OT-POET.filter - rwp rich:

rwp@1Corinthians:4:8 @{Already are ye filled?} (\d kekoresmenoi este?\). Perfect passive indicative, state of completion, of \korennumi\, old Greek verb to satiate, to satisfy. The only other example in N.T. is strkjv@Acts:27:38| which see. Paul may refer to strkjv@Deuteronomy:31:20; strkjv@32:15|. But it is keen irony, even sarcasm. Westcott and Hort make it a question and the rest of the sentence also. {Already ye are become rich} (\d eploutsate\). Note change to ingressive aorist indicative of \ploute\, old verb to be rich (cf. strkjv@2Corinthians:8:9|). "The aorists, used instead of perfects, imply indecent haste" (Lightfoot). "They have got a private millennium of their own" (Robertson & Plummer) with all the blessings of the Messianic Kingdom (Luke:22:29f.; strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:12; strkjv@2Timothy:2:12|). {Ye have reigned without us} (\chris hmn ebasileusate\). Withering sarcasm. Ye became kings without our company. Some think that Paul as in strkjv@3:21| is purposely employing Stoic phraseology though with his own meanings. If so, it is hardly consciously done. Paul was certainly familiar with much of the literature of his time, but it did not shape his ideas. {I would that ye did reign} (\kai ophelon ge ebasileusate\). More exactly, "And would at least that ye had come to reign (or become kings)." It is an unfulfilled wish about the past expressed by \ophelon\ and the aorist indicative instead of \ei gar\ and the aorist indicative (the ancient idiom). See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1003, for the construction with particle \ophelon\ (an unaugmented second aorist form). {That we also might reign with you} (\hina kai hmeis humin sunbasileusmen\). Ironical contrast to \chris hmn ebasileusate\, just before. Associative instrumental case of \humin\ after \sun-\.

rwp@2Corinthians:12:9 @{He hath said} (\eirken\). Perfect active indicative, as if a final word. Paul probably still has the thorn in his flesh and needs this word of Christ. {Is sufficient} (\arkei\). Old word of rich meaning, perhaps kin to Latin _arceo_, to ward off against danger. Christ's grace suffices and abides. {Is perfected} (\teleitai\). Present passive indicative of \tele\, to finish. It is linear in idea. Power is continually increased as the weakness grows. See strkjv@Phillipians:4:13| for this same noble conception. The human weakness opens the way for more of Christ's power and grace. {Most gladly rather} (\hdista mallon\). Two adverbs, one superlative (\hdista\), one comparative (\mallon\). "Rather" than ask any more (thrice already) for the removal of the thorn or splinter "most gladly will I glory in my weaknesses." Slowly Paul had learned this supreme lesson, but it will never leave him (Romans:5:2; strkjv@2Timothy:4:6-8|). {May rest upon me} (\episknsi ep' eme\). Late and rare verb in first aorist active subjunctive with \hina\ (final clause), to fix a tent upon, here upon Paul himself by a bold metaphor, as if the Shechinah of the Lord was overshadowing him (cf. strkjv@Luke:9:34|), the power (\dunamis\) of the Lord Jesus.

rwp@2Peter:1:11 @{Thus} (\houts\). As shown in verse 10|. {Shall be supplied} (\epichorgthsetai\). Future passive of \epichorge\, for which see verse 5|. You supply the virtues above and God will supply the entrance (\h eisodos\, old word already in strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:9|, etc.). {Richly} (\plousis\). See strkjv@Colossians:3:16| for this adverb. {Into the eternal kingdom} (\eis tn ainion basileian\). The believer's inheritance of strkjv@1Peter:1:4| is here termed kingdom, but "eternal" (\ainion\ feminine same as masculine). Curiously again in the Stratonicea inscription we find \ts ainiou archs\ (of the eternal rule) applied to "the lords of Rome." But this is the spiritual reign of God in men's hearts here on earth (1Peter:2:9|) and in heaven. {Of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ} (\tou kuriou hmn kai stros Isou Christou\). For which idiom see on ¯1:1|.

