OT-POET.filter - rwp luth:

rwp@2Corinthians:12:17 @{Did I take advantage} (\epleonektsa\). Paul goes right to the point without hedging. For this verb from \pleon\ and \ech\, to have more, see on ¯2Corinthians:2:11; strkjv@7:2|. {By any one of them} (\tina--di' autou\). An anacoluthon for \tina\ is left in the accusative without a verb and \di' autou\ takes up the idea, "as to any one by him." {Whom} (\hn\). The genitive relative is attracted from the accusative \hous\ into the case of the unexpressed antecedent \touton\). \M\ expects the negative answer as does \mti\ in 18|.

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@Info_2Peter @ SLOW IN GENERAL ACCEPTANCE It was accepted in the canon by the council at Laodicea (372) and at Carthage (397). Jerome accepted it for the Vulgate, though it was absent from the Peshito Syriac Version. Eusebius placed it among the disputed books, while Origen was inclined to accept it. Clement of Alexandria accepted it and apparently wrote a commentary on it. It is probable that the so-called Apocalypse of Peter (early second century) used it and the Epistle of Jude:either used it or II Peter used Jude. There are undoubted allusions also to phrases in II Peter in Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Rome. When one considers the brevity of the Epistle, the use of it is really as strong as one can expect. Athanasius and Augustine accepted it as genuine, as did Luther, while Calvin doubted and Erasmus rejected it. It may be said for it that it won its way under criticism and was not accepted blindly.

rwp@Acts:21:12 @{Both we and they of that place} (\hmeis te kai hoi entopioi\). Usual use of \te kai\ (both--and). \Entopioi\, old word, only here in N.T. {Not to go up} (\tou m anabainein\). Probably ablative of the articular present active infinitive with redundant negative \me\ after \parekaloumen\ (imperfect active, conative). We tried to persuade him from going up. It can be explained as genitive, but not so likely: We tried to persuade him in respect to not going up. Vincent cites the case of Regulus who insisted on returning from Rome to Carthage to certain death and that of Luther on the way to the Diet of Worms. Spalatin begged Luther not to go on. Luther said: "Though devils be as many in Worms as tiles upon the roofs, yet thither will I go." This dramatic warning of Agabus came on top of that in Tyre (21:4|) and Paul's own confession in Miletus (20:23|). It is small wonder that Luke and the other messengers together with Philip and his daughters (prophetesses versus prophet?) joined in a chorus of dissuasion to Paul.

rwp@Acts:21:36 @{Followed after} (\kolouthei\). Imperfect active of \akoluthe\, was following. Cheated of their purpose to lynch Paul, they were determined to have his blood. {Crying out} (\krazontes\). Construction according to sense, plural masculine participle agreeing with neuter singular substantive \plthos\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 401). {Away with him} (\Aire auton\). The very words used by the mob to Pilate when they chose Barabbas in preference to Jesus (Luke:23:18|, \Aire touton\). He will hear it again from this same crowd (Acts:22:22|). It is the present imperative (\aire\) as in strkjv@Luke:23:18|, but some may have used the urgent aorist active imperative as also in the case of Jesus strkjv@John:19:15|, \ron, ron\ with \staurson\ added). Luke does not say that this mob demanded crucifixion for Paul. He was learning what it was to share the sufferings of Christ as the sullen roar of the mob's yells rolled on and on in his ears.

rwp@Acts:22:17 @{When I had returned} (\moi hupostrepsanti\), {while I prayed} (\proseuchomenou mou\), {I fell} (\genesthai me\). Note dative \moi\ with \egeneto\ as in verse 6|, genitive \mou\ (genitive absolute with \proseuchomenou\), accusative of general reference \me\ with \genesthai\, and with no effort at uniformity, precisely as in strkjv@15:22,23| which see. The participle is especially liable to such examples of anacolutha (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 439).

