OT-POET.filter - rwp arate:

rwp@1Corinthians:4:7 @{Maketh thee to differ} (\se diakrinei\). Distinguishes thee, separates thee. \Diakrin\ means to sift or separate between (\dia\) as in strkjv@Acts:15:9| (which see) where \metaxu\ is added to make it plainer. All self-conceit rests on the notion of superiority of gifts and graces as if they were self-bestowed or self-acquired. {Which thou didst not receive} (\ho ouk elabes\). "Another home-thrust" (Robertson and Plummer). Pride of intellect, of blood, of race, of country, of religion, is thus shut out. {Dost thou glory} (\kauchasai\). The original second person singular middle ending \-sai\ is here preserved with variable vowel contraction, \kauchaesai=kauchasai\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 341). Paul is fond of this old and bold verb for boasting. {As if thou hadst not received it} (\hs m labn\). This neat participial clause (second aorist active of \lamban\) with \hs\ (assumption) and negative \m\ punctures effectually the inflated bag of false pride. What pungent questions Paul has asked. Robertson and Plummer say of Augustine, "Ten years before the challenge of Pelagius, the study of St. Paul's writings, and especially of this verse and of strkjv@Romans:9:16|, had crystallized in his mind the distinctively Augustinian doctrines of man's total depravity, of irresistible grace, and of absolute predestination." Human responsibility does exist beyond a doubt, but there is no foundation for pride and conceit.

rwp@1Corinthians:5:7 @{Purge out} (\ekkatharate\). First aorist (effective) active imperative of \ekkathair\, old verb to cleanse out (\ek\), to clean completely. Aorist tense of urgency, do it now and do it effectively before the whole church is contaminated. This turn to the metaphor is from the command to purge out the old (\palaian\, now old and decayed) leaven before the passover feast (Exodus:12:15f.; strkjv@13:7; strkjv@Zephaniah:1:12|). Cf. modern methods of disinfection after a contagious disease. {A new lump} (\neon phurama\). Make a fresh start as a new community with the contamination removed. \Neos\ is the root for \neaniskos\, a young man, not yet old (\graios\). Songs:new wine (\oinon neon\ strkjv@Matthew:9:17|). \Kainos\ is fresh as compared with the ancient (\palaios\). See the distinction in strkjv@Colossians:3:10; strkjv@Ephesians:4:22ff.; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:17|. {Unleavened} (\azumoi\). Without (\a\ privative) leaven, the normal and ideal state of Christians. Rare word among the ancients (once in Plato). They are a new creation (\kain ktisis\), "exemplifying Kant's maxim that you should treat a man as if he were what you would wish him to be" (Robertson and Plummer). {For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ} (\kai gar to pascha hmn etuth Christos\). First aorist passive indicative of \thu\, old verb to sacrifice. Euphony of consonants, \th\ to \t\ because of \-th\. Reference to the death of Christ on the Cross as the Paschal Lamb (common use of \pascha\ as strkjv@Mark:14:12; strkjv@Luke:22:7|), the figure used long before by the Baptist of Jesus (John:1:29|). Paul means that the Lamb was already slain on Calvary and yet you have not gotten rid of the leaven.

rwp@1Corinthians:5:13 @{Put away the wicked man} (\exarate ton ponron\). By this quotation from strkjv@Deuteronomy:17:7| Paul clinches the case for the expulsion of the offender (5:2|). Note \ex\ twice and effective aorist tense.

rwp@1Thessalonians:3:11 @{Our God and Father himself} (\autos ho theos kai patr hmn\). Note one article with both substantives for one person. {And our Lord Jesus} (\kai ho Kurios hmn Isous\). Separate article here with \Isous\. In strkjv@Titus:2:13; strkjv@2Peter:1:1| only one article (not two) treating "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" as one just like "our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" in strkjv@2Peter:1:11; strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:18|. {Direct our way} (\kateuthunai tn hodon hmn\). First aorist optative (acute accent on penult, not circumflex first aorist active infinitive) of \kateuthun\, old verb to make straight path. Singular verb also, though both God and Christ mentioned as subject (unity in the Godhead). Apart from \m genoito\ ({may it not come to pass}) the optative in a wish of the third person is found in N.T. only in strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:11,12; strkjv@5:23; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:17; strkjv@3:5,16; strkjv@Romans:15:5,13|.

