OT.filter - rwp record:

rwp@1Corinthians:1:7 @{Songs:that ye come behind in no gift} (\hste humas m hustereisthai en mdeni charismati\). Consecutive clause with \hste\ and the infinitive and the double negative. Come behind (\hustereisthai\) is to be late (\husteros\), old verb seen already in strkjv@Mark:10:21; strkjv@Matthew:19:20|. It is a wonderful record here recorded. But in strkjv@2Corinthians:8:7-11; strkjv@9:1-7| Paul will have to complain that they have not paid their pledges for the collection, pledges made over a year before, a very modern complaint. {Waiting for the revelation} (\apekdechomenous tn apokalupsin\). This double compound is late and rare outside of Paul (1Corinthians:1:7; strkjv@Galatians:5:5; strkjv@Romans:8:19,23,25; strkjv@Phillipians:3:20|), strkjv@1Peter:3:20; strkjv@Hebrews:9:28|. It is an eager expectancy of the second coming of Christ here termed revelation like the eagerness in \prosdechomenoi\ in strkjv@Titus:2:13| for the same event. "As if that attitude of expectation were the highest posture that can be attained here by the Christian" (F.W. Robertson).

rwp@1Corinthians:11:9 @{For the woman} (\dia tn gunaika\). Because of (\dia\ with accusative case) the woman. The record in Genesis gives the man (\anr\) as the origin (\ek\) of the woman and the reason for (\dia\) the creation (\ektisth\, first aorist passive of \ktiz\, old verb to found, to create, to form) of woman.

rwp@Acts:7:13 @{At the second time} (\en ti deuteri\). This expression only here in the N.T. This second visit is recorded in strkjv@Genesis:45:1ff|. {Became manifest} (\phaneron egeneto\). In strkjv@Genesis:41:12| the fact that Joseph was a Hebrew had been incidentally mentioned to Pharaoh, but now it was made clear to him.

rwp@Galatians:4:23 @{Is born} (\gegenntai\). Perfect passive indicative of \genna\, stand on record so. {Through promise} (\di' epaggelias\). In addition to being "after the flesh" (\kata sarka\).

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@Hebrews:7:3 @{Without father, without mother, without genealogy} (\apatr, amtr, agenealogtos\). Alliteration like strkjv@Romans:1:30|, the first two old words, the third coined by the author (found nowhere else) and meaning simply "devoid of any genealogy." The argument is that from silence, made much of by Philo, but not to be pressed. The record in Genesis tells nothing of any genealogy. Melchizedek stands alone. He is not to be understood as a miraculous being without birth or death. Melchizedek has been made more mysterious than he is by reading into this interpretation what is not there. {Made like} (\aphmoimenos\). Perfect passive participle of \aphomoio\, old verb, to produce a facsimile or copy, only here in N.T. The likeness is in the picture drawn in Genesis, not in the man himself. Such artificial interpretation does not amount to proof, but only serves as a parallel or illustration. {Unto the Son of God} (\ti huii tou theou\). Associative instrumental case of \huios\. {Abideth a priest} (\menei hiereus\). According to the record in Genesis, the only one in his line just as Jesus stands alone, but with the difference that Jesus continues priest in fact in heaven. {Continually} (\eis to dinekes\). Old phrase (for the continuity) like \eis ton aina\, in N.T. only in Hebrews (7:3; strkjv@10:1,14,21|).

rwp@Hebrews:7:6 @{He whose genealogy is not counted} (\ho m genealogoumenos\). Articular participle with negative \m\ (usual with participles) of the old verb \genealoge\ trace ancestry (cf. verse 3|) {Hath taken tithes} (\dedekatken\). Perfect active indicative of \dekato\, standing on record in Genesis. {Hath blessed} (\eulogken\). Perfect active indicative of \euloge\, likewise standing on record. Note the frequent perfect tenses in Hebrews. {Him that hath the promises} (\ton echonta tas epaggelias\). Cf. strkjv@6:12,13-15| for allusion to the repeated promises to Abraham (Genesis:12:3,7; strkjv@13:14; strkjv@15:5; strkjv@17:5; strkjv@22:16-18|).

rwp@Hebrews:7:8 @{Here} (\hde\). In the Levitical system. {There} (\ekei\). In the case of Melchizedek. {Of whom it is witnessed} (\marturoumenos\). "Being witnessed," present passive participle of \marture\ (personal construction, not impersonal). {That he lives} (\hoti zi\). Present active indicative of \za\). The Genesis record tells nothing of his death.

rwp@Hebrews:11:5 @{Was translated} (\meteteth\). First aorist passive indicative of \metatithmi\, old verb to transpose, to change as in strkjv@7:12; strkjv@Acts:7:16|. {That he should not see death} (\tou m idein thanaton\). Here again \tou\ with the infinitive usually expresses purpose, but in this case result is the idea as in strkjv@Matthew:21:23; strkjv@Romans:1:24; strkjv@7:3|, etc. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1002). {He was not found} (\ouch hurisketo\). Imperfect passive of \heurisk\ from strkjv@Genesis:5:24|. Was still not found. {Translated} (\metethken\). First aorist active of same verb as \meteteth\ just before. {Translation} (\metatheses\). Substantive from the same verb \metatithmi\, used already in strkjv@7:12| for change. See also strkjv@12:27|. Our very word "metathesis." {He hath had witness borne him} (\memarturtai\). Perfect passive indicative of \marture\, stands on record still, "he has been testified to." {That he had been well-pleasing unto God} (\euarestkenai ti thei\). Perfect active infinitive of \euareste\, late compound from \euarestos\ (well-pleasing), in N.T. only in strkjv@Hebrews:11:5f.; strkjv@13:16|. With dative case \thei\. Quoted here from strkjv@Genesis:5:22,24|. The word is common of a servant pleasing his master.

rwp@Hebrews:11:17 @{Being tried} (\peirazomenos\). Present passive participle of \peiraz\. The test was still going on. {Offered up} (\prosennochen\). Perfect active indicative of \prospher\, the verb so often used in this Epistle. The act was already consummated so far as Abraham was concerned when it was interrupted and it stands on record about him. See strkjv@Genesis:22:1-18|. {He that had gladly received the promises} (\ho tas epaggelias anadexamenos\). \Anadechomai\ is old verb to welcome, to entertain, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:28:7|. It seemed the death of his hopes. {Was offering up} (\prosepheren\). It is the imperfect of an interrupted action like \ekaloun\ in strkjv@Luke:1:59|.

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:4:20 @{In this mountain} (\en ti orei touti\). Jacob's Well is at the foot of Mount Gerizim toward which she pointed. Sanballat erected a temple on this mountain which was destroyed by John Hyrcanus B.C. 129. Abraham (Genesis:12:7|) and Jacob (Genesis:33:20|) set up altars at Shechem. On Gerizim were proclaimed the blessings recorded in strkjv@Deuteronomy:28|. The Samaritan Pentateuch records an altar set up on Gerizim that is on Ebal (over 200 feet higher than Gerizim) in the Hebrew (Deuteronomy:27:4|). The Samaritans held that Abraham offered up Isaac on Gerizim. The Samaritans kept up this worship on this mountain and a handful do it still. {And ye say} (\kai humeis legete\). Emphasis on \humeis\ (ye). Ye Jews. {Ought to worship} (\proskunein dei\). "Must worship," as of necessity (\dei\). The woman felt that by raising this theological wrangle she would turn the attention of Jesus away from herself and perhaps get some light on the famous controversy. \Proskune\ in John is always worship, not just respect.