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

rwp@Acts:26:3 @{Especially because thou art expert} (\malista gnstn onta se\). Or like the margin, "because thou art especially expert," according as \malista\ is construed. \Gnstn\ is from \ginsk\ and means a knower, expert, connoisseur. Plutarch uses it and Deissmann (_Light_, etc., p. 367) restores it in a papyrus. Agrippa had the care of the temple, the appointment of the high priest, and the care of the sacred vestments. But the accusative \onta se\ gives trouble here coming so soon after \sou\ (genitive with \epi\). Some MSS. insert \epistamenos\ or \eids\ (knowing) but neither is genuine. Page takes it as "governed by the sense of thinking or considering." Knowling considers it an anacoluthon. Buttmann held it to be an accusative absolute after the old Greek idiom. \Tuchon\ is such an instance though used as an adverb (1Corinthians:16:6|). It is possible that one exists in strkjv@Ephesians:1:18|. See other examples discussed in Robertson's _Grammar_, pp. 490f. {Customs and questions} (\ethn te kai ztmatn\). Both _consuetudinum in practicis_ and _quaestionum in theoreticis_ (Bengel). Agrippa was qualified to give Paul an understanding and a sympathetic hearing. Paul understands perfectly the grand-stand play of the whole performance, but he refused to be silent and chose to use this opportunity, slim as it seemed, to get a fresh hearing for his own case and to present the claims of Christ to this influential man. His address is a masterpiece of noble apologetic. {Patiently} (\makrothums\). Adverb from \makrothumos\. Only here in the N.T., though \makrothumia\ occurs several times. Vulgate has _longanimiter_. Long spirit, endurance, opposite of impatience. Songs:Paul takes his time.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE AUTHOR Origen bluntly wrote: "Who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly" as quoted by Eusebius. Origen held that the thoughts were Paul's while Clement of Rome or Luke may have written the book. Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius says) thought that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. No early writer apparently attributed the Greek text to Paul. Eusebius thought it was originally written in Hebrew whether by Paul or not and translated by Clement of Rome. But there is no certainty anywhere in the early centuries. It was accepted first in the east and later in the west which first rejected it. But Jerome and Augustine accepted it. When the Renaissance came Erasmus had doubts, Luther attributed it to Apollos, Calvin denied the Pauline authorship. In North Africa it was attributed to Barnabas. In modern times Harnack has suggested Priscilla, but the masculine participle in strkjv@Hebrews:11:32| (\me digoumenon\) disposes of that theory. The oldest Greek MSS. (Aleph A B) have simply \Pros Hebraious\ as the title, but they place it before the Pastoral Epistles, while the Textus Receptus puts it after the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon. In the light of all the facts one can only make a guess without a sense of certainty. For myself I should with Luther guess Apollos as the most likely author of this book which is full of the Spirit of God.

rwp@James:1:24 @{He beholdeth himself} (\katenosen heauton\). Usually explained as gnomic aorist like those in strkjv@1:11|, but the ordinary force of the tenses is best here. "He glanced at himself (\katenosen\ aorist) and off he has gone (\apelluthen\ perfect active) and straightway forgot (\epelatheto\, second aorist middle indicative of \epilanthanomai\) what sort of a man he was" (\hopoios n\, back in the picture, imperfect tense). The tenses thus present a vivid and lifelike picture of the careless listener to preaching (Christ's wayside hearer).

rwp@James:5:4 @{The hire} (\ho misthos\). Old word for wages (Matthew:20:8|). {Labourers} (\ergatn\). Any one who works (\ergazomai\), especially agricultural workers (Matthew:9:37|). {Who mowed} (\tn amsantn\). Genitive plural of the articular first aorist active participle of \ama\ (from \hama\, together), old verb, to gather together, to reap, here only in N.T. {Fields} (\chras\). Estates or farms (Luke:12:16|). {Which is of you kept back by fraud} (\ho aphustermenos aph' humn\). Perfect passive articular participle of \aphustere\, late compound (simplex \hustere\ common as strkjv@Matthew:19:20|), to be behindhand from, to fail of, to cause to withdraw, to defraud. Pitiful picture of earned wages kept back by rich Jews, old problem of capital and labour that is with us yet in acute form. {The cries} (\hai boai\). Old word from which \boa\ comes (Matthew:3:3|), here only in N.T. The stolen money "cries out" (\krazei\), the workers cry out for vengeance. {That reaped} (\tn therisantn\). Genitive plural of the articular participle first aorist active of \theriz\ (old verb from \theros\, summer, strkjv@Matthew:24:32|), to reap, to harvest while summer allows (Matthew:6:26|). {Have entered} (\eiselluthan\). Perfect active third person plural indicative of \eiserchomai\, old and common compound, to go or come into. This late form is by analogy of the aorist for the usual form in \-asi\. {Of the Lord of Sabaoth} (\Kuriou Sabath\). "Of the Lord of Hosts," quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:5:9| as in strkjv@Romans:9:29|, transliterating the Hebrew word for "Hosts," an expression for the omnipotence of God like \Pantokratr\ (Revelation:4:8|). God hears the cries of the oppressed workmen even if the employers are deaf.