rwp@Acts:13:11 @{Upon thee} (\epi se\). The use of \epi\ with the accusative is rich and varied, the precise shade of meaning depending on the content. The "hand of the Lord" might be kindly (Acts:11:21|) or hostile (Hebrews:10:31|), but when God's hand touches one's life (Job:19:21|) it may be in judgment as here with Elymas. He has not humbled himself under the mighty hand of God (1Peter:5:6|). {Not seeing} (\m blepn\). Repeating with negative participle the negative idea in "blind" (\tuphlos\). "It was a judicial infliction; blindness for blindness, darkness without for wilful darkness within" (Furneaux). He was an example of the blind leading the blind that was to cease and Sergius Paulus was to be led into the light. The blindness was to be "for a season" (\achri kairou\, strkjv@Luke:4:13|), if it should please God to restore his sight. Paul apparently recalls his own blindness as he entered Damascus. {A mist} (\achlus\). Especially a dimness of the eyes, old poetic word and late prose, in LXX, only here in N.T. Galen uses it of the opacity of the eye caused by a wound. {He went about seeking some one to lead him by the hand} (\periagn eztei cheiraggous\). A rather free rendering. Literally, "going about (\periagn\, present active participle of \periag\) he was seeking (\eztei\, imperfect active of \zte\) guides (\cheiraggous\, from \cheir\, hand, and \aggos\, guide, from \ag\, one who leads by the hand)." The very verb \cheiragge\, to lead by the hand, Luke uses of Paul in strkjv@9:8|, as he entered Damascus.

rwp@Ephesians:3:8 @{Unto me who am less than the least of all saints} (\emoi ti elachistoteri pantn hagin\). Dative case \emoi\ with \eloth\. The peculiar form \elachistoteri\ (in apposition with \emoi\) is a comparative (\-teros\) formed on the superlative \elachistos\. This sort of thing was already done in the older Greek like \eschatoteros\ in Xenophon. It became more common in the _Koin_. Songs:the double comparative \meizoteran\ in strkjv@3John:1:4|. The case of \hagin\ is ablative. This was not mock humility (15:19|), for on occasion Paul stood up for his rights as an apostle (2Corinthians:11:5|). {The unsearchable riches of Christ} (\to anexichniaston ploutos tou Christou\). \Anexichniastos\ (\a\ privative and verbal of \exichniaz\, to track out, \ex\ and \ichnos\, track) appears first in strkjv@Job:5:9; strkjv@9:10|. Paul apparently got it from Job. Nowhere else in N.T. except strkjv@Romans:11:33|. In later Christian writers. Paul undertook to track out the untrackable in Christ.

rwp@Ephesians:3:16 @{That he would grant you} (\hina di humin\). Sub-final clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \didmi\, to give. There are really five petitions in this greatest of all Paul's prayers (one already in strkjv@1:16-23|), two by the infinitives after \hina di\ (\krataithnai, katoiksai\), two infinitives after \hina exischuste\ (\katalabesthai, gnnai\), and the last clause \hina plrthte\. Nowhere does Paul sound such depths of spiritual emotion or rise to such heights of spiritual passion as here. The whole seems to be coloured with "the riches of His glory." {That ye may be strengthened} (\krataithnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \krataio\, late and rare (LXX, N.T.) from \krataios\, late form from \kratos\ (strength). See strkjv@Luke:1:80|. Paul adds \dunamei\ (with the Spirit). Instrumental case. {In the inward man} (\eis ton es anthrpon\). Same expression in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:16| (in contrast with the outward \ex\, man) and in strkjv@Romans:7:22|.

