (\aug, augaz\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:4|), here only in the N.T., but in Wisdom strkjv@7:26 and in Philo. It can mean either reflected brightness, refulgence (Calvin, Thayer) or effulgence (ray from an original light body) as the Greek fathers hold. Both senses are true of Christ in his relation to God as Jesus shows in plain language in strkjv@John:12:45; strkjv@14:9|. "The writer is using metaphors which had already been applied to Wisdom and the Logos" (Moffatt). The meaning "effulgence" suits the context better, though it gives the idea of eternal generation of the Son (John:1:1|), the term Father applied to God necessarily involving Son. See this same metaphor in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:6|. {The very image of his substance} (\charaktr ts hupostases\). \Charaktr\ is an old word from \charass\, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It first was the agent (note ending \=tr\) or tool that did the marking, then the mark or impress made, the exact reproduction, a meaning clearly expressed by \charagma\ (Acts:17:29; strkjv@Revelation:13:16f.|). Menander had already used (Moffatt) \charaktr\ in the sense of our "character." The word occurs in the inscriptions for "person" as well as for "exact reproduction" of a person. The word \hupostasis\ for the being or essence of God "is a philosophical rather than a religious term" (Moffatt). Etymologically it is the sediment or foundation under a building (for instance). In strkjv@11:1| \hypostasis\ is like the "title-deed" idea found in the papyri. Athanasius rightly used strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-4| in his controversy with Arius. Paul in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11| pictures the real and eternal deity of Christ free from the philosophical language here employed. But even Paul's simpler phrase \morph theou\ (the form of God) has difficulties of its own. The use of \Logos\ in strkjv@John:1:1-18| is parallel to strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-4|. {And upholding} (\phern te\). Present active participle of \pher\ closely connected with \n\ (being) by \te\ and like strkjv@Colossians:1:17| in idea. The newer science as expounded by Eddington and Jeans is in harmony with the spiritual and personal conception of creation here presented. {By the word of his power} (\ti rmati ts dunames autou\). Instrumental case of \rma\ (word). See strkjv@11:3| for \rmati theou\ (by the word of God) as the explanation of creation like Genesis, but here \autou\ refers to God's Son as in strkjv@1:2|. {Purification of sins} (\katharismon tn hamartin\). \Katharismos\ is from \kathariz\, to cleanse (Matthew:8:3; strkjv@Hebrews:9:14|), here only in Hebrews, but in same sense of cleansing from sins, strkjv@2Peter:1:9; strkjv@Job:7:21|. Note middle participle \poisamenos\ like \heuramenos\ in strkjv@9:12|. This is the first mention of the priestly work of Christ, the keynote of this Epistle. {Sat down} (\ekathisen\). First aorist active of \kathiz\, "took his seat," a formal and dignified act. {Of the Majesty on high} (\ts megalosuns en hupslois\). Late word from \megas\, only in LXX (Deuteronomy:32:3; strkjv@2Samuel:7:23|, etc.), Aristeas, strkjv@Hebrews:1:3; strkjv@8:1; strkjv@Jude:1:25|. Christ resumed his original dignity and glory (John:17:5|). The phrase \en hupslois\ occurs in the Psalms (Psalms:93:4|), here only in N.T., elsewhere \en hupsistois\ in the highest (Matthew:21:9; strkjv@Luke:2:14|) or \en tois epouraniois\ in the heavenlies (Ephesians:1:3,20|). Jesus is here pictured as King (Prophet and Priest also) Messiah seated at the right hand of God.

rwp@James:1:23 @{And not a doer} (\kai ou poits\). Condition of first class, assumed as true, and \ou\ (rather than \m\) contrasts \poits\ with \akroats\. {Unto a man beholding} (\andri katanoounti\). Associative instrumental case after \eoiken\ as in strkjv@1:6|. Note \andri\ as in strkjv@1:8| in contrast with \gunaiki\ (woman), not \anthrpi\ (general term for man). Present active participle of \katanoe\ to put the mind down on (\kata, nous\), to consider attentively, to take note of, as in verse 24| (\katenosen\). {His natural face} (\to prospon ts geneses autou\). "The face of his birth" (origin, lineage, nativity). For this use of \genesis\ see strkjv@3:6; strkjv@Matthew:1:1,18; strkjv@Luke:1:13|. {In a mirror} (\en esoptri\). Old word (from \eis, opt\) in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|. The mirrors of the ancients were not of glass, but of polished metal (of silver or usually of copper and tin). See \katoptrizomai\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:3:18|.

