OT.filter - rwp subject:

rwp@1Corinthians:6:18 @{Flee} (\pheugete\). Present imperative. Have the habit of fleeing without delay or parley. Note abruptness of the asyndeton with no connectives. Fornication violates Christ's rights in our bodies (verses 13-17|) and also ruins the body itself. {Without the body} (\ektos tou smatos\). Even gluttony and drunkenness and the use of dope are sins wrought on the body, not "within the body" (\entos tou smatos\) in the same sense as fornication. Perhaps the dominant idea of Paul is that fornication, as already shown, breaks the mystic bond between the body and Christ and hence the fornicator (\ho porneun\) {sins against his own body} (\eis to idion sma hamartanei\) in a sense not true of other dreadful sins. The fornicator takes his body which belongs to Christ and unites it with a harlot. In fornication the body is the instrument of sin and becomes the subject of the damage wrought. In another sense fornication brings on one's own body the two most terrible bodily diseases that are still incurable (gonorrhea and syphilis) that curse one's own body and transmit the curse to the third and fourth generation. Apart from the high view given here by Paul of the relation of the body to the Lord no possible father or mother has the right to lay the hand of such terrible diseases and disaster on their children and children's children. The moral and physical rottenness wrought by immorality defy one's imagination.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:10 @{Ought} (\opheilei\). Moral obligation therefore (\dia touto\, rests on woman in the matter of dress that does not (\ouk opheilei\ in verse 7|) rest on the man. {To have a sign of authority} (\exousian echein\). He means \smeion exousias\ (symbol of authority) by \exousian\, but it is the sign of authority of the man over the woman. The veil on the woman's head is the symbol of the authority that the man with the uncovered head has over her. It is, as we see it, more a sign of subjection (\hypotags\, strkjv@1Timothy:2:10|) than of authority (\exousias\). {Because of the angels} (\dia tous aggelous\). This startling phrase has caused all kinds of conjecture which may be dismissed. It is not preachers that Paul has in mind, nor evil angels who could be tempted (Genesis:6:1f.|), but angels present in worship (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:4:9; strkjv@Psalms:138:1|) who would be shocked at the conduct of the women since the angels themselves veil their faces before Jehovah (Isaiah:6:2|).

rwp@1John:2:16 @{All that} (\pn to\). Collective use of the neuter singular as in strkjv@5:4|, like \pn ho\ in strkjv@John:6:37,39|. Three examples, not necessarily covering all sins, are given in the nominative in apposition with \pn to\. "The lust of the flesh" (\h epithumia ts sarkos\, subjective genitive, lust felt by the flesh) may be illustrated by strkjv@Mark:4:19; strkjv@Galatians:5:17|. Songs:the genitive with \h epithumia tn ophthalmn\ (the lust of the eyes) is subjective, lust with the eyes as organs as shown by Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:5:28|. The use of the "movies" today for gain by lustful exhibitions is a case in point. For \alazoneia\ see on ¯James:4:16|, the only other N.T. example. \Alazn\ (a boaster) occurs in strkjv@Romans:1:30; strkjv@2Timothy:3:2|. \Bios\ (life) as in strkjv@3:17| is the external aspect (Luke:8:14|), not the inward principle (\z\). David Smith thinks that, as in the case of Eve (Genesis:3:1-6|) and the temptations of Jesus (Matthew:4:1-11|), these three sins include all possible sins. But they are all "of the world" (\ek tou kosmou\) in origin, in no sense "of the Father" (\ek tou patros\). The problem for the believer is always how to be in the world and yet not of it (John:17:11,14ff.|).

rwp@1John:3:22 @{Whatsoever we ask} (\ho ean aitmen\). Indefinite relative clause with modal \an\ and the present active subjunctive, like \hoti ean kataginski\ in verse 20|. In form no limitations are placed here save that of complete fellowship with God, which means complete surrender of our will to that of God our Father. See the clear teaching of Jesus on this subject in strkjv@Mark:11:24; strkjv@Luke:11:9; strkjv@John:14:12f.; strkjv@16:23| and his example (Mark:14:36; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:22:42|). The answer may not always be in the form that we expect, but it will be better. {We receive of him} (\lambanomen ap' autou\). See strkjv@1:5| for \ap' autou\ (from him). {Because} (\hoti\). Twofold reason why we receive regularly (\lambanomen\) the answer to our prayers (1) "we keep" (\troumen\, for which see strkjv@2:3|) his commandments and (2) "we do" (\poioumen\, we practise regularly) "the things that are pleasing" (\ta aresta\, old verbal adjective from \aresk\, to please, with dative in strkjv@John:8:29| with same phrase; strkjv@Acts:12:3| and infinitive in strkjv@Acts:6:2|, only other N.T. examples) "in his sight" (\enpion autou\, common late vernacular preposition in papyri, LXX, and in N.T., except Matthew and Mark, chiefly by Luke and in the Apocalypse), in God's eye, as in strkjv@Hebrews:13:21|.

