OT.filter - rwp Testament:

rwp@1Corinthians:2:14 @{Now the natural man} (\psuchikos de anthrpos\). Note absence of article here, "A natural man" (an unregenerate man). Paul does not employ modern psychological terms and he exercises variety in his use of all the terms here present as \pneuma\ and \pneumatikos, psuch\ and \psuchikos, sarx\ and \sarkinos\ and \sarkikos\. A helpful discussion of the various uses of these words in the New Testament is given by Burton in his _New Testament Word Studies_, pp. 62-68, and in his {Spirit, Soul, and Flesh}. The papyri furnish so many examples of \sarx, pneuma\, and \psuch\ that Moulton and Milligan make no attempt at an exhaustive treatment, but give a few miscellaneous examples to illustrate the varied uses that parallel the New Testament. \Psuchikos\ is a qualitative adjective from \psuch\ (breath of life like \anima\, life, soul). Here the Vulgate renders it by _animalis_ and the German by _sinnlich_, the original sense of animal life as in strkjv@Jude:1:19; strkjv@James:3:15|. In strkjv@1Corinthians:15:44,46| there is the same contrast between \psuchikos\ and \pneumatikos\ as here. The \psuchikos\ man is the unregenerate man while the \pneumatikos\ man is the renewed man, born again of the Spirit of God. {Receiveth not} (\ou dechetai\). Does not accept, rejects, refuses to accept. In strkjv@Romans:8:7| Paul definitely states the inability (\oude gar dunatai\) of the mind of the flesh to receive the things of the Spirit untouched by the Holy Spirit. Certainly the initiative comes from God whose Holy Spirit makes it possible for us to accept the things of the Spirit of God. They are no longer "foolishness" (\mria\) to us as was once the case (1:23|). Today one notes certain of the _intelligentsia_ who sneer at Christ and Christianity in their own blinded ignorance. {He cannot know them} (\ou dunatai gnnai\). He is not able to get a knowledge (ingressive second aorist active infinitive of \ginsk\). His helpless condition calls for pity in place of impatience on our part, though such an one usually poses as a paragon of wisdom and commiserates the deluded followers of Christ. {They are spiritually judged} (\pneumatiks anakrinetai\). Paul and Luke are fond of this verb, though nowhere else in the N.T. Paul uses it only in I Corinthians. The word means a sifting process to get at the truth by investigation as of a judge. In strkjv@Acts:17:11| the Beroeans scrutinized the Scriptures. These \psuchikoi\ men are incapable of rendering a decision for they are unable to recognize the facts. They judge by the \psuch\ (mere animal nature) rather than by the \pneuma\ (the renewed spirit).

