OT-POET.filter - rwp suit:

rwp@1Corinthians:6:1 @{Dare any of you?} (\tolmi tis humn;\). Does any one of you dare? Rhetorical question with present indicative of \tolma\, old verb from \tolma\, daring. Bengel: _grandi verbo notatur laesa majestas Christianorum_. "The word is an argument in itself" (Robertson and Plummer). Apparently Paul has an actual case in mind as in chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:5| though no name is called. {Having a matter against his neighbour} (\pragma echn pros ton heteron\). Forensic sense of \pragma\ (from \prass\, to do, to exact, to extort as in strkjv@Luke:3:13|), a case, a suit (Demosthenes 1020, 26), with the other or the neighbour as in strkjv@10:24; strkjv@14:17; strkjv@Galatians:6:4; strkjv@Romans:2:1|. {Go to law} (\krinesthai\). Present middle or passive (ch. strkjv@Romans:3:4|) in the same forensic sense as \krithnai\ in strkjv@Matthew:5:40|. \Krits\, judge, is from this verb. {Before the unrighteous} (\epi tn adikn\). This use of \epi\ with the genitive for "in the presence of" is idiomatic as in strkjv@2Corinthians:7:14|, \epi Titou\, in the case of Titus. The Jews held that to bring a lawsuit before a court of idolaters was blasphemy against the law. But the Greeks were fond of disputatious lawsuits with each other. Probably the Greek Christians brought cases before pagan judges.

rwp@1Corinthians:6:7 @{Nay, already it is altogether a defect among you} (\d men oun hols httma humin estin\). "Indeed therefore there is to you already (to begin with, \d\, before any question of courts) wholly defeat." \Httma\ (from \httaomai\) is only here, strkjv@Romans:11:12; strkjv@Isaiah:31:8| and ecclesiastical writers. See \httaomai\ (from \httn\, less) in strkjv@2Corinthians:12:13; strkjv@2Peter:2:19f.| \Nik\ was victory and \htta\ defeat with the Greeks. It is defeat for Christians to have lawsuits (\krimata\, usually decrees or judgments) with one another. This was proof of the failure of love and forgiveness (Colossians:3:13|). {Take wrong} (\adikeisthe\). Present middle indicative, of old verb \adike\ (from \adikos\, not right). Better undergo wrong yourself than suffer {defeat} in the matter of love and forgiveness of a brother. {Be defrauded} (\apostereisthe\). Permissive middle again like \adikeisthe\. Allow yourselves to be robbed (old verb to deprive, to rob) rather than have a lawsuit.

rwp@1Thessalonians:3:3 @{That no man be moved} (\to mdena sainesthai\). Epexegetical articular infinitive in accusative case of general reference. \Sain\ is old word to wag the tail, to flatter, beguile and this sense suits here (only N.T. example). The sense of "moved" or troubled or disheartened is from \siainesthai\ the reading of F G and found in the papyri. {We are appointed} (\keimetha\). Present middle, used here as passive of \tithmi\. We Christians are set {hereunto} (\eis touto\) to be beguiled by tribulations. We must resist.

rwp@2Corinthians:13:2 @{As when I was present the second time} (\hs parn to deuteron\). This translation assumes the second visit as already made. It is a natural way to take the Greek \hs parn\. But \hs\ with \parn\ can also mean "as if present" the second time (Authorized Version). Probably "as when" is the more natural rendering, but the other cannot be ruled entirely out in view of strkjv@1:15-23|. {If I come again} (\ean elth eis to palin\). Condition of third class. The use of \palin\ of itself suits the idea that Paul had not yet made the second visit as it means simply "again" or "back," but in strkjv@Matthew:26:44| we find \palin ek tritou\ (again a third time) and so it is not decisive.

