OT-POET.filter - rwp nature:

rwp@1Corinthians:4:6 @{I have in a figure transferred} (\meteschmatisa\). First aorist active (not perfect) indicative of \meta-schmatiz\, used by Plato and Aristotle for changing the form of a thing (from \meta\, after, and \schma\, form or habit, like Latin _habitus_ from \ech\ and so different from \morph\ as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:7; strkjv@Romans:12:2|). For the idea of refashioning see Field, _Notes_, p. 169f. and Preisigke, _Fachworter_). Both Greek and Latin writers (Quintilian, Martial) used \schma\ for a rhetorical artifice. Paul's use of the word (in Paul only in N.T.) appears also further in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:13-15| where the word occurs three times, twice of the false apostles posing and passing as apostles of Christ and ministers of righteousness, and once of Satan as an angel of light, twice with \eis\ and once with \hs\. In strkjv@Phillipians:3:21| the word is used for the change in the body of our humiliation to the body of glory. But here it is clearly the rhetorical figure for a veiled allusion to Paul and Apollos "for your sakes" (\dia humas\). {That in us ye may learn} (\hina en hmin mathte\). Final clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \manthan\, to learn. As an object lesson in our cases (\en hmin\). It is no more true of Paul and Apollos than of other ministers, but the wrangles in Corinth started about them. Songs:Paul boldly puts himself and Apollos to the fore in the discussion of the principles involved. {Not to go beyond the things which are written} (\to M huper ha gegraptai\). It is difficult to reproduce the Greek idiom in English. The article \to\ is in the accusative case as the object of the verb \mathte\ (learn) and points at the words "\M huper ha gegraptai\," apparently a proverb or rule, and elliptical in form with no principal verb expressed with \m\, whether "think" (Auth.) or "go" (Revised). There was a constant tendency to smooth out Paul's ellipses as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26,31|. Lightfoot thinks that Paul may have in mind O.T. passages quoted in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:19,31; strkjv@3:19,20|. {That ye be not puffed up} (\hina m phusiousthe\). Sub-final use of \hina\ (second use in this sentence) with notion of result. It is not certain whether \phusiousthe\ (late verb form like \phusia, phusa\, to blow up, to inflate, to puff up), used only by Paul in the N.T., is present indicative with \hina\ like \zloute\ in strkjv@Galatians:4:17| (cf. \hina ginskomen\ in strkjv@1John:5:20|) or the present subjunctive by irregular contraction (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 203, 342f.), probably the present indicative. \Phusio\ is from \phusis\ (nature) and so meant to make natural, but it is used by Paul just like \phusa\ or \phusia\ (from \phusa\, a pair of bellows), a vivid picture of self-conceit. {One for the one against the other} (\heis huper tou henos kata tou heterou\). This is the precise idea of this idiom of partitive apposition. This is the rule with partisans. They are "for" (\huper\) the one and "against" (\kata\, down on, the genitive case) the other (\tou heterou\, not merely another or a second, but the different sort, \heterodox\).

rwp@2Corinthians:11:4 @{Another Jesus} (\allon Isoun\). Not necessarily a different Jesus, but any other "Jesus" is a rival and so wrong. That would deny the identity. {A different spirit} (\pneuma heteron\). This is the obvious meaning of \heteron\ in distinction from \allon\ as seen in strkjv@Acts:4:12; strkjv@Galatians:1:6f|. But this distinction in nature or kind is not always to be insisted on. {A different gospel} (\euaggelion heteron\). Similar use of \heteron\. {Ye do well to bear with him} (\kals anechesthe\). Ironical turn again. "Well do you hold yourselves back from him" (the coming one, whoever he is). Some MSS. have the imperfect \aneichesthe\ (did bear with).