rwp@2Corinthians:13:12 @{With a holy kiss} (\en hagii philmati\). In the Jewish synagogues where the sexes were separated, men kissed men, the women, women. This apparently was the Christian custom also. It is still observed in the Coptic and the Russian churches. It was dropped because of charges made against the Christians by the pagans. In England in 1250 Archbishop Walter of York introduced a "pax-board" which was first kissed by the clergy and then passed around. Think of the germ theory of disease and that kissing tablet!

rwp@2John:1:7 @{Deceivers} (\planoi\). Late adjective (Diodorus, Josephus) meaning wandering, roving (1Timothy:4:1|). As a substantive in N.T. of Jesus (Matthew:27:63|), of Paul (2Corinthians:6:8|), and here. See the verb (\tn planontn hums\) in strkjv@1John:2:26| of the Gnostic deceivers as here and also of Jesus (John:7:12|). Cf. strkjv@1John:1:8|. {Are gone forth} (\exlthan\, alpha ending). Second aorist active indicative of \exerchomai\, perhaps an allusion to the crisis when they left the churches (1John:2:19|, same form). {Even they that confess not} (\hoi m homologountes\). "The ones not confessing" (\m\ regular negative with the participle). The articular participle describes the deceivers (\planoi\). {That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh} (\Isoun Christon erchomenon en sarki\). "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of \erchomai\ treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In strkjv@1John:4:2| we have \elluthota\ (perfect active participle) in this same construction with \homologe\, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation. There is no allusion here to the second coming of Christ. {This} (\houtos\). See strkjv@1John:2:18,22; strkjv@5:6,20|. {The deceiver and the antichrist} (\ho planos kai ho antichristos\). Article with each word, as in strkjv@Revelation:1:17|, to bring out sharply each separate phrase, though one individual is referred to. The one _par excellence_ in popular expectation (1John:2:22|), though many in reality (1John:2:18; strkjv@3John:1:7|).

rwp@Acts:20:30 @{From among your own selves} (\ex humn autn\). In sheep's clothing just as Jesus had foretold. The outcome fully justified Paul's apprehensions as we see in Colossians, Ephesians, I and II Timothy, Revelation. False philosophy, immorality, asceticism will lead some astray (Colossians:2:8,18; strkjv@Ephesians:4:14; strkjv@5:6|). John will picture "antichrists" who went out from us because they were not of us (1John:2:18f.|). There is a false optimism that is complacently blind as well as a despondent pessimism that gives up the fight. {Perverse things} (\diestrammena\). Perfect passive participle of \diastreph\, old verb to turn aside, twist, distort as in strkjv@Acts:13:8,10|. {To draw away} (\tou apospin\). Articular genitive present active participle of purpose from \apospa\, old verb used to draw the sword (Matthew:26:51|), to separate (Luke:22:41; strkjv@Acts:21:1|). The pity of it is that such leaders of dissension can always gain a certain following. Paul's long residence in Ephesus enabled him to judge clearly of conditions there.

rwp@Acts:21:28 @{Help} (\botheite\). Present active imperative of \bothe\, to run (\the\) at a cry (\bo\), as if an outrage had been committed like murder or assault. {All men everywhere} (\panta pantachi\). Alliterative. \Pantachi\ is a variation in MSS., often \pantachou\, and here only in the N.T. The charges against Paul remind one of those against Stephen (Acts:6:13|) in which Paul had participated according to his confession (22:20|). Like the charges against Stephen and Jesus before him truth and falsehood are mixed. Paul had said that being a Jew would not save a man. He had taught the law of Moses was not binding on Gentiles. He did hold, like Jesus and Stephen, that the temple was not the only place to worship God. But Paul gloried himself in being a Jew, considered the Mosaic law righteous for Jews, and was honouring the temple at this very moment. {And moreover also he brought Greeks also into the temple} (\eti te kai Hellnas eisgagen eis to hieron\). Note the three particles (\eti te kai\), {and} (\te\) {still more} (\eti\) {also} or {even} (\kai\). Worse than his teaching (\didaskn\) is his dreadful deed: he actually brought (\eisgagen\, second aorist active indicative of \eisag\). This he had a right to do if they only went into the court of the Gentiles. But these Jews mean to imply that Paul had brought Greeks beyond this court into the court of Israel. An inscription was found by Clermont-Ganneau in Greek built into the walls of a mosque on the Via Dolorosa that was on the wall dividing the court of Israel from the court of the Gentiles. Death was the penalty to any Gentile who crossed over into the Court of Israel (_The Athenaeum_, July, 1871). {Hath defiled this holy place} (\kekoinken ton hagion topon touton\). Present perfect active of \koino\, to make common (see on ¯10:14|). Note vivid change of tense, the defilement lasts (state of completion). All this is the substance of the call of these shrewd conspirators from Ephesus, Jews (not Jewish Christians, not even Judaizers) who hated him for his work there and who probably "spoke evil of the Way before the multitude" there so that Paul had to separate the disciples from the synagogue and go to the School of Tyrannus (19:9f.|). These enemies of Paul had now raised the cry of "fire" and vanish from the scene completely (24:19|). This charge was absolutely false as we shall see, made out of inferences of hate and suspicion.