rwp@Info_2John @ SECOND JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There is little to add to what was said about the First Epistle except that here the author terms himself "the elder" (\ho presbuteros\) and writes to "the elect lady" (\eklekti kurii\). There is dispute about both of these titles. Some hold that it is the mythical "presbyter John" of whom Papias may speak, if so understood, but whose very existence is disproved by Dom Chapman in _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). Peter the apostle (1Peter:1:1|) calls himself "fellow-elder" (\sunpresbuteros\) with the other elders (1Peter:5:1|). The word referred originally to age (Luke:15:25|), then to rank or office as in the Sanhedrin (Matthew:16:21; strkjv@Acts:6:12|) and in the Christian churches (Acts:11:30; strkjv@20:17; strkjv@1Timothy:5:17,19|) as here also. A few even deny that the author is the same as in the First Epistle of John, but just an imitator. But the bulk of modern scholarly opinion agrees that the same man wrote all three Epistles and the Fourth Gospel (the Beloved Disciple, and many still say the Apostle John) whatever is true of the Apocalypse. There is no way of deciding whether "the elect lady" is a woman or a church. The obvious way of taking it is to a woman of distinction in one of the churches, as is true of "the co-elect lady in Babylon" (1Peter:5:13|), Peter's wife, who travelled with him (1Corinthians:9:5|). Some even take \kuria\ to be the name of the lady (Cyria). Some also take it to be "Eklecta the lady." Dr. Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 31) holds that Pergamum is the church to which the letter was sent. The same commentaries treat I, II, and III John as a rule, though Poggel has a book on II, III John (1896) and Bresky (1906) has _Das Verhaltnis des Zweiten Johannesbriefes zum dritten_. Dr. J. Rendel Harris has an interesting article in _The Expositor_ of London for March, 1901, on "The Problem of the Address to the Second Epistle of John," in which he argues from papyri examples that \kuria\ here means "my dear" or "my lady." But Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 26) argues that "the qualifying adjunct 'elect' lifts us into the region of Christian calling and dignity." It is not certain that II John was written after I John, though probable. Origen rejected it and the Peshitta Syriac does not have II and III John. strkjv@2John:1:1 @{And her children} (\kai tois teknois auts\). As with \eklekt kuria\, so here \tekna\ may be understood either literally as in strkjv@1Timothy:3:4|, or spiritually, as in strkjv@Galatians:4:19,25; strkjv@1Timothy:1:2|. For the spiritual sense in \teknia\ see strkjv@1John:2:1,12|. {Whom} (\hous\). Masculine accusative plural, though \teknois\ is neuter plural (dative), construction according to sense, not according to grammatical gender, "embracing the mother and the children of both sexes" (Vincent). See thus \hous\ in strkjv@Galatians:4:19|. {I} (\Eg\). Though \ho presbuteros\ is third person, he passes at once after the Greek idiom to the first and there is also special emphasis here in the use of \agap\ with the addition of \en altheii\ (in truth, in the highest sphere, as in strkjv@John:17:19; strkjv@3John:1:1|) and \ouk eg monos\ (not I only, "not I alone"). Brooke argues that this language is unsuitable if to a single family and not to a church. But Paul employs this very phrase in sending greetings to Prisca and Aquila (Romans:16:4|). {That know} (\hoi egnkotes\). Perfect active articular participle of \ginsk\, "those that have come to know and still know."

rwp@Info_2Peter @ ANACHRONISMS It used to be said that it was impossible for II Peter to have been written in the first century, because it had the atmosphere of the second. But one fact is strongly against that argument. In strkjv@2Peter:3:8| occurs the quotation of strkjv@Psalms:90:4| about the thousand years without any chiliastic turn at all, a thing sure to happen in the second century after chiliasm had come to have such a swing. Peter's use of it suits the first century, not the second. As a matter of fact, the false teachers described in II Peter suit the first century precisely if one recalls Paul's troubles with the Judaizers in Galatia and Corinth and with the Gnostics in Colossae and Ephesus. "Every feature in the description of the false teachers and mockers is to be found in the apostolic age" (Bigg).

rwp@Acts:21:34 @{Some shouting one thing, some another} (\alloi allo ti epephnoun\). Same idiom of \alloi allo\ as in strkjv@19:32| which see. The imperfect of \epiphne\, to call out to, suits well the idiom. This old verb occurs in the N.T. only in Luke and Acts (already in strkjv@12:22|). {When he could not know} (\m dunamenou autou gnnai\). Genitive absolute of present middle participle of \dunamai\ with negative \m\ and second aorist active infinitive of \ginsk\. {The certainty} (\to asphales\). Neuter articular adjective from \a\ privative and \sphall\, to make totter or fall. Old word, in the N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:21:34; strkjv@22:30; strkjv@25:26; strkjv@Phillipians:3:1; strkjv@Hebrews:6:19|. {Into the castle} (\eis tn paremboln\). _Koin_ word from \paremball\, to cast in by the side of, to assign soldiers a place, to encamp (see on ¯Luke:19:43|). Songs:\parembol\ comes to mean an interpolation, then an army drawn up (Hebrews:11:34|), but mainly an encampment (Hebrews:13:11,13|), frequent in Polybius and LXX. Songs:here barracks of the Roman soldiers in the tower of Antonia as in verse 37; strkjv@22:24; strkjv@23:10,16,32|.

