OT.filter - rwp hast:

rwp@1Corinthians:3:5 @{What then?} (\ti oun;\). He does not say \tis\ (who), but \ti\ (what), neuter singular interrogative pronoun. {Ministers} (\diakonoi\). Not leaders of parties or sects, but merely servants through whom ye believed. The etymology of the word Thayer gives as \dia\ and \konis\ "raising dust by hastening." In the Gospels it is the servant (Matthew:20:26|) or waiter (John:2:5|). Paul so describes himself as a minister (Colossians:1:23,25|). The technical sense of deacon comes later (Phillipians:1:1; strkjv@1Timothy:3:8,12|). {As the Lord gave to him} (\hs ho Kurios edken\). Hence no minister of the Lord like Apollos and Paul has any basis for pride or conceit nor should be made the occasion for faction and strife. This idea Paul enlarges upon through chapters strkjv@1Corinthians:3; 4| and it is made plain in chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:12|.

rwp@1Corinthians:6:19 @{Your body is a temple} (\to sma humn naos estin\). A sanctuary as in strkjv@3:16| which see. Our spirits dwell in our bodies and the Holy Spirit dwells in our spirits. Some of the Gnostics split hairs between the sins of the body and fellowship with God in the spirit. Paul will have none of this subterfuge. One's body is the very shrine for the Holy Spirit. In Corinth was the temple to Aphrodite in which fornication was regarded as consecration instead of desecration. Prostitutes were there as priestesses of Aphrodite, to help men worship the goddess by fornication. {Ye are not your own} (\ouk este heautn\). Predicate genitive. Ye do not belong to yourselves, even if you could commit fornication without personal contamination or self-violation. Christianity makes unchastity dishonour in both sexes. There is no double standard of morality. Paul's plea here is primarily to men to be clean as members of Christ's body.

rwp@1Peter:3:21 @{Which also} (\ho kai\). Water just mentioned. {After a true likeness} (\antitupon\). Water in baptism now as an anti-type of Noah's deliverance by water. For \baptisma\ see on ¯Matthew:3:7|. For \antitupon\ see on ¯Hebrews:9:24| (only other N.T. example) where the word is used of the earthly tabernacle corresponding (\antitupa\) to the heavenly, which is the pattern (\tupon\ strkjv@Hebrews:8:5|) for the earthly. Songs:here baptism is presented as corresponding to (prefigured by) the deliverance of Noah's family by water. It is only a vague parallel, but not over-fanciful. {Doth now save you} (\humas nun szei\). Simplex verb (\sz\, not the compound \diasz\). The saving by baptism which Peter here mentions is only symbolic (a metaphor or picture as in strkjv@Romans:6:2-6|), not actual as Peter hastens to explain. {Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh} (\ou sarkos apothesis rupou\). \Apothesis\ is old word from \apotithmi\ (2:1|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@2Peter:1:14|. \Rupou\ (genitive of \rupos\) is old word (cf. \ruparos\, filthy, in strkjv@James:2:2; strkjv@Revelation:22:11|), here only in N.T. (cf. strkjv@Isaiah:3:3; strkjv@4:4|). Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh either in a literal sense, as a bath for the body, or in a metaphorical sense of the filth of the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience (Hebrews:9:13f.|). Peter here expressly denies baptismal remission of sin. {But the interrogation of a good conscience toward God} (\alla suneidses agaths epertma eis theon\). Old word from \eperta\ (to question as in strkjv@Mark:9:32; strkjv@Matthew:16:1|), here only in N.T. In ancient Greek it never means answer, but only inquiry. The inscriptions of the age of the Antonines use it of the Senate's approval after inquiry. That may be the sense here, that is, avowal of consecration to God after inquiry, having repented and turned to God and now making this public proclamation of that fact by means of baptism (the symbol of the previous inward change of heart). Thus taken, it matters little whether \eis theon\ (toward God) be taken with \epertma\ or \suneidses\. {Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ} (\di' anastases Isou Christou\). For baptism is a symbolic picture of the resurrection of Christ as well as of our own spiritual renewal (Romans:6:2-6|). See strkjv@1:3| for regeneration made possible by the resurrection of Jesus.