rwp@Ephesians:4:6 @{One God and Father of all} (\heis theos kai patr pantn\). Not a separate God for each nation or religion. One God for all men. See here the Trinity again (Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit). {Who is over all} (\ho epi pantn\), {and through all} (\kai dia pantn\), {and in all} (\kai en psin\). Thus by three prepositions (\epi, dia, en\) Paul has endeavoured to express the universal sweep and power of God in men's lives. The pronouns (\pantn, pantn, psin\) can be all masculine, all neuter, or part one or the other. The last "in all" is certainly masculine and probably all are.

rwp@James:2:4 @{Are ye not divided in your own mind?} (\ou diekrithte en heautois;\). First aorist (gnomic) passive indicative of \diakrin\, to separate, conclusion of the third-class condition (future) in a rhetorical question in the gnomic aorist (as if past) with ou expecting an affirmative answer. For this idiom (gnomic aorist) in a conclusion of the third-class condition see strkjv@1Corinthians:7:28|. "Were ye not divided in (among) yourselves?" Cf. strkjv@1:6; strkjv@Matthew:21:21|. {Judges with evil thoughts} (\kritai dialogismn ponrn\). Descriptive genitive as in strkjv@1:25|. \Dialogismos\ is an old word for reasoning (Romans:1:21|). Reasoning is not necessarily evil, but see strkjv@Matthew:15:19| (\ponroi\) and strkjv@Mark:7:21| (\kakoi\) for evil reasonings, and strkjv@1Timothy:2:8| without an adjective. See strkjv@James:1:8; strkjv@4:8| for \dipsuchos\. They are guilty of partiality (a divided mind) as between the two strangers.

rwp@Info_John @ THE SAME STYLE IN THE DISCOURSES It is further objected that there is no difference in style between the discourses of Jesus in John's Gospel and his own narrative style. There is an element of truth in this criticism. There are passages where it is not easy to tell where discourse ends and narrative begins. See, for instance, strkjv@John:3:16-21|. Does the discourse of Jesus end with verse 15,16, or 21? Songs:in strkjv@John:12:44-50|. Does John give here a resume of Christ's teaching or a separate discourse? It is true also that John preserves in a vivid way the conversational style of Christ as in chapters 4,6,7,8,9. In the Synoptic Gospels this element is not so striking, but we do not have to say that John has done as Shakespeare did with his characters. Each Gospel to a certain extent has the colouring of the author in reporting the words of Jesus. An element of this is inevitable unless men are mere automata, phonographs, or radios. But each Gospel preserves an accurate and vivid picture of Christ. We need all four pictures including that of John's Gospel for the whole view of Christ.

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

rwp@Info_John @ 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: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 strkjv@Genesis:33:19; strkjv@48:22|. Relative \ho\ is not attracted to case of \chriou\. First aorist active indicative \edken\.

rwp@John:9:39 @{For judgement} (\eis krima\). The Father had sent the Son for this purpose (3:17|). This world (\kosmos\) is not the home of Jesus. The \krima\ (judgement), a word nowhere else in John, is the result of the \krisis\ (sifting) from \krin\, to separate. The Father has turned over this process of sifting (\krisis\) to the Son (5:22|). He is engaged in that very work by this miracle. {They which see not} (\hoi m blepontes\). The spiritually blind as well as the physically blind (Luke:4:18; strkjv@Isaiah:42:18|). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive \blepsin\ (may keep on seeing). This man now sees physically and spiritually. {And that they which see may become blind} (\kai hoi blepontes tuphloi genntai\). Another part of God's purpose, seen in strkjv@Matthew:11:25; strkjv@Luke:10:21|, is the curse on those who blaspheme and reject the Son. Note ingressive aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\ and predicate nominative. \Hoi blepontes\ are those who profess to see like these Pharisees, but are really blind. Blind guides they were (Matthew:23:16|). Complacent satisfaction with their dim light.