rwp@1Peter:1:2 @{According to} (\kata\). Probably to be connected with \eklektois\ rather than with \apostolos\ in spite of a rather loose arrangement of words and the absence of articles in verses 1,2|. {The foreknowledge} (\prognsin\). Late substantive (Plutarch, Lucian, papyri) from \proginsk\ (1:20|), to know beforehand, only twice in N.T. (here and strkjv@Acts:2:23| in Peter's sermon). In this Epistle Peter often uses substantives rather than verbs (cf. strkjv@Romans:8:29|). {Of God the Father} (\theou patros\). Anarthous again and genitive case. See \patr\ applied to God also in strkjv@1:3,17| as often by Paul (Romans:1:7|, etc.). Peter here presents the Trinity (God the Father, the Spirit, Jesus Christ). {In sanctification of the Spirit} (\en hagiasmi pneumatos\). Clearly the Holy Spirit, though anarthrous like \theou patros\. Late word from \hagiaz\, to render holy (\hagios\), to consecrate, as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:7|. The subjective genitive here, sanctification wrought by the Spirit as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:13| (where the Trinity mentioned as here). {Unto obedience} (\eis hupakon\). Obedience (from \hupakou\, to hear under, to hearken) to the Lord Jesus as in strkjv@1:22| "to the truth," result of "the sanctification." {And sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ} (\rantismon haimatos Isou Christou\). Late substantive from \rantiz\, to sprinkle (Hebrews:9:13|), a word used in the LXX of the sacrifices (Numbers:19:9,13,20|, etc.), but not in any non-biblical source so far as known, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:12:24| (of the sprinkling of blood). Reference to the death of Christ on the Cross and to the ratification of the New Covenant by the blood of Christ as given in strkjv@Hebrews:9:19f.; strkjv@12:24| with allusion to strkjv@Exodus:24:3-8|. Paul does not mention this ritual use of the blood of Christ, but Jesus does (Matthew:26:28; strkjv@Mark:14:24|). Hence it is not surprising to find the use of it by Peter and the author of Hebrews. Hort suggests that Peter may also have an ulterior reference to the blood of the martyrs as in strkjv@Revelation:7:14f.; strkjv@12:11|, but only as illustration of what Jesus did for us, not as having any value. The whole Epistle is a commentary upon \prognsis theou, hagiasmos pneumatos, haima Christou\ (Bigg). Peter is not ashamed of the blood of Christ. {Be multiplied} (\plthunthei\). First aorist passive optative (volitive) of \plthun\, old verb (from \plthus\, fulness), in a wish. Songs:in strkjv@2Peter:1:2; strkjv@Jude:1:2|, but nowhere else in N.T. salutations. Grace and peace (\charis kai eirn\) occur together in strkjv@2Peter:1:2|, in strkjv@2John:1:2| (with \eleos\), and in all Paul's Epistles (with \eleos\ added in I and II Timothy).

rwp@1Timothy:3:4 @{Ruling} (\proistamenon\). Present middle participle of \proistmi\, old word to place before and (intransitive as here) to stand before. See strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:12; strkjv@Romans:12:8|. {In subjection} (\en hupotagi\). See verse 11|.

rwp@1Timothy:3:6 @{Not a novice} (\m neophuton\). Our "neophyte." Vernacular word from Aristophanes on, in LXX, and in papyri in the original sense of "newly-planted" (\neos, phu\). Only here in N.T. {Lest} (\hina m\). "That not." {Being puffed up} (\tuphtheis\). First aorist passive participle of \tupho\, old word (from \tuphos\, smoke, pride), to raise a smoke or mist (a smoke-screen of pride). In N.T. only here; strkjv@6:4; strkjv@2Timothy:3:4|. {He fall into} (\empesi eis\). Second aorist active subjunctive with \hina m\, negative purpose, of \empipt\, old verb, to fall into. Note both \en\ and \eis\ as in strkjv@Matthew:12:11; strkjv@Luke:10:36|. {The condemnation of the devil} (\krima tou diabolou\). See strkjv@Romans:3:8| for \krima\. Best to take \tou diabolou\ as objective genitive, though subjective in verse 7|, "the condemnation passed on or received by the devil" (not just "the slanderer," any slanderer).