rwp@Acts:23:6 @{But when Paul perceived} (\gnous de ho Paulos\). Perceiving (second aorist ingressive of \ginsk\). Paul quickly saw that his cause was ruined before the Sanhedrin by his unwitting attack on the high priest. It was impossible to get a fair hearing. Hence, Vincent says, "Paul, with great tact, seeks to bring the two parties of the council into collision with each other." Songs:Alford argues with the motto "divide and conquer." Farrar condemns Paul and takes strkjv@24:21| as a confession of error here, but that is reading into Paul's word about the resurrection more than he says. Page considers Luke's report meagre and unsatisfactory. Rackham thinks that the trial was already started and that Paul repeated part of his speech of the day before when "the Sadducees received his words with ostentatious scepticism and ridicule: this provoked counter-expressions of sympathy and credulity among the Pharisees." But all this is inference. We do not have to adopt the Jesuitical principle that the end justifies the means in order to see shrewdness and hard sense in what Paul said and did. Paul knew, of course, that the Sanhedrin was nearly evenly divided between Pharisees and Sadducees, for he himself had been a Pharisee. {I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees} (\Eg Pharisaios eimi huios Pharisain\). This was strictly true as we know from his Epistles (Phillipians:3:5|). {Touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question} (\peri elpidos kai anastases nekrn krinomai\). This was true also and this is the point that Paul mentions in strkjv@24:21|. His failure to mention again the fact that he was a Pharisee throws no discredit on Luke's report here. The chief point of difference between Pharisees and Sadducees was precisely this matter of the resurrection. And this was Paul's cardinal doctrine as a Christian minister. It was this fact that convinced him that Jesus was the Messiah and was "the very centre of his faith" (Page) and of his preaching. It was not a mere trick for Paul to proclaim this fact here and so divide the Sanhedrin. As a matter of fact, the Pharisees held aloof when the Sadducees persecuted Peter and the other apostles for preaching resurrection in the case of Jesus and even Gamaliel threw cold water on the effort to punish them for it (Acts:5:34-39|). Songs:then Paul was really recurring to the original cleavage on this point and was able to score a point against the Sadducees as Gamaliel, his great teacher, had done before him. Besides, "Paul and Pharisaism seem to us such opposite ideas that we often forget that to Paul Christianity was the natural development of Judaism" (Page). Paul shows this in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11|.

rwp@Acts:25:24 @{Which are here present with us} (\hoi sunparontes hmin\). Present articular participle of \sunpareimi\ (only here in N.T.) with associative instrumental case \hmin\. {Made suit to me} (\enetuchon moi\). Second aorist active indicative of \entugchan\, old verb to fall in with a person, to go to meet for consultation or supplication as here. Common in old Greek and _Koin_. Cf. strkjv@Romans:8:27,34|. See \enteuxis\ (petition) strkjv@1Timothy:2:1|. Papyri give many examples of the technical sense of \enteuxis\ as petition (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 121). Some MSS. have plural here \enetuchon\ rather than the singular \enetuchen\. {Crying} (\bontes\). Yelling and demanding with loud voices. {That he ought not to live any longer} (\m dein auton zin mketi\). Indirect command (demand) with the infinitive \dein\ for \dei\ (it is necessary). The double negative (\m--mketi\) with \zin\ intensifies the demand.

rwp@Ephesians:3:20 @{That is able to do} (\ti dunameni poisai\). Dative case of the articular participle (present middle of \dunamai\). Paul is fully aware of the greatness of the blessings asked for, but the Doxology ascribes to God the power to do them for us. {Above all} (\huper panta\). Not simply \panta\, but \huper\ beyond and above all. {Exceedingly abundantly} (\huperekperissou\). Late and rare double compound (\huper, ek, perissou\) adverb (LXX, strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:10; strkjv@5:13; strkjv@Ephesians:3:20|). It suits well Paul's effort to pile Pelion on Ossa. {That we ask} (\hn aitoumetha\). Ablative of the relative pronoun attracted from the accusative \ha\ to the case of the unexpressed antecedent \toutn\. Middle voice (\aitoumetha\) "we ask for ourselves." {Or think} (\ nooumen\). The highest aspiration is not beyond God's "power" (\dunamin\) to bestow.