rwp@Info_1Peter @ SOME BOOKS Alford, H., Vol. IV. 1 of his _Greek Testament_ (1870). Baldwin, _The Fisherman of Galilee_ (1923). Barnes, _St. Peter in Rome and His Tomb on the Vatican Hill_. Beck, J. T., _Erklarung der Briefe Petri_ (1895). Bennett, W. H., _New-Century Bible_ (1901). Bigg, C., _Intern. Crit. Comm_. (1901). Birks, _Studies in the Life and Character of St. Peter_ (1887). Blenkin, _The First Ep. General of St. Peter_ (1915). Camerlinck, _Commentarius in epistolas catholicas_ (1909). Cooke and Lumby, _Speaker's Comm_. (1881). Couard, _Commentaire_ (1895). Couard, _Simon Petrus der Apostel des Herrn_. Davidson, _St. Peter and His Training_. Elert, _Die Religiositat des Petrus_ (1911). Erbes, _Die Todestage der Apostels Paulus and Petrus_ (1899). Foakes-Jackson, F. J., _Peter Prince of Apostles_ (1927). Foster, Ora D., _The Literary Relations of the First Epistle of Peter_ (1913). Fouard, C., _St. Peter and the First Years of Christianity_ (1892). Gallagher, M., _Was the Apostle Peter Ever at Rome?_ (1894). Goutard, _Essai critique et historique sur la prem. e'pitre de S. Pierre_ (1905). Green, S. G., _The Apostle Peter: His Life and Letters_ (1880). Guignebert, _Lamentations:Primaute' de Pierre et la Venue de Pierre a Rome_ (1909). Gunkel, H., _Die Schriften d. N.T_. 3 Aufl. (1917). Hart, J. H. A., _Expos. Greek Test_. (1910). Henriott, _Saint Pierre_ (1891). Hort, F. J. A., _The First Epistle of St. Peter strkjv@1:1-2:17_ (1898). Howson, J., _Horae Petrinae_ (1883). Jenkins, R. C., _The Apostle Peter. Claims of Catholics_ (1875). Johnstone, _The First Epistle of Peter_ (1888). Kasteren, Van, _Deuteronomy:Eerste Brief Van d. Ap. Petrus_ (1911). Keil, C. F., _Comm. uber die Briefe des Petrus und Juda_ (1883). Knopf, R., _Die Briefe Petri und Juda_ (1912). Kogel, J., _Die Gedankenheit des Ersten Briefes Petri_ (1902). Kuhl, E., _Die Briefe Petri und Judae_ (Meyer Komm., 6 Aufl., 1897). Lietzmann, _Petrus and Paulus in Rom_. Lumby, J. R., _Expositor's Bible_ (1893). Masterman, J. H. B., _Epistles of St. Peter_ (1900). McInnis, J.M., _Simon Peter Fisherman and Philosopher_ (1928). Meyer, F. B., _Peter: Fisherman, Disciple, Apostle_ (1920). Moffatt, James, _Moffatt Comm. on N.T._ (1930). Monneir, J., _Lamentations:premiere e'pitre de l'apotre Pierre_ (1900). Perdelwitz, _Die Mysterienreligion und das Problem des ersten Petrusbriefes_ (1911). Plumptre, _Cambridge Bible_ (1879). Reagan, _The Preaching of Peter, the Beginning of Christian Apologetics_ (1922). Robinson, C. G., _Simon Peter: His Life and Times_ (1889). Ross, J. M. E., _The First Epistle of Peter_ (1913). Salmond, A. D. F., _Schaff's Comm_. (1883). Scharfe, _Die petrinische Stromung der neut. Literatur_ (1893). Schmid, _Petrus in Rome_ (1879). Seeley, _The Life and Writings of St. Peter_. Soden, Von, H., _Hand-Komm_. (3 Aufl., 1899). Taylor, W. M., _Peter the Apostle_ (1876). Thomas, W. H., Griffith, _The Apostle Peter_ (2nd ed., 1905). Thompson, _Life-Work of Peter the Apostle_. Upham, _Simon Peter Shepherd_ (1910). Usteri, J. M., _Wiss. und prakt. Komm. uber den I Petrus- brief_ (1887). Volter, D., _Der I Petrusbrief_ (1906). Weiss, B., _Die erste Petrusbrief und die Kritik_ (1906). _Der petrinische Lehrbegriff_ (1855). Williams, N. M., _American Comm_. Windisch, H., _Die Katholische Briefe. Handbuch zum N.T._ (2 Aufl., 1930). Wohlenberg, G., _Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief_. (Zahn Komm., 2 Aufl., 1915.) strkjv@1Peter:1:1 @{Peter} (\Petros\). Greek form for