rwp@2Peter:3:5 @{For this they wilfully forget} (\lanthanei gar autous touto thelontas\). Literally, "for this escapes them being willing." See this use of \lanthan\ (old verb, to escape notice of, to be hidden from) in strkjv@Acts:26:26|. The present active participle \thelontas\ (from \thel\, to wish) has almost an adverbial sense here. {Compacted} (\sunestsa\). See Paul's \sunestken\ (Colossians:1:17|) "consist." Second perfect active (intransitive) participle of \sunistmi\, feminine singular agreeing with \g\ (nearest to it) rather than with \ouranoi\ (subject of \san\ imperfect plural). There is no need to make Peter mean the Jewish mystical "seven heavens" because of the plural which was used interchangeably with the singular (Matthew:5:9f.|). {Out of water and amidst water} (\ex hudatos kai di' hudatos\). Out of the primeval watery chaos (Genesis:1:2|), but it is not plain what is meant by \di' hudatos\, which naturally means "by means of water," though \dia\ with the genitive is used for a condition or state (Hebrews:12:1|). The reference may be to strkjv@Genesis:1:9|, the gathering together of the waters. {By the word of God} (\ti tou theou logi\). Instrumental case \logi\, "by the fiat of God" (Genesis:1:3; strkjv@Hebrews:11:3| \rmati theou\).

rwp@Acts:7:16 @{They were carried over unto Shechem} (\metetethsan eis Suchem\). First aorist passive of \metatithmi\, only here in the N.T. in this sense of changing places. Jacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah (Genesis:50:13|). The O.T. does not say where the sons of Jacob were buried save that Joseph was buried in Shechem (Joshua:24:32|). Possibly only "our fathers" without Jacob is the subject of "were carried." {Which Abraham bought} (\hi nsato Abraam\). Hackett is sure that our present text is wrong. Hort notes some sixty "primitive errors" in the critical text of the N.T. It is possible that this is also one. If "Jacob" is substituted for "Abraham," the matter is cleared up. "It is quite as likely, judging _a priori_, that the word producing the error escaped from some early copyist as that so glaring an error was committed by Stephen" (Hackett). At any rate Abraham bought a burying-place, the cave of Machpelah, from Ephron the Hittite at Hebron (Genesis:23:16|), while Jacob bought a field from the sons of Hamor at Shechem (Genesis:33:19; strkjv@Joshua:24:32|). Abraham had built an altar at Shechem when he entered Canaan (Genesis:12:6f.|). It is possible, of course, that Abraham also bought the ground on which the altar stood. {In Shechem} (\en Suchem\). This is the reading of Aleph B C instead of the Textus Receptus \tou Suchem\ which makes it "Hamar the father of Sichem." "In Shechem" is the true reading.

rwp@Acts:12:9 @{Wist not} (\ouk idei\). Past perfect of \oida\ used as imperfect, did not know. {Followed} (\kolouthei\). Imperfect active, kept on following as the angel had directed (verse 8|). That it was true (\hoti althes estin\). Indirect assertion and so present tense retained. Note "true" (\althes\) in the sense of reality or actuality. {Which was done} (\to ginomenon\). Present middle participle, that which was happening. {Thought he saw a vision} (\edokei horama blepein\). Imperfect active, kept on thinking, puzzled as he was. \Blepein\ is the infinitive in indirect assertion without the pronoun (he) expressed which could be either nominative in apposition with the subject as in strkjv@Romans:1:22| or accusative of general reference as in strkjv@Acts:5:36; strkjv@8:9| (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1036-40). Peter had had a vision in Joppa (10:10|) which Luke describes as an "ecstasy," but here is objective fact, at least Luke thought so and makes that distinction. Peter will soon know whether he is still in the cell or not as we find out that a dream is only a dream when we wake up.