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

rwp@John:11:44 @{He that was dead came forth} (\exlthen ho tethnks\). Literally, "Came out the dead man," (effective aorist active indicative and perfect active articular participle of \thnsk\). Just as he was and at once. {Bound hand and foot} (\dedemenos tous podas kai tas cheiras\). Perfect passive participle of \de\ with the accusative loosely retained according to the common Greek idiom (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 486), but literally "as to the feet and hands" (opposite order from the English). Probably the legs were bound separately. {With grave-clothes} (\keiriais\). Or "with bands." Instrumental case of this late and rare word (in Plutarch, medical papyrus in the form \kria\, and strkjv@Proverbs:7:16|). Only here in N.T. {His face} (\h opsis autou\). Old word, but \prospon\ is usual in N.T. See strkjv@Revelation:1:16| for another instance. {Was bound about} (\periededeto\). Past perfect passive of \peride\, old verb to bind around, only here in N.T. {With a napkin} (\soudarii\). Instrumental case of \soudarion\ (Latin word _sudarium_ from _sudor_, sweat). In N.T. here, strkjv@20:7; strkjv@Luke:19:20; strkjv@Acts:19:12|. Our handkerchief. {Loose him} (\lusate auton\). First aorist active imperative of \lu\. From the various bands. {Let him go} (\aphete auton hupagein\). Second aorist active imperative of \aphimi\ and present active infinitive.

rwp@Luke:8:16 @{When he hath lighted a lamp} (\luchnon hapsas\). It is a portable lamp (\luchnon\) that one lights (\hapsas\ aorist active participle of \hapt\, to kindle, fasten to, light). {With a vessel} (\skeuei\, instrumental case of \skeuos\). Here strkjv@Mark:4:21| has the more definite figure "under the bushel" as has strkjv@Matthew:5:15|. {Under the bed} (\hupokat klins\). Here strkjv@Mark:4:21| has the regular \hupo tn klinn\ instead of the late compound \hupokat\. Ragg notes that Matthew distributes the sayings of Jesus given here by strkjv@Luke:8:16-18; strkjv@Mark:4:21-25| concerning the parable of the lamp and gives them in three separate places (Matthew:5:15; strkjv@10:26; strkjv@13:12|). That is true, but it does not follow that Mark and Luke have bunched together separate sayings or that Matthew has scattered sayings delivered only on one occasion. One of the slowest lessons for some critics to learn is that Jesus repeated favourite sayings on different occasions and in different groupings just as every popular preacher and teacher does today. See on ¯Mark:4:21| for further discussion of the lamp and stand. {May see the light} (\Blepsin to phs\). In strkjv@Matthew:5:16| Jesus has it "may see your good works." The purpose of light is to let one see something else, not the light. Note present subjunctive (\blepsin\), linear action "Jesus had kindled a light within them. They must not hide it, but must see that it spreads to others" (Plummer). The parable of the lamp throws light on the parable of the sower.

rwp@Luke:19:20 @{I kept} (\eichon\). Imperfect active of \ech\. I kept on keeping. {Laid up} (\apokeimenn\). Present passive participle agreeing with \hn\ (which), used often as perfect passive of \tithmi\ as here, laid away or off (\apo\). It is not the periphrastic construction, but two separate verbs, each with its own force. {In a napkin} (\en soudarii\). A Latin word _sudarium_ from _sudor_ (sweat) transliterated into Greek, a sweatcloth handkerchief or napkin. Found in papyrus marriage contracts as part of the dowry (second and third centuries A.D., Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 223). Used also for swathing the head of the dead (John:11:44; strkjv@20:7|).

rwp@Luke:22:9 @{Where wilt thou that we make ready?} (\Pou theleis hetoimasmen;\). Deliberative first aorist active subjunctive without \hina\ after \theleis\, perhaps originally two separate questions.