rwp@James:2:21 @{Justified by works} (\ex ergn edikaith\). First aorist passive indicative of \dikaio\ (see Galatians and Romans for this verb, to declare righteous, to set right) in a question with \ouk\ expecting an affirmative answer. This is the phrase that is often held to be flatly opposed to Paul's statement in strkjv@Romans:4:1-5|, where Paul pointedly says that it was the faith of Abraham (Romans:4:9|) that was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness, not his works. But Paul is talking about the faith of Abraham before his circumcision (4:10|) as the basis of his being set right with God, which faith is symbolized in the circumcision. James makes plain his meaning also. {In that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar} (\anenegkas Isaak ton huion autou epi to thusiastrion\). They use the same words, but they are talking of different acts. James points to the offering (\anenegkas\ second aorist--with first aorist ending--active participle of \anapher\) of Isaac on the altar (Genesis:22:16f.|) as _proof_ of the faith that Abraham already had. Paul discusses Abraham's faith as the basis of his justification, that and not his circumcision. There is no contradiction at all between James and Paul. Neither is answering the other. Paul may or may not have seen the Epistle of James, who stood by him loyally in the Conference in Jerusalem (Acts:15; strkjv@Galatians:2|).

rwp@James:2:23 @{Was fulfilled} (\eplrth\). First aorist passive indicative of \plro\, the usual verb for fulfilling Scripture. Songs:James quotes Genesis:15:6| as proving his point in verse 21| that Abraham had works with his faith, the very same passage that Paul quotes in strkjv@Romans:4:3| to show that Abraham's faith preceded his circumcision and was the basis of his justification. And both James and Paul are right, each to illustrate a different point. {And he was called the friend of God} (\kai philos theou eklth\). First aorist passive indicative of \kalo\. Not a part of the Scripture quoted. Philo calls Abraham the friend of God and see _Jubilees_ strkjv@19:9; strkjv@30:20. The Arabs today speak of Abraham as God's friend. It was evidently a common description before James used it, as in strkjv@Isaiah:41:8; strkjv@2Chronicles:20:7|.

rwp@James:5:17 @{Of like passions with us} (\homoiopaths hmin\). Associative-instrumental case \hmin\ as with \homoios\. This old compound adjective (\homoios, pasch\), suffering the like with another, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:14:15|. {He prayed fervently} (\proseuchi prosuxato\). First aorist middle indicative of \proseuchomai\ and the instrumental case \proseuchi\ (cognate substantive), after idiom for intensity in classical Greek, like \pheugein phugi\, to flee with all speed (_figura etymologica_), but particularly frequent in the LXX (Genesis:2:17; strkjv@31:30|) in imitation of the Hebrew infinitive absolute. Songs:Luke:22:15; strkjv@John:3:29; strkjv@Acts:4:17|. {That it might not rain} (\tou m brexai\). Genitive of the articular infinitive (\brexai\, first aorist active of \brech\, old verb, to moisten, strkjv@Luke:7:38|, to rain, strkjv@Matthew:5:45|) with negative \m\ used either for direct purpose, for an object clause as here and strkjv@Acts:3:12; strkjv@15:20|, or even for result. {For three years and six months} (\eniautous treis kai mnas hex\). Accusative of extent of time.

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 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:4:5 @{Songs:he cometh} (\erchetai oun\). Vivid present middle indicative and transitional \oun\. {Sychar} (\Suchar\). There is a dispute whether this is just a variation of Shechem as meaning "drunken-town" (Isaiah:28:1|) or "lying-town" (Habbakkuk:2:18|) or is a separate village near Shechem (Neapolis, Nablous) as the Talmud and Eusebius indicate. Apparently the present village Askar corresponds well with the site. The use of \polin\ (city) does not mean that it was a large town. Mark and John use it freely for small places. {Parcel of ground} (\chriou\). Old use of this diminutive of \chros\ or \chra\, a piece of ground. {That Jacob gave to his son Joseph} (\ho edken Iakb ti Isph ti huii autou\). See Genesis:33:19; strkjv@48:22|. Relative \ho\ is not attracted to case of \chriou\. First aorist active indicative \edken\.