rwp@James:1:11 @{Ariseth} (\aneteilen\). Gnomic or timeless aorist active indicative of the old compound \anatell\, used here of plants (cf. \anathall\ in strkjv@Phillipians:4:10|), often of the sun (Matthew:13:6|). {With the scorching wind} (\sun ti kausni\). Associative instrumental case with \sun\. In the LXX this late word (from \kausos\) is usually the sirocco, the dry east wind from the desert (Job:1:19|). In strkjv@Matthew:20:12; strkjv@Luke:12:55| it is the burning heat of the sun. Either makes sense here. {Withereth} (\exranen\). Another gnomic aorist active indicative (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 837) of \xrain\, old verb (from \xros\, dry or withered, strkjv@Matthew:12:10|), to dry up. Grass and flowers are often used to picture the transitoriness of human life. {Falleth} (\exepesen\). Another gnomic aorist (second aorist active indicative) of \ekpipt\ to fall out (off). {The grace} (\h euprepeia\). Old word (from \eupreps\ well-looking, not in the N.T.), only here in N.T. Goodly appearance, beauty. {Of the fashion of it} (\tou prospou autou\). "Of the face of it." The flower is pictured as having a "face," like a rose or lily. {Perisheth} (\apleto\). Another gnomic aorist (second aorist middle indicative of \apollumi\, to destroy, but intransitive here, to perish). The beautiful rose is pitiful when withered. {Shall fade away} (\maranthsetai\). Future passive indicative of \marain\, old verb, to extinguish a flame, a light. Used of roses in Wisdom strkjv@2:8. {Goings} (\poreiais\). Old word from \poreu\ to journey, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:13:22| (of Christ's journey toward Jerusalem). The rich man's travels will come to "journey's end."

rwp@James:2:2 @{For} (\gar\). An illustration of the prohibition. {If there come in} (\ean eiselthi\). Condition of third class (supposable case) with \ean\ and second (ingressive) aorist active subjunctive of \eiserchomai\. {Into your synagogue} (\eis sunaggn humn\). The common word for the gathering of Jews for worship (Luke:12:11|) and particularly for the building where they met (Luke:4:15,20,28|, etc.). Here the first is the probable meaning as it clearly is in strkjv@Hebrews:10:25| (\tn episunaggn heautn\), where the longer compound occurs. It may seem a bit odd for a Christian church (\ekklsia\) to be termed \sunagg\, but James is writing to Jewish Christians and this is another incidental argument for the early date. Epiphanius (_Haer_. XXX. 18) states that the Ebionites call their church \sunagg\, not \ekklsia\. In the fourth century an inscription has \sunagg\ for the meeting-house of certain Christians. {A man with a gold ring} (\anr chrusodaktulios\). "A gold-fingered man," "wearing a gold ring." The word occurs nowhere else, but Lucian has \chrusocheir\ (gold-handed) and Epictetus has \chrusous daktulious\ (golden seal-rings). "Hannibal, after the battle of Cannae, sent as a great trophy to Carthage, three bushels of gold-rings from the fingers of Roman knights slain in battle" (Vincent). {In fine clothing} (\en esthti lampri\). "In bright (brilliant) clothing" as in strkjv@Luke:23:11; strkjv@Acts:10:30; strkjv@Revelation:18:41|. In contrast with "vile clothing" (\en rupari esthti\), "new glossy clothes and old shabby clothes" (Hort). \Ruparos\ (late word from \rupos\, filth, strkjv@1Peter:3:21|) means filthy, dirty. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:22:11| (filthy). {Poor man} (\ptchos\). Beggarly mendicant (Matthew:19:21|), the opposite of \plousios\ (rich).

rwp@James:2:5 @{Did not God choose?} (\ouch ho theos exelexato;\). Affirmative answer expected. First aorist middle (indirect, God chose for himself) indicative of \ekleg\, the very form used by Paul three times of God's choice in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:27f|. {As to the world} (\ti kosmi\). The ethical dative of interest, as the world looks at it as in strkjv@Acts:7:20; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:18; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:4; strkjv@James:4:4|. By the use of the article (the poor) James does not affirm that God chose all the poor, but only that he did choose poor people (Matthew:10:23-26; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26-28|). {Rich in faith} (\plousious en pistei\). Rich because of their faith. As he has shown in strkjv@1:9f|. {Which he promised} (\hs epeggeilato\). Genitive of the accusative relative \hn\ attracted to the case of the antecedent \basileias\ (the Messianic kingdom), the same verb and idea already in strkjv@1:12| (\epggeilato\). Cf. the beatitude of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:5:3| for the poor in spirit.