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

rwp@James:5:13 @{Is any suffering?} (\kakopathei tis;\). See verse 10| for \kakopathia\. The verb in N.T. occurs only here and in strkjv@2Timothy:2:3,9; strkjv@4:5|. The lively interrogative is common in the diatribe and suits the style of James. {Among you} (\en humin\). As in strkjv@3:13|. {Let him pray} (\proseuchesth\). Present middle imperative, "let him keep on praying" (instead of cursing as in verse 12|). {Is any cheerful} (\euthumei;\). Present active indicative of \euthume\, old verb from \euthumos\ (Acts:27:36|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:27:22,25|. {Let him sing praise} (\psallet\). Present active imperative of \psall\, originally to twang a chord as on a harp, to sing praise to God whether with instrument or without, in N.T. only here, strkjv@1Corinthians:14:15; strkjv@Romans:15:9; strkjv@Ephesians:5:19|. "Let him keep on making melody."

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:3:31 @{Is above all} (\epan pantn\). Ablative case with the compound preposition \epan\. See the same idea in strkjv@Romans:9:5|. Here we have the comments of Evangelist (John) concerning the last words of John in verse 30| which place Jesus above himself. He is above all men, not alone above the Baptist. Bernard follows those who treat verses 31-36| as dislocated and put them after verse 21| (the interview with Nicodemus), but they suit better here. {Of the earth} (\ek ts gs\). John is fond of this use of \ek\ for origin and source of character as in strkjv@1:46; strkjv@1John:4:5|. Jesus is the one that comes out of heaven (\ho ek tou ouranou erchomenos\) as he has shown in strkjv@1:1-18|. Hence he is "above all."

rwp@John:9:6 @{He spat on the ground} (\eptusen chamai\). First aorist active indicative of the old verb \ptu\ for which see strkjv@Mark:7:33|. \Chamai\ is an old adverb either in the dative or locative (sense suits locative), in N.T. only here and strkjv@John:18:6|. Jesus was not asked to cure this man. The curative effects of saliva are held in many places. The Jews held saliva efficacious for eye-trouble, but it was forbidden on the Sabbath. "That Jesus supposed some virtue lay in the application of the clay is contradicted by the fact that in other cases of blindness He did not use it" (Dods). Cf. strkjv@Mark:8:23|. Why he here accommodated himself to current belief we do not know unless it was to encourage the man to believe. {He made clay} (\epoisen plon\). Only use of \plos\, old word for clay, in N.T. in this chapter and strkjv@Romans:9:21|. The kneading of the clay and spittle added another offence against the Sabbath rules of the rabbis. {Anointed his eyes with the clay} (\epechrisen autou ton plon epi tous ophthalmous\). First aorist active indicative of \epichri\, old verb, to spread on, anoint, here only and verse 11| in N.T. "He spread the clay upon his eyes." B C read \epethken\ (first aorist active indicative of \epitithmi\, to put on).

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL In his Preface or Prologue (Luke:1:1-4|) the author tells us that he had two kinds of sources, oral and written, and that they were many, how many we have no way of telling. It is now generally accepted that we know two of his written sources, Mark's Gospel and Q or the Logia of Jesus (written by Matthew, Papias says). Mark is still preserved and it is not difficult for any one by the use of a harmony of the Gospels to note how Luke made use of Mark, incorporating what he chose, adapting it in various ways, not using what did not suit his purposes. The other source we only know in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke, that is the material common to both, but not in Mark. This also can be noted by any one in a harmony. Only it is probable that this source was more extensive than just the portions used by both Matthew and Luke. It is probable that both Matthew and Luke each used portions of the Logia not used by the other. But there is a large portion of Luke's Gospel which is different from Mark and Matthew. Some scholars call this source L. There is little doubt that Luke had another document for the material peculiar to him, but it is also probable that he had several others. He spoke of "many." This applies especially to chapters 9 to 21. But Luke expressly says that he had received help from "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," in oral form this means. It is, then, probable that Luke made numerous notes of such data and used them along with the written sources at his command. This remark applies particularly to chapters 1 and 2 which have a very distinct Semitic (Aramaic) colouring due to the sources used. It is possible, of course, that Mary the mother of Jesus may have written a statement concerning these important matters or that Luke may have had converse with her or with one of her circle. Ramsay, in his volume, _Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?_ shows the likelihood of Luke's contact with Mary or her circle during these two years at Caesarea. Luke handles the data acquired with care and skill as he claims in his Prologue and as the result shows. The outcome is what Renan called the most beautiful book in the world.