rwp@John:5:37 @{He hath borne witness} (\ekeinos memarturken\). \Ekeinos\ (that one; cf. strkjv@5:35,38|), not \autos\. Perfect active indicative of \marture\, the direct witness of the Father, besides the indirect witness of the works. Jesus is not speaking of the voice of the Father at his baptism (Mark:1:11|), the transfiguration (Mark:9:7|), nor even at the time of the visit of the Greeks (John:12:28|). This last voice was heard by many who thought it was thunder or an angel. The language of Jesus refers to the witness of the Father in the heart of the believers as is made plain in strkjv@1John:5:9,10|. God's witness does not come by audible "voice" (\phnn\) nor visible "form" (\eidos\). Cf. strkjv@1:18; strkjv@6:46; strkjv@1John:4:12|. \Akkoate\ is perfect active indicative of \akou\, to hear, and \herakate\ is perfect active indicative of \hora\, to see. It is a permanent state of failure to hear and see God. The experience of Jacob in Peniel (Genesis:32:30|) was unusual, but Jesus will say that those who have seen him have seen the Father (John:14:9|), but here he means the Father's "voice" and "form" as distinct from the Son.

rwp@John:11:38 @{Again groaning in himself} (\palin embrimmenos en heauti\). Direct reference to the use of this same word (present middle participle here) in verse 33|, only with \en heauti\ (in himself) rather than \ti pneumati\ (in his spirit), practically the same idea. The speculation concerning his power stirred the depths of his nature again. {Cometh to the tomb} (\erchetai eis to mnmeion\). Vivid historical present. {A cave} (\splaion\). Old word (from \speos\, cavern). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:21:13|. {Lay against it} (\epekeito ep' auti\). Imperfect middle of \epikeimai\, old verb to lie upon as in strkjv@21:9| and figuratively (1Corinthians:9:16|). Note repetition of \epi\ with locative case. The use of a cave for burial was common (Genesis:23:19|). Either the body was let down through a horizontal opening (hardly so here) or put in a tomb cut in the face of the rock (if so, \epi\ can mean "against"). The stones were used to keep away wild animals from the bodies.

rwp@Luke:7:14 @{Touched the bier} (\hpsato tou sorou\). An urn for the bones or ashes of the dead in Homer, then the coffin (Genesis:5:26|), then the funeral couch or bier as here. Only here in the N.T. Jesus touched the bier to make the bearers stop, which they did ({stood still}, \estsan\), second aorist active indicative of \histmi\.

rwp@Luke:21:24 @{Edge of the sword} (\stomati machairs\). Instrumental case of \stomati\ which means "mouth" literally (Genesis:34:26|). This verse like the close of verse 22| is only in Luke. Josephus (_War_, VI. 9.3) states that 1,100,000 Jews perished in the destruction of Jerusalem and 97,000 were taken captive. Surely this is an exaggeration and yet the number must have been large. {Shall be led captive} (\aichmaltisthsontai\). Future passive of \aichmaltiz\ from \aichm\, spear and \haltos\ (\haliskomai\). Here alone in the literal sense in the N.T. {Shall be trodden under foot} (\estai patoumen\). Future passive periphrastic of \pate\, to tread, old verb. {Until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled} (\achri hou plrthsin kairoi ethnn\). First aorist passive subjunctive with \achri hou\ like \hes hou\. What this means is not clear except that Paul in strkjv@Romans:11:25| shows that the punishment of the Jews has a limit. The same idiom appears there also with \achri hou\ and the aorist subjunctive.

rwp@Mark:5:7 @{I adjure thee by God} (\horkiz se ton theon\). The demoniac puts Jesus on oath (two accusatives) after the startled outcry just like the one in strkjv@1:24|, which see. He calls Jesus here "son of the Most High God" (\huie tou theou tou hupsistou\) as in strkjv@Luke:8:28| (cf. Genesis:14:18f.|). {Torment me not} (\m me basanisis\). Prohibition with \m\ and the ingressive aorist subjunctive. The word means to test metals and then to test one by torture (cf. our "third degree"). Same word in all three Gospels.

rwp@Mark:5:35 @{While he yet spake} (\Eti autou lalountos\). Genitive absolute. Another vivid touch in Mark and strkjv@Luke:8:49|. The phrase is in Genesis:29:9|. Nowhere does Mark preserve better the lifelike traits of an eyewitness like Peter than in these incidents in chapter 5. The arrival of the messengers from Jairus was opportune for the woman just healed of the issue of blood (\en husei haimatos\) for it diverted attention from her. Now the ruler's daughter has died (\apethane\). {Why troublest thou the master any further?} (\Ti eti skulleis ton didaskalon;\). It was all over, so they felt. Jesus had raised from the dead the son of the widow of Nain (Luke:7:11-17|), but people in general did not expect him to raise the dead. The word \skull\, from \skulon\ (_skin, pelt, spoils_), means to skin, to flay, in Aeschylus. Then it comes to mean to vex, annoy, distress as in strkjv@Matthew:9:36|, which see. The middle is common in the papyri for bother, worry, as in strkjv@Luke:7:6|. There was no further use in troubling the Teacher about the girl.