rwp@James:2:6 @{But ye have dishonoured the poor man} (\humeis de timasate ton ptchon\). First aorist active indicative of \atimaz\, old verb from \atimos\, dishonoured (Matthew:13:57|). In the act of partiality pictured in strkjv@2:3|. {Oppress you} (\katadunasteuousin humn\). Not very common compound (\katadunasteu\, present active indicative, from \kata\ and \dunasts\, potentate, strkjv@Luke:1:52|), used of the devil in strkjv@Acts:10:38| (only other N.T. example). Examples in papyri of harsh treatment by men in authority. Already poor Christians are feeling pressure from rich Jews as overlords. {Drag you} (\helkousin humas\). Old and vigorous word for violent treatment, as of Paul in strkjv@Acts:16:19; strkjv@21:30|. Cf. such violence in strkjv@Luke:12:58; strkjv@Acts:8:3|. {Before the judgment-seats} (\eis kritria\). "To courts of justice" as in strkjv@1Corinthians:6:2,4| (only other N.T. examples). Common in the papyri in this sense. From \krin\ to judge, \krits\ (judge), place where judgment is given.

rwp@James:5:2 @{Riches} (\ho ploutos\). Masculine singular, but occasionally neuter \to ploutos\ in nominative and accusative (2Corinthians:8:2|). Apparently \pleotos\ fulness (from \pleos\ full, \pimplmi\ to fill). "Wealth." {Are corrupted} (\sespen\). Second perfect active indicative of \sp\ (root \sap\ as in \sapros\, rotten), to corrupt, to destroy, here intransitive "has rotted." Only here in N.T. On the worthlessness of mere wealth see strkjv@Matthew:6:19,24|. {Were moth-eaten} (\stobrta gegonen\). "Have become (second perfect indicative of \ginomai\, singular number, though \himatia\, neuter plural, treated collectively) moth-eaten" (\stobrta\, late and rare compound from \ss\, moth, strkjv@Matthew:6:19f.| and \brtos\, verbal adjective of \bibrsk\ to eat strkjv@John:6:13|. This compound found only here, strkjv@Job:13:28|, Sibyll. Orac. _Proem_. 64). Rich robes as heirlooms, but moth-eaten. Vivid picture. Witness the 250 "lost millionaires" in the United States in 1931 as compared with 1929. Riches have wings.

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 DIFFERENT STYLE OF TEACHING Songs:different is it in fact that some men bluntly assert that Jesus could not have spoken in the same fashion as presented in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel. Such critics need to recall the Socrates of Xenophon's _Memorabilia_ and of Plato's _Dialogues_. There is a difference beyond a doubt, but there is also some difference in the reports in the Synoptics. Jesus for the most part spoke in Aramaic, sometimes in Greek, as to the great crowds from around Palestine (the Sermon on the Mount, for instance). There is the Logia of Jesus (Q of criticism) preserved in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke besides Mark, and the rest of Matthew and Luke. Certain natural individualities are preserved. The difference is greater in the Fourth Gospel, because John writes in the ripeness of age and in the richness of his long experience. He gives his reminiscences mellowed by long reflection and yet with rare dramatic power. The simplicity of the language leads many to think that they understand this Gospel when they fail to see the graphic pictures as in chapters strkjv@John:7-11|. The book fairly throbs with life. There is, no doubt, a Johannine style here, but curiously enough there exists in the Logia (Q) a genuine Johannine passage written long before the Fourth Gospel (Matthew:11:25-30; strkjv@Luke:10:21-24|). The use of "the Father" and "the Son" is thoroughly Johannine. It is clear that Jesus used the Johannine type of teaching also. Perhaps critics do not make enough allowance for the versatility and variety in Jesus.