rwp@Info_2Peter @ CLAIMS PETRINE AUTHORSHIP Not only so, but in fuller form than strkjv@1Peter:1:1|, for the writer terms himself "Simon (Symeon in some MSS.) Peter," a fact that has been used against the genuineness. If no claim had been made, that would have been considered decisive against him. Simon (Symeon was the Jewish form as used by James in strkjv@Acts:15:14|) is the real name (John:1:42|) and Peter merely the Greek for Cephas, the nickname given by Christ. There is no reason why both could not properly be employed here. But the claim to Petrine authorship, if not genuine, leaves the Epistle pseudonymous. That was a custom among some Jewish writers and even Christian writers, as the spurious Petrine literature testifies (Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.), works of a heretical or curious nature. Whatever the motive for such a pious fraud, the fact remains that II Peter, if not genuine, has to take its place with this pseudonymous literature and can hardly be deemed worthy of a place in the New Testament. And yet there is no heresy in this Epistle, no startling new ideas that would lead one to use the name of Simon Peter. It is the rather full of edifying and orthodox teaching.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OF PETER The writer makes use of his own contact with Jesus, especially at the Transfiguration of Christ (Mark:9:2-8; strkjv@Matthew:17:1-8; strkjv@Luke:9:28-36|). This fact has been used against the genuineness of the Epistle on the plea that the writer is too anxious, anyhow, to show that he is Symeon Peter (2Peter:1:1|). But Bigg rightly replies that, if he had only given his name with no personal contacts with Jesus, the name would be called "a forged addition." It is possible also that the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration may have been suggested by Peter's use of \exodos\ for his own death (2Peter:1:15|), the very word used by Luke (Luke:9:31|) as the topic of discussion between Jesus and Moses and Elijah. There is also in strkjv@2Peter:1:13| the use of "tent" (\sknoma\) for the life in the body, like Peter's use of "tents" (\sknas\) to Jesus at that very time (Mark:9:5; strkjv@Matthew:17:4; strkjv@Luke:9:33|). In strkjv@2Peter:1:14| Peter also refers to the plain words of Jesus about his coming death (John:21:18f.|). In strkjv@2Peter:1:15| Peter speaks of his own plan for preserving the knowledge of Jesus when he is gone (possibly by Mark's Gospel). All this is in perfect keeping with Peter's own nature.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ HE ACCEPTS PAUL'S EPISTLES AS SCRIPTURE This fact (2Peter:3:15f.|) has been used as conclusive proof by Baur and his school that Peter could not have written the Epistle after the stern rebuke from Paul at Antioch (Galatians:2:11f.|). But this argument ignores one element in Peter's impulsive nature and that is his coming back as he did with Jesus. Paul after that event in Antioch spoke kindly of Peter (1Corinthians:9:5|). Neither Peter nor Paul cherished a personal grudge where the Master's work was involved. It is also objected that Peter would not have put Paul's Epistles on the level with the O.T. and call them by implication "Scripture." But Paul claimed the help of the Holy Spirit in his writings and Peter knew the marks of the Holy Spirit's power. Besides, in calling Paul's Epistles Scripture he may not have meant to place them exactly on a par with the Old Testament.

rwp@2Peter:1:4 @{Whereby} (\di' hn\). Probably the "glory and virtue" just mentioned, though it is possible to take it with \panta ta pros\, etc., or with \hmin\ (unto us, meaning "through whom"). {He hath granted} (\dedrtai\). Perfect middle indicative of \dre\, for which see verse 3|. {His precious and exceeding great promises} (\ta timia kai megista epaggelmata\). \Epaggelma\ is an old word (from \epaggell\) in place of the common \epaggelia\, in N.T. only here and strkjv@3:13|. \Timios\ (precious, from \tim\, value), three times by Peter (1Peter:1:7| of faith; strkjv@1:19| of the blood of Christ; strkjv@2Peter:1:4| of Christ's promises). \Megista\ is the elative superlative used along with a positive adjective (\timia\). {That ye may become} (\hina gensthe\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\. {Through these} (\dia toutn\). The promises. {Partakers} (\koinnoi\). Partners, sharers in, for which word see strkjv@1Peter:5:1|. {Of the divine nature} (\theias phuses\). This phrase, like \to theion\ in strkjv@Acts:17:29|, "belongs rather to Hellenism than to the Bible" (Bigg). It is a Stoic phrase, but not with the Stoic meaning. Peter is referring to the new birth as strkjv@1Peter:1:23| (\anagegennmenoi\). The same phrase occurs in an inscription possibly under the influence of Mithraism (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). {Having escaped} (\apophugontes\). Second aorist active participle of \apopheug\, old compound verb, in N.T. only here and strkjv@2:18-20|, with the ablative here (\phthors\, old word from \phtheir\, moral decay as in strkjv@2:12|) and the accusative there. {By lust} (\en epithumii\). Caused by, consisting in, lust. "Man becomes either regenerate or degenerate" (Strachan).