rwp@Luke:24:9 @{From the tomb} (\apo tou mnmeiou\). Some documents omit these words. This word for tomb is like our "memorial" from \mimnsk\, to remind. {Told} (\apggeilan\). It was a wonderful proclamation. Luke does not separate the story of Mary Magdalene from that of the other women as John does (John:20:2-18|).

rwp@Mark:8:38 @{For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and my words} (\hos gar ean epaischunthi me kai tous emous logous\). More exactly, {whosoever is ashamed} (first aorist passive subjunctive with indefinite relative and \ean = an\. See Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 957-9. It is not a statement about the future conduct of one, but about his present attitude toward Jesus. The conduct of men toward Christ now determines Christ's conduct then (\epaischunthsetai\, first future passive indicative). This passive verb is transitive and uses the accusative (\me, auton\). {In this adulterous and sinful generation} (\en ti genei tauti ti moichalidi kai hamartli\). Only in Mark. {When he cometh} (\hotan elthi\). Aorist active subjunctive with reference to the future second coming of Christ with the glory of the Father with his holy angels (cf. strkjv@Matthew:16:27|). This is a clear prediction of the final eschatological coming of Christ. This verse could not be separated from strkjv@Mark:9:1| as the chapter division does. These two verses in strkjv@Mark:8:38; strkjv@9:1| form one paragraph and should go together.

rwp@Mark:9:25 @{A multitude came running together} (\episuntrechei ochlos\). A double compound here alone in the N.T. and not in the old Greek writers. \Epitrech\ occurs in the papyri, but not \episuntrech\. The double compound vividly describes the rapid gathering of the crowd to Jesus and the epileptic boy to see the outcome. {Come out of him} (\exelthe ex autou\). Jesus addresses the demon as a separate being from the boy as he often does. This makes it difficult to believe that Jesus was merely indulging popular belief in a superstition. He evidently regards the demon as the cause in this case of the boy's misfortune.

rwp@Matthew:6:6 @{Into thy closet} (\eis to tameion\). The word is a late syncopated form of \tamieion\ from \tamias\ (steward) and the root \tam-\ from \temn\, to cut. Songs:it is a store-house, a separate apartment, one's private chamber, closet, or "den" where he can withdraw from the world and shut the world out and commune with God.

rwp@Matthew:7:1 @{Judge not} (\m krinete\). The habit of censoriousness, sharp, unjust criticism. Our word critic is from this very word. It means to separate, distinguish, discriminate. That is necessary, but pre-judice (prejudgment) is unfair, captious criticism.

rwp@Matthew:17:2 @{He was transfigured before them} (\metemorphth emprosthen autn\). The word is the same as the metamorphoses (cf. Ovid) of pagan mythology. Luke does not use it. The idea is change (\meta-\) of form (\morph\). It really presents the essence of a thing as separate from the \schma\ (fashion), the outward accident. Songs:in strkjv@Romans:12:2| Paul uses both verbs, \sunschematizesthe\ (be not fashioned) and \metamorphousthe\ (be ye transformed in your inner life). Songs:in strkjv@1Corinthians:7:31| \schma\ is used for the fashion of the world while in strkjv@Mark:16:12| \morph\ is used of the form of Jesus after his resurrection. The false apostles are described by \metaschmatisomai\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:13-15|. In strkjv@Phillipians:2:6| we have \en morphi\ used of the Preincarnate state of Christ and \morphn doulou\ of the Incarnate state (Phillipians:2:7|), while \schmati hs anthrpos\ emphasizes his being found "in fashion as a man." But it will not do in strkjv@Matthew:17:2| to use the English transliteration \metamorphsis\ because of its pagan associations. Songs:the Latin _transfigured_ (Vulgate _transfiguratus est_) is better. "The deeper force of \metamorphousthai\ is seen in strkjv@2Corinthians:3:18| (with reference to the shining on Moses' face), strkjv@Romans:12:2|" (McNeile). The word occurs in a second-century papyrus of the pagan gods who are invisible. Matthew guards against the pagan idea by adding and explaining about the face of Christ "as the sun" and his garments "as the light."