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:11:55 @{Was near} (\n eggus\). See strkjv@2:13| for the same phrase. This last passover was the time of destiny for Jesus. {Before the passover to purify themselves} (\pro tou pascha hina hagnissin heautous\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \hagniz\, old verb from \hagnos\ (pure), ceremonial purification here, of course. All this took time. These came "from the country" (\ek ts chras\), from all over Palestine, from all parts of the world, in fact. John shifts the scene to Jerusalem just before the passover with no record of the way that Jesus came to Jerusalem from Ephraim. The Synoptic Gospels tell this last journey up through Samaria into Galilee to join the great caravan that crossed over into Perea and came down on the eastern side of the Jordan opposite Jericho and then marched up the mountain road to Bethany and Bethphage just beside Jerusalem. This story is found in strkjv@Luke:17:11-19:28; strkjv@Mark:10:1-52; strkjv@Matthew:19:1-20:34|. John simply assumes the Synoptic narrative and gives the picture of things in and around Jerusalem just before the passover (11:56,57|).

rwp@Luke:8:18 @{How ye hear} (\ps akouete\). The manner of hearing. strkjv@Mark:4:24| has "what ye hear" (\ti akouete\), the matter that is heard. Both are supremely important. Some things should not be heard at all. Some that are heard should be forgotten. Others should be treasured and practised. {For whosoever hath} (\Hosea:an gar echi\). Present active subjunctive of the common verb \ech\ which may mean "keep on having" or "acquiring." See on ¯Mark:4:25| for discussion. {Thinketh he hath} (\dokei echein\), or {seems to acquire or to hold}. Losses in business illustrate this saying as when we see their riches take wings and fly away. Songs:it is with hearing and heeding. Self-deception is a common complaint.

rwp@Luke:18:23 @{Became} (\egenth\). First aorist passive indicative of \ginomai\. Like his countenance fell (\stugnasas\), in strkjv@Mark:10:22|. {Exceedingly sorrowful} (\perilupos\). Old adjective (\peri, lup\) with perfective use of \peri\. {Very rich} (\plousios sphodra\). Rich exceedingly. Today, a multimillionaire.

rwp@Luke:18:35 @{Unto Jericho} (\eis Iereich\). See on ¯Matthew:20:29; strkjv@Mark:10:46|, for discussion of the two Jerichos in Mark and Matt. (the old and the new as here). {Begging} (\epaitn\). Asking for something. He probably was by the wayside between the old Jericho and the new Roman Jericho. Mark gives his name Bartimaeus (10:46|). strkjv@Matthew:20:30| mentions two.

rwp@Luke:19:1 @{Was passing through} (\dircheto\). Imperfect middle. Now Jesus was inside the Roman Jericho with the procession.

rwp@Luke:19:2 @{Chief publican} (\architelns\). The word occurs nowhere else apparently but the meaning is clear from the other words with \archi-\ like \archiereus\ (chief priest) \archipoimn\ (chief shepherd). Jericho was an important trading point for balsam and other things and so Zacchaeus was the head of the tax collections in this region, a sort of commissioner of taxes who probably had other publicans serving under him.

rwp@Luke:19:7 @{Murmured} (\diegogguzonto\). Imperfect middle of this compound onomatopoetic word \dia-gogguz\. In strkjv@Luke:5:30| we have the simple \gogguz\, a late word like the cooing doves or the hum of bees. This compound with \dia-\ is still rarer, but more expressive. {To lodge} (\katalusai\). Jesus was the hero of this crowd from Galilee on their way to the passover. But here he had shocked their sensibilities and those of the people of Jericho by inviting himself to be the guest of this chief publican and notorious sinner who had robbed nearly everybody in the city by exorbitant taxes.