rwp@Hebrews:4:6 @{It remaineth} (\apoleipetai\). Present passive indicative of \apoleip\, old verb to leave behind, to remain over. Songs:again in strkjv@4:9; strkjv@10:26|. Here the infinitive clause (\tinas eiselthein eis autn\) is the subject of \apoleipetai\. This left-over promise is not repeated, though not utilized by the Israelites under Moses nor in the highest sense by Joshua and David. {Failed to enter in} (\ouk eislthon\). "Did not enter in" (second aorist active indicative of \eiserchomai\). It is a rabbinical argument all along here, but the author is writing to Jews.

rwp@Hebrews:7:2 @{A tenth} (\dekatn\). It was common to offer a tenth of the spoils to the gods. Songs:Abraham recognized Melchizedek as a priest of God. {Divided} (\emerisen\). First aorist active of \meriz\, from \meros\ (portion), to separate into parts. From this point till near the end of verse 3| (the Son of God) is a long parenthesis with \houtos\ of verse 1| as the subject of \menei\ (abideth) as the Revised Version punctuates it. Philo had made popular the kind of exegesis used here. The author gives in Greek the meaning of the Hebrew words Melchizedek (King of righteousness, cf. strkjv@1:8|) and Salem (peace).

rwp@Hebrews:11:4 @{A more excellent sacrifice} (\pleiona thusian\). Literally, "more sacrifice" (comparative of \polus\, much). For this rather free use of \plein\ with the point implied rather than stated see strkjv@Matthew:6:25; strkjv@Luke:10:31; strkjv@12:23; strkjv@Hebrews:3:3|. {Than Cain} (\para Kain\). For this use of \para\ after comparative see strkjv@1:4,9|. For the incident see strkjv@Genesis:4:4|. {Through which} (\di' hs\). The sacrifice (\thusia\). {He had Witness borne to him} (\emarturth\). First aorist passive indicative of \marture\ as in verse 2|, "he was witnessed to." {That he was righteous} (\einai dikaios\). Infinitive in indirect discourse after \emarturth\, personal construction of \dikaios\ (predicate nominative after \einai\) agreeing with the subject of \emarturth\ (cf. strkjv@Romans:1:22|, \einai sophoi\). {God bearing witness} (\marturountos tou theou\). Genitive absolute with present active participle of \marture\. {Through it} (\di' auts\). Through his faith (as shown by his sacrifice). Precisely why Abel's sacrifice was better than that of Cain apart from his faith is not shown. {Being dead} (\apothann\). Second aorist active participle of \apothnsk\, "having died." {Yet speaketh} (\eti lalei\). Cf. strkjv@Genesis:4:10; strkjv@Hebrews:12:24|. Speaks still through his faith.

rwp@Hebrews:13:2 @{As bound with them} (\hs sundedemenoi\). Perfect passive participle of \sunde\, old verb, here only in N.T. For sympathy with prisoners see strkjv@10:34|. {As being yourselves also in the body} (\hs kai autoi ontes en smati\). And so subject to evil treatment. See strkjv@11:37| for \kakouche\ and strkjv@11:25| for \sunkakouche\.

rwp@James:4:5 @{The Scripture} (\h graph\). Personification as in strkjv@Galatians:3:8; strkjv@James:2:23|. But no O.T. passage is precisely like this, though it is "a poetical rendering" (Ropes) of strkjv@Exodus:20:5|. The general thought occurs also in strkjv@Genesis:6:3-5; strkjv@Isaiah:63:8-16|, etc. Paul has the same idea also (Galatians:5:17,21; strkjv@Romans:8:6,8|). It is possible that the reference is really to the quotation in verse 6| from strkjv@Proverbs:3:34| and treating all before as a parenthesis. There is no way to decide positively. {In vain} (\kens\). Old adverb (Aristotle) from \kens\ (2:20|), here alone in N.T. "Emptily," not meaning what it says. {Made to dwell} (\katikisen\). First aorist active of \katoikiz\, old verb, to give a dwelling to, only here in N.T. {Long unto envying} (\pros phthonon epipothei\). A difficult phrase. Some even take \pros phthonon\ with \legei\ rather than with \epipothei\, as it naturally does go, meaning "jealously." But even so, with God presented as a jealous lover, does \to pneuma\ refer to the Holy Spirit as the subject of \epipothei\ or to man's spirit as the object of \epipothei\? Probably the former and \epipothei\ then means to yearn after in the good sense as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:8|.