the Aramaic (Chaldaic) \Cphs\, the nickname given Simon by Jesus when he first saw him (John:1:42|) and reaffirmed in the Greek form on his great confession (Matthew:16:18|), with an allusion to \petra\, another form for a rock, ledge, or cliff. In strkjv@2Peter:1:1| we have both \Simn\ and \Petros\. Paul in his Epistles always terms himself Paul, not Saul. Songs:Peter uses this name, not Cephas or Simon, because he is writing to Christians scattered over Asia Minor. The nominative absolute occurs here as in strkjv@James:1:1|, but without \chairein\ as there, the usual form of greeting in letters (Acts:23:26|) so common in the papyri. {An apostle of Jesus Christ} (\apostolos Isou Christou\). This is his official title, but in strkjv@2Peter:1:1| \doulos\ is added, which occurs alone in strkjv@James:1:1|. In II and III John we have only \ho presbuteros\ (the elder), as Peter terms himself \sunpresbuteros\ in strkjv@1Peter:5:1|. Paul's usage varies greatly: only the names in I and II Thessalonians, the title \apostolos\ added and defended in Galatians and Romans as also in I and II Corinthians and Colossians and Ephesians and II Timothy with "by the will of God" added, and in I Timothy with the addition of "according to the command of God." In Philippians Paul has only "\doulos\ (slave) \Christou Isou\," like James and Jude. In Romans and Titus Paul has both \doulos\ and \apostolos\, like II Peter, while in Philemon he uses only \desmios\ (prisoner) \Isou Christou\. {To the elect} (\eklektois\). Without article (with the article in strkjv@Matthew:24:22,24,31|) and dative case, "to elect persons" (viewed as a group). Bigg takes \eklektois\ (old, but rare verbal adjective from \ekleg\, to pick out, to select) as an adjective describing the next word, "to elect sojourners." That is possible and is like \genos eklekton\ in strkjv@2:9|. See the distinction between \kltoi\ (called) and \eklektoi\ (chosen) in strkjv@Matthew:22:14|. {Who are sojourners} (\parepidmois\). Late double compound adjective (\para, epidmountes\, strkjv@Acts:2:10|, to sojourn by the side of natives), strangers sojourning for a while in a particular place. Songs:in Polybius, papyri, in LXX only twice (Genesis:23:4|; 38 or 39 12), in N.T. only here, strkjv@2:11; strkjv@Hebrews:11:13|. The picture in the metaphor here is that heaven is our native country and we are only temporary sojourners here on earth. {Of the Dispersion} (\diaspors\). See strkjv@John:7:35| for literal sense of the word for scattered (from \diaspeir\, to scatter abroad, strkjv@Acts:8:1|) Jews outside of Palestine, and strkjv@James:1:1| for the sense here to Jewish Christians, including Gentile Christians (only N T. examples). Note absence of the article, though a definite conception (of the Dispersion). The Christian is a pilgrim on his way to the homeland. These five Roman provinces include what we call Asia Minor north and west of the Taurus mountain range (Hort). Hort suggests that the order here suggests that Silvanus (bearer of the Epistle) was to land in Pontus from the Euxine Sea, proceed through Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, to Bithynia, where he would re-embark for Rome. This, he holds, explains the separation of Pontus and Bithynia, though the same province. Only Galatia and Asia are mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. as having Christian converts, but the N.T. by no means gives a full account of the spread of the Gospel, as can be judged from strkjv@Colossians:1:6,23|.