rwp@2Peter:2:7 @{And delivered} (\kai erusato\). First aorist middle of \ruomai\ as in strkjv@Matthew:6:13|, still part of the protasis with \ei\. {Righteous Lot} (\dikaion Lot\). This adjective \dikaios\ occurs three times in verses 7,8|. See Wisdom strkjv@10:6. {Sore distressed} (\kataponoumenon\). Present passive participle of \katapone\, late and common verb, to work down, to exhaust with labor, to distress, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:7:24|. {By the lascivious life of the wicked} (\hupo ts tn athesmn en aselgeii anastrophs\). "By the life in lasciviousness of the lawless." \Athesmos\ (alpha privative and \thesmos\), late and common adjective (cf. \athemitos\ strkjv@1Peter:4:3|) for rebels against law (of nature and conscience here). \Anastroph\ is frequent in I Peter.

rwp@Galatians:6:8 @{Corruption} (\phthoran\). For this old word from \phtheir\, see on ¯1Corinthians:15:42|. The precise meaning turns on the context, here plainly the physical and moral decay or rottenness that follows sins of the flesh as all men know. Nature writes in one's body the penalty of sin as every doctor knows. {Eternal life} (\zn ainion\). See on ¯Matthew:25:46| for this interesting phrase so common in the Johannine writings. Plato used \ainios\ for perpetual. See also strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:9|. It comes as nearly meaning "eternal" as the Greek can express that idea.

rwp@Galatians:6:11 @{With how large letters} (\plikois grammasin\). Paul now takes the pen from the amanuensis (cf. strkjv@Romans:16:22|) and writes the rest of the Epistle (verses 11-18|) himself instead of the mere farewell greeting (2Thessalonians:3:17; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:21; strkjv@Colossians:4:18|). But what does he mean by "with how large letters"? Certainly not "how large a letter." It has been suggested that he employed large letters because of defective eyesight or because he could only write ill-formed letters because of his poor handwriting (like the print letters of children) or because he wished to call particular attention to this closing paragraph by placarding it in big letters (Ramsay). This latter is the most likely reason. Deissmann, (_St. Paul_, p. 51) argues that artisans write clumsy letters, yes, and scholars also. Milligan (_Documents_, p. 24; _Vocabulary_, etc.) suggests the contrast seen in papyri often between the neat hand of the scribe and the big sprawling hand of the signature. {I have written} (\egrapsa\). Epistolary aorist. {With mine own hand} (\ti emi cheiri\). Instrumental case as in strkjv@1Corinthians:16:21|.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE PICTURE OF CHRIST At once we are challenged by the bold stand taken by the author concerning the Person of Christ as superior to the prophets of the Old Testament because he is the Son of God through whom God has spoken in the new dispensation (Hebrews:1:1-3|), this Son who is God's Agent in the work of creation and of grace as we see it stated in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11; strkjv@Colossians:1:13-20; strkjv@John:1:1-18|. This high doctrine of Jesus as God's Son with the glory and stamp of God's nature is never lowered, for as God's Son he is superior to angels (Hebrews:1:4-2:4|), though the humanity of Jesus is recognized as one proof of the glory of Jesus (Hebrews:2:5-18|). Jesus is shown to be superior to Moses as God's Son over God's house (Hebrews:3:1-4:13|), But the chief portion of the Epistle is devoted to the superiority of Jesus Christ as priest to the work of Aaron and the whole Levitical line (Hebrews:4:14-12:3|). Here the author with consummate skill, though with rabbinical refinements at times, shows that Jesus is like Melchizedek and so superior to Aaron (Hebrews:4:14-7:28|), works under a better covenant of grace (Hebrews:8:1-13|), works in a better sanctuary which is in heaven (Hebrews:9:1-12|), offers a better sacrifice which is his own blood (Hebrews:9:13-10:18|), and gives us better promises for the fulfilment of his task (Hebrews:10:19-12:3|). Hence this Epistle deserves to be called the Epistle of the Priesthood of Christ. Songs:W. P. Du Bose calls his exposition of the book, _High Priesthood and Sacrifice_ (1908). This conception of Christ as our Priest who offered himself on the Cross and as our Advocate with the Father runs all through the New Testament (Mark:10:46; strkjv@Matthew:20:28; strkjv@John:10:17; strkjv@Matthew:26:28; strkjv@Romans:8:32; strkjv@1Peter:1:18f.; strkjv@1John:2:1f.; strkjv@Revelation:5:9|, etc.). But it is in Hebrews that we have the full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as our Priest and Redeemer. The Glory of Jesus runs through the whole book.