rwp@Luke:7:42 @{Will love him most} (\pleion agapsei auton\). Strictly, comparative {more}, \pleion\, not superlative \pleista\, but most suits the English idiom best, even between two. Superlative forms are vanishing before the comparative in the _Koin_. This is the point of the parable, the attitude of the two debtors toward the lender who forgave both of them (Plummer).

rwp@Luke:8:15 @{In an honest and good heart} (\en kardii kali kai agathi\). Peculiar to Luke. In verse 8| the land (\gn\) is called \agathn\ (really good, generous) and in verse 15| we have \en ti kali gi\ ({in the beautiful or noble land}). Songs:Luke uses both adjectives of the heart. The Greeks used \kalos k' agathos\ of the high-minded gentleman. It is probable that Luke knew this idiom. It occurs here alone in the N.T. It is not easy to translate. We have such phrases as "good and true," "sound and good," "right and good," no one of which quite suits the Greek. Certainly Luke adds new moral qualities not in the Hellenic phrase. The English word "honest" here is like the Latin _honestus_ (fair, noble). The words are to be connected with "hold fast" (\katechousin\), "hold it down" so that the devil does not snatch it away, having depth of soil so that it does not shrivel up under the sun, and is not choked by weeds and thorns. It bears fruit (\karpophorousin\, an old expressive verb, \karpos\ and \phore\). That is the proof of spiritual life. {In patience} (\en hupomoni\). There is no other way for real fruit to come. Mushrooms spring up overnight, but they are usually poisonous. The best fruits require time, cultivation, patience.

rwp@Mark:5:36 @{Not heeding} (\parakousas\). This is the sense in strkjv@Matthew:18:17| and uniformly so in the LXX. But here the other sense of hearing aside, overhearing what was not spoken directly to him, probably exists also. "Jesus might overhear what was said and disregard its import" (Bruce). Certainly he ignored the conclusion of the messengers. The present participle \laloumenon\ suits best the idea of overhearing. Both Mark and strkjv@Luke:8:50| have "Fear not, only believe" (\m phobou, monon pisteue\). This to the ruler of the synagogue (\ti archisunaggi\) who had remained and to whom the messenger had spoken.

rwp@Mark:5:40 @{And they laughed him to scorn} (\kai kategeln\). "They jeered at him" (Weymouth). Note imperfect tense. They kept it up. And note also \kat-\ (perfective use). Exactly the same words in strkjv@Matthew:9:24| and strkjv@Luke:8:53|. The loud laughter was ill suited to the solemn occasion. But Jesus on his part (\autos de\) took charge of the situation. {Taketh the father of the child and her mother and them that were with him} (\paralambanei ton patera tou paidiou kai tn mtera kai tous met' autou\). Having put out (\ekbaln\) the rest by a stern assertion of authority as if he were master of the house, Jesus takes along with him these five and enters the chamber of death "where the child was" (\hopou n to paidion\). He had to use pressure to make the hired mourners leave. The presence of some people will ruin the atmosphere for spiritual work.

rwp@Mark:6:7 @{By two and two} (\duo duo\). This repetition of the numeral instead of the use of \ana duo\ or \kata duo\ is usually called a Hebraism. The Hebrew does have this idiom, but it appears in Aeschylus and Sophocles, in the vernacular _Koin_ (Oxyrhynchus Papyri No. 121), in Byzantine Greek, and in modern Greek (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 122f.). Mark preserves the vernacular _Koin_ better than the other Gospels and this detail suits his vivid style. The six pairs of apostles could thus cover Galilee in six different directions. Mark notes that he "began to send them forth" (\rxato autous apostellein\). Aorist tense and present infinitive. This may refer simply to this particular occasion in Mark's picturesque way. But the imperfect tense \edidou\ means he kept on giving them all through the tour, a continuous power (authority) over unclean spirits singled out by Mark as representing "all manner of diseases and all manner of sickness" (Matthew:10:1|), "to cure diseases" (\iasthai\, strkjv@Luke:9:1|), healing power. They were to preach and to heal (Luke:9:1; strkjv@Matthew:10:7|). Mark does not mention preaching as a definite part of the commission to the twelve on this their first preaching tour, but he does state that they did preach (6:12|). They were to be missioners or missionaries (\apostellein\) in harmony with their office (\apostoloi\).

rwp@Mark:6:55 @{Ran about} (\periedramon\). Vivid constative aorist picturing the excited pursuit of Jesus as the news spread that he was in Gennesaret. {On their beds} (\epi tois krabattois\). Pallets like that of the man let down through the roof (Mark:2:4|). {Where they heard he was} (\hopou kouon hoti estin\). Imperfect tense of \akou\ (repetition), present indicative \estin\ retained in indirect discourse.