rwp@Acts:7:8 @{The covenant of circumcision} (\diathkn peritoms\). A covenant marked by (genitive) circumcision (no article) of which circumcision is the sign (Romans:4:11|) as set forth in strkjv@Genesis:17:9-14|. In the ancient Greek \diathk\ was usually will (Latin, _testamentum_) and \sunthk\ was used for covenant (\sun\, together, rather than \dia\, between). But the LXX and the N.T. use \diathk\ for covenant (will in strkjv@Hebrews:9:15f.|) as Lightfoot on strkjv@Galatians:3:16| says: "The LXX translation and New Testament writers probably preferred \diathk\ as better expressing the {free grace} of God than \sunthk\." {And so} (\kai houts\). After the covenant was made and as a sign and seal of it.

rwp@Acts:14:17 @{And yet} (\kaitoi\). Old Greek compound particle (\kai toi\). In the N.T. twice only, once with finite verb as here, once with the participle (Hebrews:4:3|). {Without witness} (\amarturon\). Old adjective (\a\ privative and \martus\, witness), only here in the N.T. {Left} (\aphken\). First aorist active (\k\ aorist indicative of \aphimi\). {In that he did good} (\agathourgn\). Present active causal participle of \agathourge\, late and rare verb (also \agathoerge\ strkjv@1Timothy:6:18|), reading of the oldest MSS. here for \agathopoie\, to do good. Note two other causal participles here parallel with \agathourgn\, viz., \didous\ ("giving you") present active of \didmi, empipln\ ("filling") present active of \empimpla\ (late form of \empimplmi\). This witness to God (his doing good, giving rains and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness) they could receive without the help of the Old Testament revelation (Romans:1:20|). Zeus was regarded as the god of rain (Jupiter Pluvius) and Paul claims the rain and the fruitful (\karpophorous, karpos\, and \pher\, fruit bearing, old word, here alone in N.T.) seasons as coming from God. Lycaonia was often dry and it would be an appropriate item. "Mercury, as the God of merchandise, was also the dispenser of food" (Vincent). Paul does not talk about laws of nature as if they governed themselves, but he sees the living God "behind the drama of the physical world" (Furneaux). These simple country people could grasp his ideas as he claims everything for the one true God. {Gladness} (\euphrosuns\). Old word from \euphrn\ (\eu\ and \phrn\), good cheer. In the N.T. only strkjv@Acts:2:28| and here. Cheerfulness should be our normal attitude when we consider God's goodness. Paul does not here mention Christ because he had the single definite purpose to dissuade them from worshipping Barnabas and himself.

rwp@Hebrews:4:4 @{Somewhere on this wise} (\pou houts\). See strkjv@2:6| for \pou tis\ for a like indefinite allusion to an Old Testament quotation. Here it is strkjv@Genesis:2:2| (cf. strkjv@Exodus:20:11; strkjv@31:17|). Moffatt notes that Philo quotes strkjv@Genesis:2:2| with the same "literary mannerism." {Rested} (\katepausen\). First aorist active indicative of \katapau\, intransitive here, but transitive in verse 8|. It is not, of course, absolute rest from all creative activity as Jesus shows in strkjv@John:5:17|. But the seventh day of God's rest was still going on (clearly not a twenty-four hour day).

rwp@Hebrews:7:1 @{This Melchizedek} (\houtos ho Melchisedek\). The one already mentioned several times with whose priesthood that of Christ is compared and which is older and of a higher type than that of Aaron. See strkjv@Genesis:14:18-20; strkjv@Psalms:110| for the only account of Melchizedek in the Old Testament. It is a daring thing to put Melchizedek above Aaron, but the author does it. Moffatt calls verses 1-3| "a little sermon" on strkjv@6:20|. It is "for ever" (\eis ton aina\) that he explains. Melchizedek is the only one in his line and stands alone in the record in Genesis. The interpretation is rabbinical in method, but well adapted to Jewish readers. The description is taken verbatim from Genesis except that "who met" (\ho sunantsas\) is here applied to Melchizedek from strkjv@Genesis:14:17| instead of to the King of Sodom. They both met Abraham as a matter of fact. For this verb (first aorist active participle of \sunanta\) see strkjv@Luke:9:37|. {Slaughter} (\kops\). Old word for cutting (\kopt\, to cut), here only in N.T. These kings were Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer, Tidal. Amraphel is usually taken to be Khammurabi. {Priest of God Most High} (\hiereus tou theou tou hupsistou\). He is called "priest" and note \tou hupsistou\ applied to God as the Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews did. It is used also of Zeus and the Maccabean priest-kings. The demons apply it to God (Mark:5:7; strkjv@Luke:8:28|).