rwp@James:5:15 @{The prayer of faith} (\h euch ts pistes\). Cf. strkjv@1:6| for prayer marked by faith. {Shall save} (\ssei\). Future active of \sz\, to make well. As in strkjv@Matthew:9:21f.; strkjv@Mark:6:56|. No reference here to salvation of the soul. The medicine does not heal the sick, but it helps nature (God) do it. The doctor cooperates with God in nature. {The sick} (\ton kamnonta\). Present active articular participle of \kamn\, old verb, to grow weary (Hebrews:12:3|), to be sick (here), only N.T. examples. {The Lord shall raise him up} (\egerei auton ho kurios\). Future active of \egeir\. Precious promise, but not for a professional "faith-healer" who scoffs at medicine and makes merchandise out of prayer. {And if he have committed sins} (\kan hamartias i pepoiks\). Periphrastic perfect active subjunctive (unusual idiom) with \kai ean\ (crasis \kan\) in condition of third class. Supposing that he has committed sins as many sick people have (Mark:2:5ff.; strkjv@John:5:14; strkjv@9:2f.; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:30|). {It shall be forgiven him} (\aphethsetai auti\). Future passive of \aphimi\ (impersonal passive as in strkjv@Matthew:7:2,7; strkjv@Romans:10:10|). Not in any magical way, not because his sickness has been healed, not without change of heart and turning to God through Christ. Much is assumed here that is not expressed.

rwp@Info_John @ JOHN'S PORTRAIT OF CHRIST No one questions that the Fourth Gospel asserts the deity of Christ. It is in the Prologue at the very start: "And the Word was God" (John:1:1|) and in the correct text of strkjv@John:1:18|, "God only begotten" (\theos monogens\). It occurs repeatedly in the book as in the witness of the Baptist: "This is the Son of God" (John:1:34|). It is in the charge of the Pharisees (John:5:18|) and the claim of Christ himself (John:5:20-23; strkjv@6:48; strkjv@8:12,58; strkjv@11:25; strkjv@14:9; strkjv@17:5|) with the full and frank conviction of the author in strkjv@John:20:31|. He has made good his purpose. He has proven that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. With some critics this purpose has vitiated the entire book. The effort has been made to show that Paul, Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Synoptics give a lower view of Christ without the term \theos\ applied to him. In particular it was once argued that Q, the Logia of Jesus, used by Matthew and Luke (the non-Markan portions in both Matthew and Luke), gives a reduced picture of Jesus as on a lower plane than God, the Arian or Ritschlian view at any rate as answering for God to us though not God in actual nature. But in the Logia of Jesus we find the same essential picture of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man as I have shown in my _The Christ of the Logia_ (1924). The only way to get rid of the deity of Christ in the New Testament is to throw overboard all the books in it as legendary or reflections of late theological development away from the original picture. The very earliest picture drawn of Christ that has been preserved to us, that in the Logia of Jesus (drawn W. M. Ramsay believes before Christ's crucifixion), is in essential agreement with the fully drawn portrait in the Fourth Gospel. Each picture in the Four Gospels adds touches of its own, but the features are the same, those of the God-Man Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. The brilliant blind preacher of Edinburgh, George Matheson, sees this clearly (_Studies in the Portrait of the Messiah_, 1900; _St. John's Portrait of Christ_, 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:1:12 @{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:5:14 @{Findeth him} (\heuriskei auton\). Dramatic present as in strkjv@1:45|, possibly after search as in strkjv@9:35|. {Sin no more} (\mketi hamartane\). "No longer go on sinning." Present active imperative with \mketi\, a clear implication that disease was due to personal sin as is so often the case. Jesus used the same words to the woman taken in adultery in the spurious passage (John:8:11|). He had suffered for 38 years. All sickness is not due to personal sin (9:3|), but much is and nature is a hard paymaster. Jesus is here living up to his name (Matthew:1:21|). {Lest a worse thing befall thee} (\hina m cheiron soi ti gentai\). Negative final clause with second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\. \Cheiron\ is comparative of \kakos\, bad. Worse than the illness of 38 years, bad as that is. He will now be sinning against knowledge.