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

rwp@John:3:19 @{And this is the judgment} (\haut de estin h krisis\). A thoroughly Johannine phrase for sequence of thought (15:12; strkjv@17:3; strkjv@1John:1:5; strkjv@5:11,14; strkjv@3John:1:6|). It is more precisely the process of judging (\kri-sis\) rather than the result (\kri-ma\) of the judgment. "It is no arbitrary sentence, but the working out of a moral law" (Bernard). {The light is come} (\to phs elluthen\). Second perfect active indicative of \erchomai\, a permanent result as already explained in the Prologue concerning the Incarnation (1:4,5,9,11|). Jesus is the Light of the world. {Loved darkness} (\gapsan to skotos\). Job:(Job:24:13|) spoke of men rebelling against the light. Here \to skotos\, common word for moral and spiritual darkness (1Thessalonians:5:5|), though \h skotia\ in strkjv@John:1:5|. "Darkness" is common in John as a metaphor for the state of sinners (8:12; strkjv@12:35, 46; strkjv@1John:1:6; strkjv@2:8,9,11|). Jesus himself is the only moral and spiritual light of the world (8:12|) as he dared claim to his enemies. The pathos of it all is that men fall in love with the darkness of sin and rebel against the light like denizens of the underworld, "for their works were evil (\ponra\)." When the light appears, they scatter to their holes and dens. \Ponros\ (from \ponos\, toil, \pone\, to toil) is used of the deeds of the world by Jesus (7:7|). In the end the god of this world blinds men's eyes so that they do not see the light (2Corinthians:4:4|). The fish in the Mammoth Cave have no longer eyes, but only sockets where eyes used to be. The evil one has a powerful grip on the world (1John:5:19|).

rwp@John:4:38 @{I sent} (\eg apesteila\). Emphatic use of \eg\ and first aorist active indicative of \apostell\ common in John for to send. {Whereon ye have not laboured} (\ho ouch humeis kekopiakate\). Perfect active indicative of \kopia\ for which see strkjv@4:6|. Songs:also \kekopiakasin\ in next line. The disciples had done no sowing here in Sychar, only Jesus and the woman. {Others} (\alloi\: Jesus, the Baptist, the prophets). {And ye} (\kai humeis\). Emphatic contrast. {Have entered} (\eiselluthate\). Perfect active indicative of \eiserchomai\. {Into their labour} (\eis ton kopon autn\). Into the fruit and blessed results of their toil (\kopos\). This is always true as seen in strkjv@Acts:8:5-7,14f|.

rwp@John:6:17 @{Were going} (\rchonto\). Picturesque imperfect. {It was now dark} (\skotia d egegonei\). Past perfect active of \ginomai\. While they were going, "darkness had already come." {And Jesus had not yet come to them} (\kai ouk elluthei pros autous ho Isous\). Another past perfect active of \erchomai\ with negative \oup\. Darkness had come, but Jesus had not come, while they were going over the sea. The tenses in these verses are very graphic.