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:1:5 @{Shineth} (\phainei\). Linear present active indicative of \phain\, old verb from \pha\, to shine (\phaos, phs\). "The light keeps on giving light." {In the darkness} (\en ti skotii\). Late word for the common \skotos\ (kin to \skia\, shadow). An evident allusion to the darkness brought on by sin. In strkjv@2Peter:2:17| we have \ho zophos tou skotou\ (the blackness of darkness). The Logos, the only real moral light, keeps on shining both in the Pre-incarnate state and after the Incarnation. John is fond of \skotia\ (\skotos\) for moral darkness from sin and \phs\ (\phtiz, phain\) for the light that is in Christ alone. In strkjv@1John:2:8| he proclaims that "the darkness is passing by and the true light is already shining." The Gnostics often employed these words and John takes them and puts them in the proper place. {Apprehended it not} (\auto ou katelaben\). Second aorist active indicative of \katalamban\, old verb to lay hold of, to seize. This very phrase occurs in strkjv@John:12:35| (\hina m skotia humas katalabi\) "that darkness overtake you not," the metaphor of night following day and in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:4| the same idiom (\hina katalabi\) is used of day overtaking one as a thief. This is the view of Origen and appears also in 2Macc. strkjv@8:18. The same word appears in Aleph D in strkjv@John:6:17| \katelabe de autous h skotia\ ("but darkness overtook them," came down on them). Hence, in spite of the Vulgate _comprehenderunt_, "overtook" or "overcame" seems to be the idea here. The light kept on shining in spite of the darkness that was worse than a London fog as the Old Testament and archaeological discoveries in Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Crete, Asia Minor show.

rwp@John:1:49 @{Thou art the Son of God} (\su ei ho huios tou theou\). Whether Nathanael had heard the Baptist say this of Jesus (1:34|) we do not know, apparently not, but Nathanael was a student of the Old Testament as Philip implied (1:45|) and was quick to put together his knowledge, the statement of Philip, and the manifest supernatural knowledge of Jesus as just shown. There is no reason for toning down the noble confession of Nathanael in the light of Christ's claim in verse 51|. Cf. the confession of Peter in strkjv@6:69; strkjv@Matthew:16:16| and Martha's in strkjv@John:11:27|. Nathanael goes further. {Thou art King of Israel} (\Basileus ei tou Isral\). To us this seems an anti-climax, but not so to Nathanael for both are Messianic titles in strkjv@Psalms:2| and Jesus is greeted in the Triumphal Entry as the King of Israel (John:12:13|).

rwp@John:5:39 @{Ye search} (\eraunte\). Proper spelling as the papyri show rather than \ereunte\, the old form (from \ereuna\, search) as in strkjv@7:52|. The form here can be either present active indicative second person plural or the present active imperative second person plural. Only the context can decide. Either makes sense here, but the reason given "because ye think" (\hoti humeis dokeite\, clearly indicative), supports the indicative rather than the imperative. Besides, Jesus is arguing on the basis of their use of "the Scriptures" (\tas graphas\). The plural with the article refers to the well-known collection in the Old Testament (Matthew:21:42; strkjv@Luke:24:27|). Elsewhere in John the singular refers to a particular passage (2:22; strkjv@7:38; strkjv@10:35|). {In them ye have eternal life} (\en autais zn ainion echein\). Indirect assertion after \dokeite\ without "ye" expressed either as nominative (\humeis\) or accusative (\humas\). Bernard holds that in John \doke\ always indicates a mistaken opinion (5:45; strkjv@11:13,31; strkjv@13:29; strkjv@16:20; strkjv@20:15|). Certainly the rabbis did make a mechanical use of the letter of Scripture as a means of salvation. {These are they} (\ekeinai eisin hai\). The true value of the Scriptures is in their witness to Christ (of me, \peri emou\). Luke (24:27,45|) gives this same claim of Jesus, and yet some critics fail to find the Messiah in the Old Testament. But Jesus did.