rwp@John:5:18 @{Sought the more} (\mallon eztoun\). Imperfect active of \zte\, graphic picture of increased and untiring effort "to kill him" (\auton apokteinai\, first aorist active, to kill him off and be done with him). John repeats this clause "they sought to kill him" in strkjv@7:1,19,25; strkjv@8:37,40|. Their own blood was up on this Sabbath issue and they bend every energy to put Jesus to death. If this is a passover, this bitter anger, murderous wrath, will go on and grow for two years. {Not only brake the Sabbath} (\ou monon elue to sabbaton\). Imperfect active of \lu\. He was now a common and regular Sabbath-breaker. \Lu\ means to loosen, to set at naught. The papyri give examples of \lu\ in this sense like \luein ta penth\ (to break the period of mourning). This was the first grudge against Jesus, but his defence had made the offence worse and had given them a far graver charge. {But also called God his own Father} (\alla kai patera idion elege ton theon\). "His own" (\idion\) in a sense not true of others. That is precisely what Jesus meant by "My Father." See strkjv@Romans:8:32| for \ho idios huios\, "his own Son." {Making himself equal with God} (\ison heauton poin ti thei\). \Isos\ is an old common adjective (in papyri also) and means {equal}. In strkjv@Phillipians:2:6| Paul calls the Pre-incarnate Christ \isa thei\, "equal to God" (plural \isa\, attributes of God). Bernard thinks that Jesus would not claim to be \isos thei\ because in strkjv@John:14:28| he says: "The Father is greater than I." And yet he says in strkjv@14:7| that the one who sees him sees in him the Father. Certainly the Jews understood Jesus to claim equality with the Father in nature and privilege and power as also in strkjv@10:33; strkjv@19:7|. Besides, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus on this point, it was open and easy for him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is precisely what he does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defence of his claim to equality with the Father (verses 19-47|).

rwp@John:5:27 @{Because he is the Son of man} (\hoti huios anthrpou estin\). Rather, "because he is a son of man" (note absence of articles and so not as the Messiah), because the judge of men must partake of human nature himself (Westcott). Bernard insists that John is here giving his own reflections rather than the words of Jesus and uses \huios anthrpou\ in the same sense as \ho huios tou anthrpou\ (always in the Gospels used by Jesus of himself). But that in my opinion is a wrong view since we have here ostensibly certainly the words of Jesus himself. Songs:in strkjv@Revelation:1:13; strkjv@4:14| \huion anthrpou\ means "a son of man."

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:1:5 @{There was} (\egeneto\). Not the usual \en\ for "was," but there arose or came into notice. With this verse the literary _Koin_ of verses 1 to 4 disappears. To the end of chapter 2 we have the most Hebraistic (Aramaic) passage in Luke's writings, due evidently to the use of documents or notes of oral tradition. Plummer notes a series of such documents ending with strkjv@1:80, strkjv@2:40, strkjv@2:52|. If the mother of Jesus was still alive, Luke could have seen her. She may have written in Aramaic an account of these great events. Natural reserve would keep her from telling too much and from too early publicity. Luke, as a physician, would take special interest in her birth report. The supernatural aspects disturb only those who do not admit the real Incarnation of Jesus Christ and who are unable to believe that God is superior to nature and that the coming of the Son of God to earth justifies such miraculous manifestations of divine power. Luke tells his story from the standpoint of Mary as Matthew gives his from the standpoint of Joseph. The two supplement each other. We have here the earliest documentary evidence of the origins of Christianity that has come down to us (Plummer). {Herod, King of Judea} (\Hridou basiles ts Ioudaias\). This note of time locates the events before the death of Herod the Great (as he was called later), appointed King of Judea by the Roman Senate B.C. 40 at the suggestion of Octavius and Antony. He died B.C. 4. {Of the course of Abijah} (\ex ephmerias Abia\). Not in old Greek, but in LXX and modern Greek. Papyri have a verb derived from it, \ephmere\. Daily service (Nehemiah:13:30; strkjv@1Chronicles:25:8|) and then a course of priests who were on duty for a week (1Chronicles:23:6; strkjv@28:13|). There were 24 such courses and that of Abijah was the eighth (1Chronicles:24:10; strkjv@2Chronicles:8:14|). Only four of these courses (Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, Harim) returned from Babylon, but these four were divided into twenty-four with the old names. Each of these courses did duty for eight days, sabbath to sabbath, twice a year. On sabbaths the whole course did duty. At the feast of tabernacles all twenty-four courses were present. {Of the daughters of Aaron} (\ek tn thugatern Aarn\). "To be a priest and married to a priest's daughter was a double distinction" (Plummer). Like a preacher married to a preacher's daughter.

