OT.filter - rwp luth:

rwp@Acts:13:43 @{When the synagogue broke up} (\lutheiss ts sunaggs\). Genitive absolute of first aorist passive participle of \lu\. Apparently Paul and Barnabas had gone out before the synagogue was formally dismissed. {Of the devout proselytes} (\tn sebomenn proslutn\). Of the worshipping proselytes described in verses 16,25| as "those who fear God" (cf. strkjv@16:14|) employed usually of the uncircumcised Gentiles who yet attended the synagogue worship, but the word \proslutoi\ (\pros, lutos\ verbal from \erchomai\, a new-comer) means usually those who had become circumcised (proselytes of righteousness). Yet the rabbis used it also of proselytes of the gate who had not yet become circumcised, probably the idea here. In the N.T. the word occurs only in strkjv@Matthew:23:15; strkjv@Acts:2:10; strkjv@6:5; strkjv@13:43|. Many (both Jews and proselytes) followed (\kolouthsan\, ingressive aorist active indicative of \akolouthe\) Paul and Barnabas to hear more without waiting till the next Sabbath. Songs:we are to picture Paul and Barnabas speaking (\proslalountes\, late compound, in N.T. only here and strkjv@28:20|) to eager groups. {Urged} (\epeithon\). Imperfect active of \peith\, either descriptive (were persuading) or conative (were trying to persuade). Paul had great powers of persuasion (18:4; strkjv@19:8,26; strkjv@26:28; strkjv@28:23; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:11; strkjv@Galatians:1:10|). These Jews "were beginning to understand for the first time the true meaning of their national history" (Furneaux), "the grace of God" to them.

rwp@Hebrews:7:5 @{The priest's office} (\tn hierateian\). LXX and _Koin_ word from \hiereus\, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:1:9|. {To take tithes} (\apodekatoin\). Present active infinitive (in \-oin\, not \-oun\, as the best MSS. give it) of \apodekato\ a LXX word (\apo, dekato\), to take a tenth from (\apo\). {Brethren} (\adelphous\). Accusative case in apposition with \laon\ (people) unaffected by the explanatory phrase \tout' estin\ (that is). {Though come out} (\kaiper exelluthotas\). Concessive participle (cf. strkjv@5:8|) with \kaiper\ (perfect active of \exerchomai\).

rwp@Hebrews:13:5 @{Be ye free from the love of money} (\aphilarguros ho tropos\). No copula, but supply \esto\: "Let your manner of life (\tropos\, way, strkjv@Matthew:23:37|), be without love of money" (\aphilarguros\, double compound), once found only in the N.T., here and strkjv@1Timothy:3:3|, but now several times--or the adverb \aphilargurs\ --in papyri and inscriptions (Deissmann, _Light_, etc., pp. 85f.). Alpha privative and \philos\ and \arguros\. The N.T. is full of the peril of money on the character as modern life is also. {Content with such things as ye have} (\arkoumenoi tois parousin\). Present passive participle of \arke\, to suffice, to be content as in strkjv@Luke:3:14|. Cf. \autarks\ in strkjv@Phillipians:4:11|. Here in the nominative plural with no substantive or pronoun (anacoluthon, as in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:7|) or the participle used as a principal verb as in strkjv@Romans:12:16|. "Contented with the present things" (\tois parousin\, associative instrumental case of \ta paronta\, present active neuter plural participle of \pareimi\, to be present or on hand). {For himself hath said} (\autos gar eirken\). God himself as in strkjv@Acts:20:33| of Christ. Perfect active indicative as in strkjv@1:13; strkjv@4:3f.; strkjv@10:9|. The quotation is a free paraphrase of strkjv@Genesis:28:15; strkjv@Deuteronomy:31:8; strkjv@Joshua:1:5; strkjv@1Chronicles:28:20|. Philo (de Confus. Ling. 32) has it in this form, "a popular paraphrase" (Moffatt). Note the five negatives strengthening each other (\ou m\ with the second aorist active subjunctive \an\ from \animi\, to relate, as in strkjv@Acts:16:26|; \oud' ou m\ with second aorist active subjunctive \egkatalip\ from \egkataleip\, to leave behind, as in strkjv@Matthew:27:46; strkjv@2Timothy:4:10|). A noble promise in times of depression.

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:4:8 @{For} (\gar\). Explanation of the reason for asking her. {Were gone away} (\apellutheisan\). Past perfect of \aperchomai\, to go off. They had already gone before she came. To Sychar (5,39|). {To buy food} (\hina trophas agorassin\). \Hina\ in purpose clause with first aorist active subjunctive of \agoraz\, old verb from \agora\ (marketplace). See strkjv@Matthew:21:12|. \Troph\ (nourishment) is old word from \treph\, to nourish (Matthew:3:4|). "Victuals" (plural).