rwp@1Timothy:4:6 @{If thou put the brethren in mind of these things} (\tauta hupotithemenos tois adelphois\). Present middle participle of \hupotithmi\, to place under, to suggest, old and common verb, here only in N.T., "suggesting these things to the brethren." {Thou shalt be a good minister of Christ Jesus} (\kalos esi diakonos Christou Isou\). This beautiful phrase covers one's whole service for Christ (3:1-7|). {Nourished in} (\entrephomenos\). Present passive participle of \entreph\, old verb, to nourish in, used by Plato of "nourished in the laws," here only in the N.T. {The words of the faith} (\tois logois ts pistes\). Locative case. The right diet for babes in Christ. The Bolshevists in Russia are feeding the children on atheism to get rid of God. {Which thou hast followed} (\hi parkolouthkas\). Perfect active indicative of \parakolouthe\, old verb, to follow beside, of persons (often in old Greek) or of ideas and things (Luke:1:3; strkjv@1Timothy:4:6; strkjv@2Timothy:3:10|). With associative instrumental case \hi\ (which).

rwp@Acts:7:22 @{Was instructed} (\epaideuth\). First aorist passive indicative of \paideu\, to train a child (\pais\), the usual idea in ancient Greek as here. The notion of chastisement (Hebrews:12:6|) is also in the old Greek and especially in the LXX and the N.T. Here with instrumental case (\pasi sophii\) or the locative. The accusative would usually be retained after this verb. The priestly caste in Egypt was noted for their knowledge of science, astronomy, medicine, and mathematics. This reputation was proverbial (1Kings:4:30|). Modern discoveries have thrown much light on the ancient civilization of Egypt. Moses, like Paul, was a man of the schools. {Mighty in his words and works} (\dunatos en logois kai ergois autou\). The same phrase used of Jesus in strkjv@Luke:24:19|. The adjective \dunatos\ is employed of Apollos as an interpreter of the Scriptures (Acts:18:24|). Moses did not have the rhetorical skill or eloquence of Aaron (Exodus:4:10|), but his words like his deeds carried weight and power.

rwp@Hebrews:4:11 @{Let us therefore give diligence} (\spoudasmen oun\). Volitive subjunctive aorist of \spoudaz\, old verb to hasten (2Timothy:4:9|), to be eager and alert (1Thessalonians:2:17|). The exhortation has a warning like that in strkjv@4:1|. {That no man fall} (\hina m pesi\). Negative purpose with \hina m\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \pipt\, to fall. {After the same example of disobedience} (\en ti auti hupodeigmati ts apeitheias\). The unbelief is like that seen in the Israelites (3:12,18; strkjv@4:2|). \Hupodeigma\ is a late word from \hupodeiknumi\ (Matthew:3:7|) and means a copy (John:13:15; strkjv@James:5:10|). The Israelites set a terrible example and it is so easy to copy the bad examples.

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:4:11 @{Sir} (\Kurie\). Songs:it has to mean here in the mouth of the Samaritan woman, not Lord. {Thou hast nothing to draw with and the well is deep} (\oute antlma echeis kai to phrear estin bathu\). This broken construction of \oute-kai\ (neither--and) occurs in N.T. elsewhere only in strkjv@3John:1:10|. \Antlma\ (from \antle\, to draw) is a late word for that which is drawn, then (Plutarch) for the act of drawing, and then for the rope as here to draw with. This well (\phrear\) is 100 feet deep and Jesus had no rope. The bucket of skin ("with three cross sticks at the mouth to keep it open," Vincent) was kept at the well to be let down by a goat's hair rope. {That living water} (\to hudr to zn\). "The water the living," with the article referring to the language of Jesus in verse 10|. She is still thinking only of literal water.

rwp@John:4:17 @{I have no husband} (\ouk ech andra\). The Greek \anr\ means either "man" or "husband." She had her "man," but he was not a legal "husband." Her language veils her deceit. {Thou saidst well} (\kals eipes\). Jesus saw through the double sense of her language and read her heart as he only can do, a supernatural gift of which John often speaks (1:48; strkjv@2:24f.; strkjv@5:20|). {For thou hast had five husbands} (\pente gar andras esches\). "For thou didst have five men." Second aorist (constative) active indicative of \ech\. {Is not thy husband} (\ouk estin sou anr\). In the full and legal sense of \anr\, not a mere "man." {This hast thou said truly} (\touto althes eirkas\). "This a true thing thou hast said." Note absence of article with \althes\ (predicate accusative). Perfect active indicative \eirkas\ here, not aorist \eipes\ (verse 17|).

rwp@John:8:57 @{Thou art not yet fifty years old} (\pentkonta eti oup echeis\). Literally, "Thou hast not yet fifty years." Not meaning that Jesus was near that age at all. It was the crisis of completed manhood (Numbers:4:3|) and a round number. Jesus was about thirty to thirty-three. {And hast thou seen Abraham?} (\Kai Abraam herakas;\). Songs:A C D and B W Theta have \herakes\, both second person singular of the perfect active indicative of \hora\. But Aleph, Sin-syr., Coptic versions (accepted by Bernard) have \kai Abraam herake se?\ "Has Abraam seen thee?" Either makes sense here.