rwp@Luke:19:26 @{That hath not} (\tou m echontos\). The present tense of \ech\ here, that keeps on not having, probably approaches the idea of acquiring or getting, the one who keeps on not acquiring. This is the law of nature and of grace.

rwp@Luke:19:40 @{If these shall hold their peace} (\ean houtoi sipsousin\). A condition of the first class, determined as fulfilled. The use of \ean\ rather than \ei\ cuts no figure in the case (see strkjv@Acts:8:31; strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:8; strkjv@1John:5:15|). The kind of condition is determined by the mode which is here indicative. The future tense by its very nature does approximate the aorist subjunctive, but after all it is the indicative. {The stones will cry out} (\hoi lithoi kraxousin\). A proverb for the impossible happening.

rwp@Mark:4:40 @{Why are ye fearful?} (\Ti deiloi este;\). They had the Lord of the wind and the waves with them in the boat. He was still Master even if asleep in the storm. {Have ye not yet faith?} (\Oup echete pistin;\). Not yet had they come to feel that Jesus was really Lord of nature. They had accepted his Messiaship, but all the conclusions from it they had not yet drawn. How like us in our troubles they were!

rwp@Mark:5:26 @{Had suffered many things of many physicians} (\polla pathousa hupo polln iatrn\). A pathetic picture of a woman with a chronic case who had tried doctor after doctor. {Had spent all that she had} (\dapansasa ta par' auts panta\). Having spent the all from herself, all her resources. For the idiom with \para\ see strkjv@Luke:10:7; strkjv@Phillipians:4:18|. The tragedy of it was that she "was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse" (\mden pheltheisa alla mllon eis to cheiron elthousa\). Her money was gone, her disease was gaining on her, her one chance came now with Jesus. Matthew says nothing about her experience with the doctors and strkjv@Luke:8:43| merely says that she "had spent all her living upon physicians and could not be healed of any," a plain chronic case. Luke the physician neatly takes care of the physicians. But they were not to blame. She had a disease that they did not know how to cure. Vincent quotes a prescription for an issue of blood as given in the Talmud which gives one a most grateful feeling that he is not under the care of doctors of that nature. The only parallel today is Chinese medicine of the old sort before modern medical schools came.

rwp@Mark:6:13 @{They cast out many demons and they anointed with oil} (\exeballon kai leiphon elaii\). Imperfect tenses, continued repetition. Alone in Mark. This is the only example in the N.T. of \aleiph elaii\ used in connection with healing save in strkjv@James:5:14|. In both cases it is possible that the use of oil (olive oil) as a medicine is the basis of the practice. See strkjv@Luke:10:34| for pouring oil and wine upon the wounds. It was the best medicine of the ancients and was used internally and externally. It was employed often after bathing. The papyri give a number of examples of it. The only problem is whether \aleiph\ in Mark and James is used wholly in a ritualistic and ceremonial sense or partly as medicine and partly as a symbol of divine healing. The very word \aleiph\ can be translated rub or anoint without any ceremony. "Traces of a ritual use of the unction of the sick appear first among Gnostic practices of the second century" (Swete). We have today, as in the first century, God and medicine. God through nature does the real healing when we use medicine and the doctor.

rwp@Mark:6:44 @{Men} (\andres\). Men as different from women as in strkjv@Matthew:14:21|. This remarkable miracle is recorded by all Four Gospels, a nature miracle that only God can work. No talk about accelerating natural processes will explain this miracle. And three eyewitnesses report it: the Logia of Matthew, the eyes of Peter in Mark, the witness of John the Beloved Disciple (Gould). The evidence is overwhelming.