rwp@Luke:1:45 @{For} (\hoti\). It is not certain whether \hoti\ here is "that" or "because." It makes good sense either way. See also strkjv@7:16|. This is the first beatitude in the New Testament and it is similar to the last one in the Gospels spoken to Thomas to discourage his doubt (John:20:29|). Elisabeth wishes Mary to have full faith in the prophecy of the angel. This song of Elisabeth is as real poetry as is that of Mary (1:47-55|) and Zacharias (1:68-70|). All three spoke under the power of the Holy Spirit. These are the first New Testament hymns and they are very beautiful. Plummer notes four strophes in Mary's Magnificat (46-48|,49,50|,51-53|,54,55|). Every idea here occurs in the Old Testament, showing that Mary's mind was full of the spiritual message of God's word.

rwp@Luke:3:3 @{All the region round about Jordan} (\psan perichron tou Iordanou\). The wilderness was John's abode (1:80|) so that he began preaching where he was. It was the plain (Genesis:13:10f.|) or valley of the Jordan, El Ghor, as far north as Succoth (2Chronicles:4:17|). Sometimes he was on the eastern bank of the Jordan (John:10:40|), though usually on the west side. His baptizing kept him near the river. {The baptism of repentance unto remission of sins} (\baptisma metanoias eis aphesin hamartin\). The same phrase as in strkjv@Mark:1:4|, which see for discussion of these important words. The word remission (\aphesis\) "occurs in Luke more frequently than in all the other New Testament writers combined" (Vincent). In medical writers it is used for the relaxing of disease.

rwp@Luke:11:51 @{From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zachariah} (\apo haimatos Abel hes haimatos Zachariou\). The blood of Abel is the first shed in the Old Testament (Genesis:4:10|), that of Zacharias the last in the O.T. canon which ended with Chronicles (2Chronicles:24:22|). Chronologically the murder of Uriah by Jehoiakim was later (Jeremiah:26:23|), but this climax is from Genesis to II Chronicles (the last book in the canon). See on ¯Matthew:23:35| for discussion of Zachariah as "the son of Barachiah" rather than "the son of Jehoiada." {Between the altar and the sanctuary} (\metaxu tou thusiastriou kai tou oikou\). Literally, between the altar and the house (Matthew:23:35| has temple, \naou\).

rwp@Matthew:1:18 @{Betrothed to Joseph} (\Mnsteutheiss ti Isph\). Matthew proceeds to explain his statement in strkjv@1:16| which implied that Joseph, though the legal father of Jesus in the royal line, was not the actual father of Mary's Son. Betrothal with the Jews was a serious matter, not lightly entered into and not lightly broken. The man who betrothed a maiden was legally husband (Genesis:29:21; strkjv@Deuteronomy:22:23f.|) and "an informal cancelling of betrothal was impossible" (McNeile). Though they did not live together as husband and wife till actual marriage, breach of faithfulness on the part of the betrothed was treated as adultery and punished with death. _The New Testament in Braid Scots_ actually has "mairry't till Joseph" for "betrothed to Joseph." Matthew uses the genitive absolute construction here, a very common Greek idiom.

rwp@Matthew:26:28 @{The Covenant} (\ts diathks\). The adjective \kains\ in Textus Receptus is not genuine. The covenant is an agreement or contract between two (\dia, duo, thke\, from \tithmi\). It is used also for will (Latin, _testamentum_) which becomes operative at death (Hebrews:9:15-17|). Hence our _New Testament_. Either covenant or will makes sense here. Covenant is the idea in strkjv@Hebrews:7:22; strkjv@8:8| and often. In the Hebrew to make a covenant was to cut up the sacrifice and so ratify the agreement (Genesis:15:9-18|). Lightfoot argues that the word \diathke\ means covenant in the N.T. except in strkjv@Hebrews:9:15-17|. Jesus here uses the solemn words of strkjv@Exodus:24:8| "the blood of the covenant" at Sinai. "My blood of the covenant" is in contrast with that. This is the New Covenant of strkjv@Jeremiah:31; strkjv@Hebrews:8|. {Which is shed for many} (\to peri polln ekchunnomenon\). A prophetic present passive participle. The act is symbolized by the ordinance. Cf. the purpose of Christ expressed in strkjv@20:28|. There \anti\ and here \peri\. {Unto remission of sins} (\eis aphesin hamartin\). This clause is in Matthew alone but it is not to be restricted for that reason. It is the truth. This passage answers all the modern sentimentalism that finds in the teaching of Jesus only pious ethical remarks or eschatological dreamings. He had the definite conception of his death on the cross as the basis of forgiveness of sin. The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins.