rwp@Luke:20:45 @{In the hearing of all the people} (\akouontos pantos tou laou\). Genitive absolute, "while all the people were listening" (present active participle). That is the time to speak. The details in this verse and verse 47| are precisely those given in strkjv@Mark:12:38f.|, which see for discussion of details. strkjv@Matthew:23:1-39| has a very full and rich description of this last phase of the debate in the temple where Jesus drew a full-length portrait of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and scribes in their presence. It was a solemn climax to this last public appearance of Christ in the temple when Jesus poured out the vials of his indignation as he had done before (Matthew:16:2; strkjv@Luke:11:37-54; 12-1|).

rwp@Luke:21:1 @{And he looked up} (\Anablepsas de\). He had taken his seat, after the debate was over and the Sanhedrin had slunk away in sheer defeat, "over against the treasury" (Mark:12:41|). The word for "treasury" (\gazophulakion\) is a compound of \gaza\ (Persian word for royal treasury) and \phulak\ guard or protection. It is common in the LXX, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:12:41,43; strkjv@John:8:20|. Jesus was watching (Mark:12:41|) the rich put in their gifts as a slight diversion from the intense strain of the hours before.

rwp@Mark:6:56 @{Wheresoever he entered} (\hopou an eiseporeueto\). The imperfect indicative with \an\ used to make a general indefinite statement with the relative adverb. See the same construction at the close of the verse, \hosoi an hpsanto auton\ (aorist indicative and \an\ in a relative clause), {as many as touched him}. One must enlarge the details here to get an idea of the richness of the healing ministry of Jesus. We are now near the close of the Galilean ministry with its many healing mercies and excitement is at the highest pitch (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:6:9 @{After this manner therefore pray ye} (\houts oun proseuchesthe humeis\). "You" expressed in contrast with "the Gentiles." It should be called "The Model Prayer" rather than "The Lord's Prayer." "Thus" pray as he gives them a model. He himself did not use it as a liturgy (cf. strkjv@John:17|). There is no evidence that Jesus meant it for liturgical use by others. In strkjv@Luke:11:2-4| practically the same prayer though briefer is given at a later time by Jesus to the apostles in response to a request that he teach them how to pray. McNeile argues that the form in Luke is the original to which Matthew has made additions: "The tendency of liturgical formulas is towards enrichment rather than abbreviation." But there is no evidence whatever that Jesus designed it as a set formula. There is no real harm in a liturgical formula if one likes it, but no one sticks to just one formula in prayer. There is good and not harm in children learning and saying this noble prayer. Some people are disturbed over the words "Our Father" and say that no one has a right to call God Father who has not been "born again." But that is to say that an unconverted sinner cannot pray until he is converted, an absurd contradiction. God is the Father of all men in one sense; the recognition of Him as the Father in the full sense is the first step in coming back to him in regeneration and conversion.

rwp@Matthew:20:29 @{From Jericho} (\apo Iereich\). Songs:Mark:10:46|. But Luke (Luke:18:35|) places the incident as they were drawing near to Jericho (\eis Iereich\). It is probable that Mark and Matthew refer to the old Jericho, the ruins of which have been discovered, while Luke alludes to the new Roman Jericho. The two blind men were apparently between the two towns. Mark (Mark:10:46|) and Luke (Luke:18:35|) mention only one blind man, Bartimaeus (Mark). In Kentucky there are two towns about a half mile apart both called Pleasureville (one Old Pleasureville, the other New Pleasureville).

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

rwp@Revelation:9:8 @{They had} (\eichan\). Imperfect active, late form as in strkjv@Mark:8:7| in place of the usual \eichon\. {As hair of women} (\hs trichas gunaikn\). That is long hair (1Corinthians:11:15|), with no reference to matters of sex at all, for \anthrpn\ just before is used, not \andrn\ (men as distinct from women). Perhaps the antennae of the locust were unusually long. {As the teeth of lions} (\hs leontn\). Supply \hoi odontes\ (the teeth) before \leontn\. See strkjv@Joel:1:6|. The locust is voracious.