rwp@Mark:6:52 @{For they understood not} (\ou gar sunkan\). Explanation of their excessive amazement, viz., their failure to grasp the full significance of the miracle of the loaves and fishes, a nature miracle. Here was another, Jesus walking on the water. Their reasoning process (\kardia\ in the general sense for all the inner man) {was hardened} (\n peprmen\). See on ¯3:5| about \prsis\. Today some men have such intellectual hardness or denseness that they cannot believe that God can or would work miracles, least of all nature miracles.

rwp@Mark:7:36 @{Songs:much the more a great deal they published it} (\autoi mllon perissoteron ekrusson\). Imperfect tense, continued action. Double comparative as occurs elsewhere for emphasis as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:23| "much more better" (\polli mllon kreisson\). See Robertson's _Grammar_, pp. 663f. Human nature is a peculiar thing. The command not to tell provoked these people to tell just as the leper had done (Mark:1:44f.|). The more Jesus commanded (\hoson autois diestelleto\) them not to tell the more they told. It was a continuous performance. Prohibitions always affect some people that way, especially superficial and light-headed folks. But we have to have prohibitions or anarchy.

rwp@Mark:8:1 @{Had nothing to eat} (\m echontn ti phagsin\). Genitive absolute and plural because \ochlou\ a collective substantive. Not having what to eat (deliberative subjunctive retained in indirect question). The repetition of a nature miracle of feeding four thousand in Decapolis disturbs some modern critics who cannot imagine how Jesus could or would perform another miracle elsewhere so similar to the feeding of the five thousand up near Bethsaida Julias. But both Mark and Matthew give both miracles, distinguish the words for baskets (\kophinos, sphuris\), and both make Jesus later refer to both incidents and use these two words with the same distinction (Mark:8:19f.; strkjv@Matthew:16:9f.|). Surely it is easier to conceive that Jesus wrought two such miracles than to hold that Mark and Matthew have made such a jumble of the whole business.

rwp@Matthew:18:4 @{This little child} (\to paidion touto\). This saying about humbling oneself Jesus repeated a number of times as for instance in strkjv@Matthew:23:12|. Probably Jesus pointed to the child by his side. The ninth-century story that the child was Ignatius is worthless. It is not that the child humbled himself, but that the child is humble from the nature of the case in relation to older persons. That is true, however "bumptious" the child himself may be. Bruce observes that to humble oneself is "the most difficult thing in the world for saint as for sinner."

rwp@Revelation:4:6 @{As it were a glassy sea} (\hs thalassa hualin\). Old adjective (from \hualos\, glass, strkjv@21:18,21|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@15:2|. Possibly from \huei\ (it rains), like a raindrop. At any rate here it is the appearance, not the material. Glass was made in Egypt 4,000 years ago. In strkjv@Exodus:24:10| the elders see under the feet of God in the theophany a paved work of sapphire stone (cf. strkjv@Ezekiel:1:26|). The likeness of the appearance of sky to sea suggests the metaphor here (Beckwith). {Like crystal} (\homoia krustalli\). Associative-instrumental case after \homoia\. Old word, from \kruos\ (ice and sometimes used for ice), in N.T. only here and strkjv@22:1|, not semi-opaque, but clear like rock-crystal. {In the midst of the throne} (\en mesi tou thronou\). As one looks from the front, really before. {Round about the throne} (\kukli tou thronou\). Merely an adverb in the locative case (Romans:15:19|), as a preposition in N.T. only here, strkjv@5:11; strkjv@7:11|. This seems to mean that on each of the four sides of the throne was one of the four living creatures either stationary or moving rapidly round (Ezekiel:1:12f.|). {Four living creatures} (\tessera za\). Not \thria\ (beasts), but living creatures. Certainly kin to the \za\ of strkjv@Ezekiel:1; 2| which are cherubim (Ezekiel:10:2,20|), though here the details vary as to faces and wings with a significance of John's own, probably representing creation in contrast with the redeemed (the elders). {Full of eyes} (\gemonta ophthalmn\). Present active participle of \gem\, to be full of, with the genitive, signifying here unlimited intelligence (Beckwith), the ceaseless vigilance of nature (Swete).