rwp@Mark:6:19 @{And Herodias set herself against him} (\H de Hridias eneichen auti\). Dative of disadvantage. Literally, {had it in for him}. This is modern slang, but is in exact accord with this piece of vernacular _Koin_. No object of \eichen\ is expressed, though \orgn\ or \cholon\ may be implied. The tense is imperfect and aptly described the feelings of Herodias towards this upstart prophet of the wilderness who had dared to denounce her private relations with Herod Antipas. Gould suggests that she "kept her eye on him" or kept up her hostility towards him. She never let up, but bided her time which, she felt sure, would come. See the same idiom in Genesis:49:23|. She {desired to kill him} (\thelen auton apokteinai\). Imperfect again. {And she could not} (\kai ouk dunato\). \Kai\ here has an adversative sense, but she could not. That is, not yet. "The power was wanting, not the will" (Swete).

rwp@Matthew:20:13 @{To one of them} (\heni autn\). Evidently the spokesman of the group. "Friend" (\hetaire\). Comrade. Songs:a kindly reply to this man in place of an address to the whole gang. Genesis:31:40; strkjv@Job:27:21; strkjv@Hosea:13:15|. The word survives in modern Greek.

rwp@Matthew:22:2 @{A marriage feast} (\gamous\). The plural, as here (2,3,4,9|), is very common in the papyri for the wedding festivities (the several acts of feasting) which lasted for days, seven in strkjv@Judges:14:17|. The very phrase here, \gamous poiein\, occurs in the Doric of Thera about B.C. 200. The singular \gamos\ is common in the papyri for the wedding contract, but Field (_Notes_, p. 16) sees no difference between the singular here in strkjv@22:8| and the plural (see also Genesis:29:22; strkjv@Esther:9:22|; Macc. strkjv@10:58).

rwp@Matthew:22:24 @{Shall marry} (\epigambreusei\). The Sadducees were "aiming at amusement rather than deadly mischief" (Bruce). It was probably an old conundrum that they had used to the discomfiture of the Pharisees. This passage is quoted from strkjv@Deuteronomy:25:5,6|. The word appears here only in the N.T. and elsewhere only in the LXX. It is used of any connected by marriage as in Genesis:34:9; strkjv@1Samuel:18:22|. But in Genesis:38:8| and strkjv@Deuteronomy:25:5| it is used specifically of one marrying his brother's widow.

rwp@Matthew:23:35 @{Zachariah son of Barachiah} (\Zachariou huiou Barachiou\). Broadus gives well the various alternatives in understanding and explaining the presence of "son of Barachiah" here which is not in strkjv@Luke:11:51|. The usual explanation is that the reference is to Zachariah the son of Jehoiada the priest who was slain in the court of the temple (2Chronicles:24:20ff.|). How the words, "son of Barachiah," got into Matthew we do not know. A half-dozen possibilities can be suggested. In the case of Abel a reckoning for the shedding of his blood was foretold (Genesis:4:10|) and the same thing was true of the slaying of Zachariah (2Chronicles:24:22|).

rwp@Revelation:6:12 @{There was a great earthquake} (\seismos megas egeneto\). "There came a great earthquake." Jesus spoke of earthquakes in his great eschatological discourse (Mark:13:8|). In strkjv@Matthew:24:29| the powers of the heavens will be shaken. \Seismos\ is from \sei\, to shake, and occurs also in strkjv@Revelation:8:5; strkjv@11:13,19; strkjv@16:18|. The reference is not a local earthquake like those so common in Asia Minor. {As sackcloth of hair} (\hs sakkos trichinos\). \Sakkos\ (Attic \sakos\), Latin _saccus_, English _sack_, originally a bag for holding things (Genesis:42:25,35|), then coarse garment of hair (\trichinos\, old word from \thrix\, here only in N.T.) clinging to one like a sack, of mourners, suppliants, prophets leading austere lives (Matthew:3:4; strkjv@11:21; strkjv@Luke:10:13|). Here the hair is that of the black goat (Isaiah:50:3|). Cf. strkjv@Joel:2:10; strkjv@Ezekiel:32:7f.; strkjv@Isaiah:13:10; strkjv@Mark:13:24f|. See strkjv@Ecclesiastes:12:2| for eclipses treated as symbols of old age. Apocalyptic pictures all have celestial phenomena following earthquakes. {As blood} (\hs haima\). In strkjv@Acts:2:20| we find Peter interpreting the apocalyptic eschatological language of strkjv@Joel:2:31| about the sun being turned into darkness and the moon into blood as pointing to the events of the day of Pentecost as also "the great day of the Lord." Peter's interpretation of Joel should make us cautious about too literal an exegesis of these grand symbols.