rwp@John:6:39 @{That of all that which} (\hina pn ho\). Literally, "That all which" (see verse 37| for \pan ho\), but there is a sharp anacoluthon with \pn\ left as _nominativus pendens_. {I should lose nothing} (\m apoles ex autou\). Construed with \hina\, "that I shall not lose anything of it." \Apoles\, from \apollumi\, can be either future active indicative or first aorist active subjunctive as is true also of \anasts\ (from \anistmi\), "I shall raise up." {At the last day} (\ti eschati hemeri\). Locative case without \en\. Only in John, but four times here (39,40,44,54|) "with the majesty of a solemn refrain." In strkjv@7:37| it is the last day of the feast of tabernacles, but in strkjv@11:24; strkjv@12:48| of the day of judgment as here. Christ is the Agent of the general resurrection in strkjv@5:28| as in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:22| while here only the resurrection of the righteous is mentioned.

rwp@John:11:19 @{Had come} (\ellutheisan\). Past perfect of \erchomai\. These Jews were probably not hostile to Jesus. There were seven days of solemn mourning (1Samuel:31:13|). The presence of so many indicates the prominence of the family. {To Martha and Mary} (\pros tn Marthan kai Mariam\). Correct text, not the Textus Receptus \pros tas peri Marthan kai Mariam\ (to the women about Martha and Mary). {To console them} (\hina paramuthsntai\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and first aorist middle subjunctive of \paramutheomai\, old verb (\para\, beside, \muthos\, word), to put in a word beside, to offer consolation. Again in verse 31|. See strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:11; strkjv@5:14|. See strkjv@Job:2:13| for these visits of consolation, often deplorable enough, though kindly meant.

rwp@John:11:30 @{Now Jesus was not yet come into the town} (\oup de elluthei ho Isous eis tn kmn\). Explanatory parenthesis with past perfect as in verse 19|. Martha had her interview while he was still coming (verse 20|) and left him (went off, \aplthen\, verse 28|) to hurry to Mary with the news. Why Jesus tarried still where he had met Martha we do not know. Westcott says, "as though He would meet the sisters away from the crowd of mourners."

rwp@John:12:23 @{The hour is come} (\elluthen h hra\). The predestined hour, seen from the start (2:4|), mentioned by John (7:30; strkjv@8:20|) as not yet come and later as known by Jesus as come (13:1|), twice again used by Jesus as already come (in the prayer of Jesus, strkjv@17:1; strkjv@Mark:14:41|, just before the betrayal in the Garden). The request from the Greeks for this interview stirs the heart of Jesus to its depths. {That the Son of man should be glorified} (\hina doxasthi ho huios tou anthrpou\). Purpose clause with \hina\ (not in the sense of \hote\, when) and the first aorist passive subjunctive of \doxaz\, same sense as in strkjv@12:16, strkjv@13:31|. The Cross must come before Greeks can really come to Jesus with understanding. But this request shows that interest in Jesus now extends beyond the Jewish circles.

rwp@Luke:7:33 @{John the Baptist is come} (\elluthen\). Second perfect active indicative where strkjv@Matthew:11:18| has \lthen\ second aorist active indicative. Songs:as to verse 34|. Luke alone has "bread" and "wine." Otherwise these verses like strkjv@Matthew:11:18,19|, which see for discussion of details. There are actually critics today who say that Jesus was called the friend of sinners and even of harlots because he loved them and their ways and so deserved the slur cast upon him by his enemies. If men can say that today we need not wonder that the Pharisees and lawyers said it then to justify their own rejection of Jesus.

rwp@Luke:8:2 @{Which had been healed} (\hai san tetherapeumenai\). Periphrastic past perfect passive, suggesting that the healing had taken place some time before this tour. These women all had personal grounds of gratitude to Jesus. {From whom seven devils (demons) had gone out} (\aph' hs daimonia hepta exelluthei\). Past perfect active third singular for the \daimonia\ are neuter plural. This first mention of Mary Magdalene describes her special cause of gratitude. This fact is stated also in strkjv@Mark:16:9| in the disputed close of the Gospel. The presence of seven demons in one person indicates special malignity (Mark:5:9|). See strkjv@Matthew:17:45| for the parable of the demon who came back with seven other demons worse than the first. It is not known where Magdala was, whence Mary came.