rwp@Luke:11:11 @{Of which of you that is a father} (\tina de ex humn ton patera\). There is a decided anacoluthon here. The MSS. differ a great deal. The text of Westcott and Hort makes \ton patera\ (the father) in apposition with \tina\ (of whom) and in the accusative the object of \aitsei\ (shall ask) which has also another accusative (both person and thing) "a loaf." Songs:far so good. But the rest of the sentence is, {will ye give him a stone?} (\m lithon epidsei auti;\). \M\ shows that the answer No is expected, but the trouble is that the interrogative \tina\ in the first clause is in the accusative the object of \aitsei\ while here the same man (he) is the subject of \epidsei\. It is a very awkward piece of Greek and yet it is intelligible. Some of the old MSS. do not have the part about "loaf" and "stone," but only the two remaining parts about "fish" and "serpent," "egg" and "scorpion." The same difficult construction is carried over into these questions also.

rwp@Revelation:9:15 @{Were loosed} (\eluthsan\). First aorist (ingressive) passive indicative of \lu\, "were let loose." {Which had been prepared} (\hoi htoimasmenoi\). Perfect passive articular participle of \hetoimaz\, to make ready (\hetoimos\), in a state of readiness prepared by God (12:6; strkjv@16:12; strkjv@Matthew:25:34|). {For the hour and day and month and year} (\eis tn hran kai hmeran kai mna kai eniauton\). For this use of \eis\ with \htoimasmenon\ see strkjv@2Timothy:2:21|. All preparation over, the angels are waiting for the signal to begin. {That they should kill} (\hina apokteinsin\). The same idiom in verse 5| about the fifth trumpet, which brought torture. This one brings death.

rwp@Revelation:11:18 @{Were wroth} (\rgisthsan\). Ingressive first aorist active indicative of \orgizomai\, "became angry." The culmination of wrath against God (16:13ff.; strkjv@20:8f.|). Cf. strkjv@Psalms:2:1,5,12; strkjv@99:1; strkjv@Acts:4:25ff|. John sees the hostility of the world against Christ. {Thy wrath came} (\lthen h org sou\). Second aorist active indicative of \erchomai\, the prophetic aorist again. The _Dies Irae_ is conceived as already come. {The time of the dead to be judged} (\ho kairos tn nekrn krithnai\). For this use of \kairos\ see strkjv@Mark:11:13; strkjv@Luke:21:24|. By "the dead" John apparently means both good and bad (John:5:25; strkjv@Acts:24:21|), coincident with the resurrection and judgment (Mark:4:29; strkjv@Revelation:14:15ff.; strkjv@20:1-15|). The infinitive \krithnai\ is the first aorist passive of \krin\, epexegetic use with the preceding clause, as is true also of \dounai\ (second aorist active infinitive of \didmi\), to give. {Their reward} (\ton misthon\). This will come in the end of the day (Matthew:20:8|), from God (Matthew:6:1|), at the Lord's return (Revelation:22:12|), according to each one's work (1Corinthians:3:8|). {The small and the great} (\tous mikrous kai tous megalous\). The accusative here is an anacoluthon and fails to agree in case with the preceding datives after \dounai ton misthon\, though some MSS. have the dative \tois mikrois\, etc. John is fond of this phrase "the small and the great" (13:16; strkjv@19:5,18; strkjv@20:12|). {To destroy} (\diaphtheirai\). First aorist active infinitive of \diaphtheir\, carrying on the construction with \kairos\. Note \tous diaphtheirontas\, "those destroying" the earth (corrupting the earth). There is a double sense in \diaphtheir\ that justifies this play on the word. See strkjv@19:2|. In strkjv@1Timothy:6:5| we have those "corrupted in mind" (\diaphtharmenoi ton noun\). God will destroy the destroyers (1Corinthians:3:16f.|).

rwp@Revelation:14:12 @{Here is the patience of the saints} (\Hde h hupomon tn hagin estin\). John's own comment as in strkjv@13:10; strkjv@17:9|. In this struggle against emperor worship lay their opportunity (Romans:5:3|). It was a test of loyalty to Christ. {They that keep} (\hoi trountes\). In apposition with \tn hagin\ (genitive), though nominative, a frequent anacoluthon in this book (2:20|, etc.). Cf. strkjv@12:17|. {The faith of Jesus} (\tn pistin Isou\). "The faith in Jesus" (objective genitive) as in strkjv@2:13; strkjv@Mark:11:22; strkjv@James:2:1|.

rwp@Romans:6:1 @{What shall we say then?} (\ti oun eroumen?\). "A debater's phrase" (Morison). Yes, and an echo of the rabbinical method of question and answer, but also an expression of exultant victory of grace versus sin. But Paul sees the possible perversion of this glorious grace. {Shall we continue in sin?} (\epimenmen ti hamartii?\). Present active deliberative subjunctive of \epimen\, old verb to tarry as in Ephesus (1Corinthians:16:8|) with locative case. The practice of sin as a habit (present tense) is here raised. {That grace may abound} (\hina h charis pteonasi\). Final clause with ingressive aorist subjunctive, to set free the superfluity of grace alluded to like putting money in circulation. Horrible thought (\m genoito\) and yet Paul faced it. There are occasionally so-called pietists who actually think that God's pardon gives them liberty to sin without penalty (cf. the sale of indulgences that stirred Martin Luther).