rwp@James:4:7 @{Be subject therefore unto God} (\hupotagte oun ti thei\). Second aorist (ingressive) passive imperative of \hupotass\, old verb, to range under (military term also). Same form in strkjv@1Peter:2:23; strkjv@5:5|. With the dative case \thei\ (unto God). The aorist has the note of urgency in the imperative. Note the ten aorist imperatives in verses 7-10| (\hupotagte, antistte, eggisate, katharisate, hagnisate, talaiprsate, penthsate, klausate, metatrapt, tapeinthte\). {But resist the devil} (\antistte de ti diaboli\). Second aorist (ingressive) active (intransitive) imperative of \anthistmi\, "take a stand against." Dative case \diaboli\. Result of such a stand is that the devil will flee (\pheuxetai\, future middle of \pheug\). See strkjv@1Peter:5:8f.; strkjv@Ephesians:6:11f.; strkjv@Luke:10:17|.

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:4:19 @{Sir} (\Kurie\). Songs:still. {I perceive} (\ther\). "I am beginning to perceive" from what you say, your knowledge of my private life (verse 29|). See strkjv@2:23| for \there\ which John's Gospel has 23 times, of bodily sight (20:6,14|), of mental contemplation (12:45; strkjv@14:17|). See both \there\ and \optomai\ in strkjv@1:51; strkjv@16:16|. {That thou art a prophet} (\hoti prophts ei su\). "That a prophet art thou" (emphasis on "thou"). She felt that this was the explanation of his knowledge of her life and she wanted to change the subject at once to the outstanding theological dispute.

rwp@John:8:43 @{My speech} (\tn lalian tn emn\) and {my word} (\ton logon ton emon\). Perhaps \lalia\, old word from \lalos\ (talk), means here more manner of speech than just story (4:42|), while \logos\ refers rather to the subject matter. They will not listen (\ou dunasthe akouein\) to the substance of Christ's teaching and hence they are impatient with the way that he talks. How often that is true.

rwp@John:8:44 @{Ye are of your father the devil} (\humeis ek tou patros tou diabolou\). Certainly they can "understand" (\ginskete\ in 43|) this "talk" (\lalian\) though they will be greatly angered. But they had to hear it (\akouein\ in 43|). It was like a bombshell in spite of the preliminary preparation. {Your will to do} (\thelete poiein\). Present active indicative of \thel\ and present active infinitive, "Ye wish to go on doing." This same idea Jesus presents in strkjv@Matthew:13:38| (the sons of the evil one, the devil) and strkjv@23:15| (twofold more a son of Gehenna than you). See also strkjv@1John:3:8| for "of the devil" (\ek tou diabolou\) for the one who persists in sinning. In strkjv@Revelation:12:9| the devil is one who leads all the world astray. The Gnostic view that Jesus means "the father of the devil" is grotesque. Jesus does not, of course, here deny that the Jews, like all men, are children of God the Creator, like Paul's offspring of God for all men in strkjv@Acts:17:28|. What he denies to these Pharisees is that they are spiritual children of God who do his will. They do the lusts and will of the devil. The Baptist had denied this same spiritual fatherhood to the merely physical descendants of Abraham (Matthew:3:9|). He even called them "broods of vipers" as Jesus did later (Matthew:12:34|). {A murderer} (\anthrpoktonos\). Old and rare word (Euripides) from \anthrpos\, man, and \ktein\, to kill. In N.T. only here and strkjv@1John:3:15|. The Jews were seeking to kill Jesus and so like their father the devil. {Stood not in the truth} (\en ti altheii ouk estken\). Since \ouk\, not \ouch\, is genuine, the form of the verb is \esteken\ the imperfect of the late present stem \stk\ (Mark:11:25|) from the perfect active \hestka\ (intransitive) of \histmi\, to place. {No truth in him} (\ouk estin altheia en auti\). Inside him or outside (environment). The devil and truth have no contact. {When he speaketh a lie} (\hotan lali to pseudos\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ and the present active subjunctive of \lale\. But note the article \to\: "Whenever he speaks the lie," as he is sure to do because it is his nature. Hence "he speaks out of his own" (\ek tn idin lalei\) like a fountain bubbling up (cf. strkjv@Matthew:12:34|). {For he is a liar} (\hoti pseusts estin\). Old word for the agent in a conscious falsehood (\pseudos\). See strkjv@1John:1:10; strkjv@Romans:3:4|. Common word in John because of the emphasis on \altheia\ (truth). {And the father thereof} (\kai ho patr autou\). Either the father of the lie or of the liar, both of which are true as already shown by Jesus. {Autou} in the genitive can be either neuter or masculine. Westcott takes it thus, "because he is a liar and his father (the devil) is a liar," making "one," not the devil, the subject of "whenever he speaks," a very doubtful expression.