rwp@John:20:7 @{The napkin} (\to soudarion\). Already in strkjv@11:44| which see. This napkin for the head was in a separate place. {Rolled up} (\entetuligmenon\). Perfect passive participle, predicate accusative like \keimenon\, from \entuliss\, late verb, to wrap in, to roll up, already in strkjv@Matthew:27:59; strkjv@Luke:23:53|. It was arranged in an orderly fashion. There was no haste. {By itself} (\chris\). Old adverb, "apart," "separately."

rwp@Revelation:11:1 @{A reed} (\kalamos\). Old word for a growing reed (Matthew:11:7|) which grew in immense brakes in the Jordan valley, a writer's reed (3John:1:7|), a measuring-rod (here, strkjv@21:15f.; strkjv@Ezekiel:40:3-6; strkjv@42:16-19|). {Like a rod} (\homoios rabdi\). See strkjv@2:27; strkjv@Mark:6:8| for \rabdos\. {And one said} (\legn\). "Saying" (present active masculine participle of \leg\) is all that the Greek has. The participle implies \edken\ (he gave), not \edoth\, a harsh construction seen in strkjv@Genesis:22:20; strkjv@38:24|, etc. {Rise and measure} (\egeire kai metrson\). Present active imperative of \egeir\ (intransitive, exclamatory use as in strkjv@Mark:2:11|) and first aorist active imperative of \metre\. In strkjv@Ezekiel:42:2ff.| the prophet measures the temple and that passage is probably in mind here. But modern scholars do not know how to interpret this interlude (11:1-13|) before the seventh trumpet (11:15|). Some (Wellhausen) take it to be a scrap from the Zealot party before the destruction of Jerusalem, which event Christ also foretold (Mark:13:2; strkjv@Matthew:24:2; strkjv@Luke:21:6|) and which was also attributed to Stephen (Acts:6:14|). Charles denies any possible literal interpretation and takes the language in a wholly eschatological sense. There are three points in the interlude, however understood: the chastisement of Jerusalem or Israel (verses 1,2|), the mission of the two witnesses (3-12|), the rescue of the remnant (13|). There is a heavenly sanctuary (7:15; strkjv@11:19; strkjv@14:15|, etc.), but here \naos\ is on earth and yet not the actual temple in Jerusalem (unless so interpreted). Perhaps here it is the spiritual (3:12; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:4; strkjv@1Corinthians:3:16f.; strkjv@2Corinthians:6:16; strkjv@Ephesians:2:19ff.|). For altar (\thusiastrion\) see strkjv@8:3|. Perhaps measuring as applied to "them that worship therein" (\tous proskunountas en auti\) implies a word like numbering, with an allusion to the 144,000 in chapter 7 (a zeugma).

rwp@Revelation:11:17 @{O Lord God} (\Kurie ho theos\). Vocative form \kurie\ and nominative form \ho theos\ (vocative in use). See strkjv@1:8; strkjv@4:8| for this combination with \ho pantokratr\ (the Almighty). For \ho n kai ho n\ (which art and which wast) see strkjv@1:4,8; strkjv@4:8; strkjv@16:5|. {Thou hast taken} (\eilphes\). Perfect active indicative of \lamban\, emphasizing the permanence of God's rule, "Thou hast assumed thy power." {Didst reign} (\ebasileusas\). Ingressive first aorist active indicative of \basileu\, "Didst begin to reign." See this combination of tenses (perfect and aorist) without confusion in strkjv@3:3; strkjv@5:7; strkjv@8:5|.

rwp@Revelation:16:6 @{For} (\hoti\). Second causal conjunction (\hoti\) explanatory of the first \hoti\, like the two cases of \hoti\ in strkjv@15:4|. {They poured out} (\exechean\). Second aorist active indicative of \ekche\ with \-an\ instead of \-on\. {Blood hast thou given them to drink} (\haima autois dedkas pein\). \Haima\ (blood) is the emphatic word, measure for measure for shedding the blood of saints and prophets (11:18; strkjv@18:24|). Perfect active indicative of \didmi\, and so a permanent and just punishment. \Pein\ is the abbreviated second aorist active infinitive of \pin\ for \piein\ (\epion\). It is the epexegetical infinitive after \dedkas\. There was no more drinking-water, but only this coagulated blood. {They are worthy} (\axioi eisin\). "Terrible antithesis" (Swete) to strkjv@3:4|. The asyndeton adds to it (Alford).