rwp@Revelation:6:1 @{And I saw} (\kai eidon\). As in strkjv@4:1; strkjv@5:1|. The vision unfolds without anything being said about opening the book and reading from it. In a more vivid and dramatic fashion the Lamb breaks the seals one by one and reveals the contents and the symbolism. The first four seals have a common note from one of the four \za\ and the appearance of a horse. No effort will be made here to interpret these seals as referring to persons or historical events in the past, present, or future, but simply to relate the symbolism to the other symbols in the book. It is possible that there is some allusion here to the symbolism in the so-called "Little Apocalypse" of strkjv@Mark:13; strkjv@Matthew:24f.; strkjv@Luke:21|. The imagery of the four horses is similar to that in strkjv@Zechariah:1:7-11; strkjv@6:1-8| (cf. strkjv@Jeremiah:14:12; strkjv@24:10; strkjv@42:17|). In the Old Testament the horse is often the emblem of war (Job:39:25; strkjv@Psalms:76:6; strkjv@Proverbs:21:31; strkjv@Ezekiel:26:10|). "Homer pictures the horses of Rhesus as whiter than snow, and swift as the wind" (Vincent). {When the Lamb opened} (\hote noixen to arnion\). First aorist active indicative of \anoig\. This same phrase recurs in rhythmical order at the opening of each seal (6:1,3,5,7,9,12|) till the last (8:1|), where we have \hotan noixen\ (\hotan\ rather than \hote\ calling particular attention to it). {One} (\mian\). Probably used here as an ordinal (the first) as in strkjv@Matthew:28:1|. See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 671f. {Of} (\ek\). This use of \ek\ with the ablative in the partitive sense is common in the Apocalypse, as twice in this verse (\ek tn\, etc.). Songs:\henos ek tn\ (one of the four living creatures) is "the first of," etc. {In a voice of thunder} (\en phni bronts\). Old word used of John and James (Mark:3:17|) and elsewhere in N.T. only strkjv@John:12:29| and a dozen times in the Apocalypse. {Come} (\Erchou\). Present middle imperative of \erchomai\, but with exclamatory force (not strictly linear). The command is not addressed to the Lamb nor to John (the correct text omits \kai ide\ "and see") as in strkjv@17:1; strkjv@21:9|, but to one of the four horsemen each time. Swete takes it as a call to Christ because \erchou\ is so used in strkjv@22:17,20|, but that is not conclusive.

rwp@Revelation:21:7 @{He that overcometh} (\ho nikn\). Recalls the promises at the close of each of the Seven Letters in chapters 2 and 3. {Shall inherit} (\klronomsei\). Future active of \klronome\, word with great history (Mark:10:17; strkjv@1Peter:1:4; strkjv@Galatians:4:7; strkjv@Romans:8:17|), here interpreted for the benefit of these who share in Christ's victory. {I will be his God} (\Esomai auti theos\). Repeated Old Testament promise (first to Abraham, strkjv@Genesis:17:7f.|). Cf. strkjv@Revelation:21:3|. {He shall be my son} (\autos estai moi huios\). Made first of Solomon (2Samuel:7:14|) and applied to David later in strkjv@Psalms:89:26f|.