rwp@Luke:23:55 @{Had come with him} (\san sunelluthuiai\). Periphrastic past perfect active of \sunerchomai\. {Followed after} (\katakolouthsasai\). Aorist active participle of \katakolouthe\, an old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:16:17|. It is possible that they followed after Joseph and Nicodemus so that they "beheld the tomb," (\etheasanto to mnmeion\), and also "how his body was laid" (\hs eteth to sma autou\). First aorist passive indicative of \tithmi\. They may in fact, have witnessed the silent burial from a distance. The Syriac Sinaitic and the Syriac Curetonian give it thus: "and the women, who came with Him from Galilee went to the sepulchre in their footsteps, and saw the body when they had brought it in there." At any rate the women saw "that" and "how" the body of Jesus was laid in this new tomb of Joseph in the rocks.

rwp@Luke:24:47 @{Beginning} (\arxamenoi\). Aorist middle participle of \arch\, but the nominative plural with no syntactical connection (an anacoluthon).

rwp@Mark:7:19 @{Making all meats clean} (\katharizn panta ta brmata\). This anacoluthon can be understood by repeating {he says} (\legei\) from verse 18|. The masculine participle agrees with Jesus, the speaker. The words do not come from Jesus, but are added by Mark. Peter reports this item to Mark, probably with a vivid recollection of his own experience on the housetop in Joppa when in the vision Peter declined three times the Lord's invitation to kill and eat unclean animals (Acts:10:14-16|). It was a riddle to Peter as late as that day. "Christ asserts that _Levitical_ uncleanness, such as eating with unwashed hands, is of small importance compared with _moral_ uncleanness" (Vincent). The two chief words in both incidents, here and in Acts, are {defile} (\koino\) and {cleanse} (\kathariz\). "What God cleansed do not thou treat as defiled" (Acts:10:15|). It was a revolutionary declaration by Jesus and Peter was slow to understand it even after the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Jesus was amply justified in his astonished question: {Perceive ye not?} (\ou noeite;\). They were making little use of their intelligence in trying to comprehend the efforts of Jesus to give them a new and true spiritual insight.

rwp@Mark:7:30 @{And the demon gone out} (\kai to daimonion exelluthos\). This was her crumb from the children's table. The perfect active participle expresses the state of completion. The demon was gone for good and all.

rwp@Mark:9:1 @{Till they see the kingdom of God come with power} (\hes an idsin tn basileian tou theou elluthuian en dunamei\). In strkjv@8:38| Jesus clearly is speaking of the second coming. To what is he referring in strkjv@9:1|? One is reminded of strkjv@Mark:13:32; strkjv@Matthew:24:36| where Jesus expressly denies that anyone save the Father himself (not even the Son) knows the day or the hour. Does he contradict that here? It may be observed that Luke has only "see the kingdom of God," while Matthew has "see the Son of man coming" (\erchomenon\, present participle, a process). Mark has "see the kingdom of God come" (\elluthuian\, perfect active participle, already come) and adds "with power." Certainly the second coming did not take place while some of those standing there still lived. Did Jesus mean that? The very next incident in the Synoptic Gospels is the Transfiguration on Mount Hermon. Does not Jesus have that in mind here? The language will apply also to the coming of the Holy Spirit on the great Day of Pentecost. Some see in it a reference to the destruction of the temple. It is at least open to question whether the Master is speaking of the same event in strkjv@Mark:8:38; strkjv@9:1|.

rwp@Matthew:7:10 @{Fish--serpent} (\ichthun--ophin\). Fish, common article of food, and water-snakes could easily be substituted. Anacoluthon in this sentence in the Greek.

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

rwp@Revelation:9:15 @{Were loosed} (\eluthsan\). First aorist (ingressive) passive indicative of \lu\, "were let loose." {Which had been prepared} (\hoi htoimasmenoi\). Perfect passive articular participle of \hetoimaz\, to make ready (\hetoimos\), in a state of readiness prepared by God (12:6; strkjv@16:12; strkjv@Matthew:25:34|). {For the hour and day and month and year} (\eis tn hran kai hmeran kai mna kai eniauton\). For this use of \eis\ with \htoimasmenon\ see strkjv@2Timothy:2:21|. All preparation over, the angels are waiting for the signal to begin. {That they should kill} (\hina apokteinsin\). The same idiom in verse 5| about the fifth trumpet, which brought torture. This one brings death.