rwp@Revelation:4:7 @{Like a lion} (\homoion leonti\). Associative-instrumental case again. In Ezekiel:(1:6,10|) each \zon\ has four faces, but here each has a different face. "The four forms represent whatever is noblest, strongest, wisest, and swiftest in nature" (Swete). But it is not necessary to try to find a symbolism in each face here like the early baseless identification with the Four Evangelists (the lion for Mark, the man for Matthew, the calf for Luke, the eagle for John). \Moschos\ is first a sprout, then the young of animals, then a calf (bullock or heifer) as in strkjv@Luke:15:23, 27,30|, or a full-grown ox (Ezekiel:1:10|). {Had} (\echn\). Masculine singular (some MSS. \echon\ neuter singular agreeing with \zon\) present active participle of \ech\, changing the construction with the \triton zon\ almost like a finite verb as in verse 8|. {A face as of a man} (\prospon hs anthrpou\). Shows that the likeness in each instance extended only to the face. {Like an eagle flying} (\homoion aeti petomeni\). Present middle participle of \petomai\, to fly, old verb, in N.T. only in strkjv@Revelation:4:7; strkjv@8:13; strkjv@12:14; strkjv@14:6; strkjv@19:17|. The \aetos\ in strkjv@Matthew:24:28; strkjv@Luke:17:37| may be a form of vulture going after carrion, but not in strkjv@Revelation:8:13; strkjv@12:14|.

rwp@Revelation:4:8 @{Each one of them} (\hen kath' hen autn\). "One by one of them," a vernacular idiom like \heis kata heis\ in strkjv@Mark:14:19|. {Having} (\echn\). Masculine participle again as in verse 7|, though \zon\ neuter. {Six wings} (\ana pterugas hex\). Distributive use of \ana\, "six wings apiece" as in strkjv@Luke:10:1| (\ana duo\, by twos). Like strkjv@Isaiah:6:2|, not like strkjv@Ezekiel:1:6|, where only four wings are given apiece. {Are full of} (\gemousin\). Plural verb, though \za\ neuter, to individualize each one. {Round about and within} (\kuklothen kai esthen\). Perhaps before and behind (4:6|) and under the wings, "pointing to the secret energies of nature" (Swete). {Rest} (\anapausin\). See also strkjv@14:11|. Old word (from \anapau\, to relax), as in strkjv@Matthew:11:29|. God and Christ cease not their activity (John:5:17|). "This ceaseless activity of nature under the hand of God is a ceaseless tribute of praise" (Swete). {Day and night} (\hmeras kai nuktos\). Genitive of time, by day and by night. {Holy, holy, holy} (\hagios, hagios, hagios\). "The task of the Cherubim together with the Seraphim and Ophannim is to sing the praises of God" (Charles) in the \trisagion\ (triple repetition of \hagios\). {Is the Lord God} (\Kurios ho theos\). See strkjv@Isaiah:6:3|. The copula \estin\ (is) is not expressed, but is implied. {The Almighty} (\ho pantokratr\). See on ¯1:8|. {Which was and which is and which is to come} (\ho n kai ho n kai ho erchomenos\). Just as in strkjv@1:4,8|, but with the order changed.

rwp@Revelation:6:6 @{As it were a voice} (\hs phnn\). "This use of \hs\, giving a certain vagueness or mysteriousness to a phrase, is one of the characteristics of the writer's style, e.g., strkjv@8:1; strkjv@14:3; strkjv@19:1,6|" (Beckwith). This voice comes from the midst of the four living creatures, "the protest of nature against the horrors of famine" (Swete). {A measure} (\choinix\). Old word for less than a quart with us, here only in N.T. {Of wheat} (\sitou\). Old word for wheat, a number of times in N.T., in Rev. only here and strkjv@18:13|. This was enough wheat to keep a man of moderate appetite alive for a day. {For a penny} (\dnariou\). Genitive of price, the wages of a day laborer (Matthew:20:2|), about eighteen cents in our money today. {Of barley} (\krithn\). Old word \krith\, usually in plural as here. Barley was the food of the poor and it was cheaper even in the famine and it took more of it to support life. Here the proportion is three to one (cf. strkjv@2Kings:7:18|). The proclamation forbids famine prices for food (solid and liquid). {Hurt thou not} (\m adiksis\). Prohibition with \m\ and the ingressive first aorist active subjunctive of \adike\. See strkjv@7:3; strkjv@9:4| for \adike\ for injury to vegetable life. "The prohibition is addressed to the nameless rider who represents Dearth" (Swete). Wheat and barley, oil and the vine, were the staple foods in Palestine and Asia Minor.