rwp@Matthew:6:27 @{Unto his stature} (\epi tn hlikian autou\). The word \hlikian\ is used either of height (stature) or length of life (age). Either makes good sense here, though probably "stature" suits the context best. Certainly anxiety will not help either kind of growth, but rather hinder by auto-intoxication if nothing more. This is no plea for idleness, for even the birds are diligent and the flowers grow.

rwp@Matthew:16:21 @{From that time began} (\apo tote rxato\). It was a suitable time for the disclosure of the greatest secret of his death. It is now just a little over six months before the cross. They must know it now to be ready then. The great confession of Peter made this seem an appropriate time. He will repeat the warnings (17:22f.| with mention of betrayal; strkjv@20:17-19| with the cross) which he now "began." Songs:the necessity (\dei\, must) of his suffering death at the hands of the Jerusalem ecclesiastics who have dogged his steps in Galilee is now plainly stated. Jesus added his resurrection "on the third day" (\ti triti hmeri\), not "on the fourth day," please observe. Dimly the shocked disciples grasped something of what Jesus said.

rwp@Matthew:20:16 @{The last first and the first last} (\hoi eschtoi prtoi kai hoi prtoi eschatoi\). The adjectives change places as compared with strkjv@19:30|. The point is the same, though this order suits the parable better. After all one's work does not rest wholly on the amount of time spent on it. "Even so hath Rabbi Bun bar Chija in twenty-eight years wrought more than many studious scholars in a hundred years" (Jer. _Berak._ ii. 5c).

rwp@Matthew:22:1 @{Again in parables} (\palin en parabolais\). Matthew has already given two on this occasion (The Two Sons, The Wicked Husbandmen). He alone gives this Parable of the Marriage Feast of the King's Son. It is somewhat similar to that of The Supper in strkjv@Luke:14:16-23| given on another occasion. Hence some scholars consider this merely Matthew's version of the Lucan parable in the wrong place because of Matthew's habit of grouping the sayings of Jesus. But that is a gratuitous indictment of Matthew's report which definitely locates the parable here by \palin\. Some regard it as not spoken by Jesus at all, but an effort on the part of the writer to cover the sin and fate of the Jews, the calling of the Gentiles, and God's demand for righteousness. But here again it is like Jesus and suits the present occasion.

rwp@Revelation:6:9 @{Under the altar} (\hupokat tou thusiastriou\). "Under" (\hupokat\), for the blood of the sacrifices was poured at the bottom of the altar (Leviticus:4:7|). The altar of sacrifice (Exodus:39:39; strkjv@40:29|), not of incense. The imagery, as in Hebrews, is from the tabernacle. For the word see strkjv@Matthew:5:23f.|, often in Rev. (Revelation:8:3,5; strkjv@9:13; strkjv@11:1; strkjv@14:18; strkjv@16:7|). This altar in heaven is symbolic, of course, the antitype for the tabernacle altar (Hebrews:8:5|). The Lamb was slain (5:6,9,12|) and these martyrs have followed the example of their Lord. {The souls} (\tas psuchas\). The lives, for the life is in the blood (Leviticus:17:11|), were given for Christ (Phillipians:2:17; strkjv@2Timothy:4:6|). {Of the slain} (\tn esphagmenn\). See strkjv@5:6|. Christians were slain during the Neronian persecution and now again under Domitian. A long line of martyrs has followed. {For the word of God} (\dia ton logon tou theou\). As in strkjv@1:9|, the confession of loyalty to Christ as opposed to emperor-worship. {And for the testimony which they held} (\kai dia tn marturian hn eichon\). See also strkjv@1:9|. Probably \kai\ equals "even" here, explaining the preceding. The imperfect tense \eichon\ suits the repetition of the witness to Christ and the consequent death.

rwp@Revelation:12:13 @{He persecuted} (\edixen\). First aorist active participle of \dik\, to pursue, to chase, hostile pursuit here as in strkjv@Matthew:5:10f.; strkjv@10:23|, etc. John now, after the "voice" in 10-13|, returns to the narrative in verse 9|. The child was caught away in verse 5|, and now the woman (the true Israel on earth) is given deadly persecution. Perhaps events since A.D. 64 (burning of Rome by Nero) amply illustrated this vision, and they still do so. {Which} (\htis\). "Which very one."