rwp@Matthew:22:12 @{Not having a wedding-garment} (\m echn enduma gamou\). \M\ is in the _Koin_ the usual negative with participles unless special emphasis on the negative is desired as in \ouk endedumenon\. There is a subtle distinction between \m\ and \ou\ like our subjective and objective notions. Some hold that the wedding-garment here is a portion of a lost parable separate from that of the Wedding Feast, but there is no evidence for that idea. Wunsche does report a parable by a rabbi of a king who set no time for his feast and the guests arrived, some properly dressed waiting at the door; others in their working clothes did not wait, but went off to work and, when the summons suddenly came, they had no time to dress properly and were made to stand and watch while the others partook of the feast.

rwp@Matthew:23:13 @{Hypocrites} (\hupokritai\). This terrible word of Jesus appears first from him in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew:6:2,5,16; strkjv@7:5|), then in strkjv@15:7| and strkjv@22:18|. Here it appears "with terrific iteration" (Bruce) save in the third of the seven woes (23:13,15,23,25,27,29|). The verb in the active (\hupokrin\) meant to separate slowly or slightly subject to gradual inquiry. Then the middle was to make answer, to take up a part on the stage, to act a part. It was an easy step to mean to feign, to pretend, to wear a masque, to act the hypocrite, to play a part. This hardest word from the lips of Jesus falls on those who were the religious leaders of the Jews (Scribes and Pharisees), who had justified this thunderbolt of wrath by their conduct toward Jesus and their treatment of things high and holy. The _Textus Receptus has eight woes, adding verse 14| which the Revised Version places in the margin (called verse 13| by Westcott and Hort and rejected on the authority of Aleph B D as a manifest gloss from strkjv@Mark:12:40| and strkjv@Luke:20:47|). The MSS. that insert it put it either before 13 or after 13. Plummer cites these seven woes as another example of Matthew's fondness for the number seven, more fancy than fact for Matthew's Gospel is not the Apocalypse of John. These are all illustrations of Pharisaic saying and not doing (Allen). {Ye shut the kingdom of heaven} (\kleiete tn basileian tn ourann\). In strkjv@Luke:11:52| the lawyers are accused of keeping the door to the house of knowledge locked and with flinging away the keys so as to keep themselves and the people in ignorance. These custodians of the kingdom by their teaching obscured the way to life. It is a tragedy to think how preachers and teachers of the kingdom of God may block the door for those who try to enter in (\tous eiserchomenous\, conative present middle participle). {Against} (\emprosthen\). Literally, before. These door-keepers of the kingdom slam it shut in men's faces and they themselves are on the outside where they will remain. They hide the key to keep others from going in.

rwp@Matthew:24:3 @{As he sat} (\kathmenou\). Genitive absolute. Picture of Jesus sitting on the Mount of Olives looking down on Jerusalem and the temple which he had just left. After the climb up the mountain four of the disciples (Peter, James, John, Andrew) come to Jesus with the problem raised by his solemn words. They ask these questions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, his own second coming (\parousia\, presence, common in the papyri for the visit of the emperor), and the end of the world. Did they think that they were all to take place simultaneously? There is no way to answer. At any rate Jesus treats all three in this great eschatological discourse, the most difficult problem in the Synoptic Gospels. Many theories are advanced that impugn the knowledge of Jesus or of the writers or of both. It is sufficient for our purpose to think of Jesus as using the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem which did happen in that generation in A.D. 70, as also a symbol of his own second coming and of the end of the world (\sunteleias tou ainos\) or consummation of the age. In a painting the artist by skilful perspective may give on the same surface the inside of a room, the fields outside the window, and the sky far beyond. Certainly in this discourse Jesus blends in apocalyptic language the background of his death on the cross, the coming destruction of Jerusalem, his own second coming and the end of the world. He now touches one, now the other. It is not easy for us to separate clearly the various items. It is enough if we get the picture as a whole as it is here drawn with its lessons of warning to be ready for his coming and the end. The destruction of Jerusalem came as he foretold. There are some who would date the Synoptic Gospels after A.D. 70 in order to avoid the predictive element involved in the earlier date. But that is to limit the fore-knowledge of Jesus to a merely human basis. The word \parousia\ occurs in this chapter alone (3,27,37,39|) in the Gospels, but often in the Epistles, either of presence as opposed to absence (Phillipians:2:12|) or the second coming of Christ (2Thessalonians:2:1|).