rwp@Revelation:9:14 @{One saying to the sixth angel} (\legonta ti hekti\). Accusative masculine singular active participle of \leg\, personifying \phnn\ and agreeing with it in case, though not in gender. This voice speaks to the sixth angel (dative case). {Which had the trumpet} (\ho echn tn salpigga\). Nominative case in apposition with \aggeli\ (dative), the same anomalous phenomenon in strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:12; strkjv@14:12|. Swete treats it as a parenthesis, like strkjv@4:1; strkjv@11:15|. {Loose} (\luson\). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative of \lu\, "let loose." Another group of four angels (7:1|) like strkjv@Acts:12:4|, described here "which are bound" (\tous dedemenous\). Perfect passive articular participle of \de\, evidently the leaders of the demonic horsemen (9:15ff.|) as the four angels let loose the demonic locusts (7:1ff.|), both quaternions agents of God's wrath. {At the great river Euphrates} (\epi ti potami ti megali Euphrati\). A regular epithet of the Euphrates (16:12; Genesis:15:18; strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:7|). It rises in Armenia and joins the Tigris in lower Babylonia, a total length of nearly 1800 miles, the eastern boundary of the Roman Empire next to Parthia.

rwp@Revelation:12:9 @{Was cast down} (\eblth\). Effective first aorist passive indicative of \ball\, cast down for good and all, a glorious consummation. This vision of final victory over Satan is given by Jesus in strkjv@Luke:10:18; strkjv@John:12:31|. It has not come yet, but it is coming, and the hope of it should be a spur to missionary activity and zeal. The word megas (great) occurs here with \drakn\ as in strkjv@12:3|, and the whole picture is repeated in strkjv@20:2|. The dragon in both places is identified with the old serpent (Genesis:3:1ff.|) and called \archaios\ (from \arch\, beginning), as Jesus said that the devil was a murderer "from the beginning" (John:8:44|). Both \diabolos\ (slanderer) and Satan (\Satans\) are common in N.T. for this great dragon and old serpent, the chief enemy of mankind. See on ¯Matthew:4:1; strkjv@Revelation:2:10| for \diabolos\ and strkjv@Luke:10:18| for \Satans\. {The deceiver of the whole world} (\ho plann tn oikoumenn holn\). This is his aim and his occupation, pictured here by the nominative articular present active participle of \plana\, to lead astray. For "the inhabited world" see strkjv@Luke:2:1; strkjv@Revelation:3:10; strkjv@16:14|. Satan can almost "lead astray" the very elect of God (Matthew:24:24|), so artful is he in his beguilings as he teaches us how to deceive ourselves (1John:1:8|). {He was cast down to the earth} (\eblth eis tn gn\). Effective aorist repeated from the beginning of the verse. "The earth was no new sphere of Satan's working" (Swete). {Were cast down} (\eblthsan\). Triple use of the same verb applied to Satan's minions. The expulsion is complete.

rwp@Revelation:16:3 @{Into the sea} (\eis tn thalassan\). Like the first Egyptian plague (Exodus:7:12-41|) though only the Nile affected then. {Blood as of a dead man} (\haima hs nekrou\). At the trumpet (8:11|) the water becomes wormwood. Here \hs nekrou\ is added to strkjv@Exodus:7:19|, "the picture of a murdered man weltering in his blood" (Swete). "Coagulated blood, fatal to animal life" (Moffatt). {Every living soul} (\psa psuch zs\). "Every soul of life" (Hebraism, Genesis:1:21|, marked by life). {Even the things that were in the sea} (\ta en ti thalassi\). "The things in the sea," in apposition with \psuch\. Complete destruction, not partial as in strkjv@8:9|.