rwp@Luke:2:51 @{He was subject unto them} (\n hupotassomenos autois\). Periphrastic imperfect passive. He continued subject unto them, this wondrous boy who really knew more than parents and rabbis, this gentle, obedient, affectionate boy. The next eighteen years at Nazareth (Luke:3:23|) he remained growing into manhood and becoming the carpenter of Nazareth (Mark:6:3|) in succession to Joseph (Matthew:13:55|) who is mentioned here for the last time. Who can tell the wistful days when Jesus waited at Nazareth for the Father to call him to his Messianic task? {Kept} (\dietrei\). Imperfect active. Ancient Greek word (\diatre\), but only here and strkjv@Acts:15:29| in the N.T. though in strkjv@Genesis:37:11|. She kept thoroughly (\dia\) all these recent sayings (or things, \rhmata\). In strkjv@2:19| \sunetrei\ is the word used of Mary after the shepherds left. These she kept pondering and comparing all the things. Surely she has a full heart now. Could she foresee how destiny would take Jesus out beyond her mother's reach?

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@Matthew:1:18 @{Of the Holy Ghost} (\ek pneumatos hagiou\). The discovery that Mary was pregnant was inevitable and it is plain that she had not told Joseph. She "was found with child" (\heureth en gastri echousa\). This way of putting it, the usual Greek idiom, plainly shows that it was the discovery that shocked Joseph. He did not as yet know what Matthew plainly asserts that the Holy Ghost, not Joseph and not any man, was responsible for the pregnancy of Mary. The problem of the Virgin Birth of Jesus has been a disturbing fact to some through all the ages and is today to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the Son of God, before his Incarnation on earth. This is the primal fact about the Birth of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ is clearly stated by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|; and involved in strkjv@Colossians:1:15-19|) and by John (John:1:14; strkjv@17:5|). If one frankly admits the actual pre-existence of Christ and the real Incarnation, he has taken the longest and most difficult step in the matter of the supernatural Birth of Christ. That being true, no merely human birth without the supernatural element can possibly explain the facts. Incarnation is far more than the Indwelling of God by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. To admit real incarnation and also full human birth, both father and mother, creates a greater difficulty than to admit the Virgin Birth of Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew here says, and born of the Virgin Mary. It is true that only Matthew and Luke tell the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus, though strkjv@John:1:14| seems to refer to it. Mark has nothing whatever concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus and so cannot be used as a witness on the subject. Both Matthew and Luke present the birth of Jesus as not according to ordinary human birth. Jesus had no human father. There is such a thing in nature as parthenogenesis in the lower orders of life. But that scientific fact has no bearing here. We see here God sending his Son into the world to be the world's Saviour and he gave him a human mother, but not a human father so that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of Man, the God Man. Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph as Luke gives it from the standpoint of Mary. The two narratives harmonize with each other. One credits these most wonderful of all birth narratives according as he believes in the love and power of Almighty God to do what he wills. There is no miracle with God who has all power and all knowledge. The laws of nature are simply the expression of God's will, but he has not revealed all his will in the laws that we discover. God is Spirit. He is Person. He holds in his own power all life. strkjv@John:3:16| is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us.

rwp@Romans:6:12 @{Reign} (\basileuet\). Present active imperative, "let not sin continue to reign" as it did once (5:12|). {Mortal} (\thntoi\). Verbal adjective from \thnsk\, subject to death. The reign of sin is over with you. Self-indulgence is inconsistent with trust in the vicarious atonement. {That ye should obey} (\eis to hupakouein\). With a view to obeying.

rwp@Romans:7:2 @{The wife that hath a husband} (\h hupandros gun\). Late word, under (in subjection to) a husband. Here only in N.T. {Is bound} (\dedetai\). Perfect passive indicative, stands bound. {By law} (\nomi\). Instrumental case. {To the husband while he liveth} (\ti znti andri\). "To the living husband," literally. {But if the husband die} (\ean de apothani ho anr\). Third class condition, a supposable case (\ean\ and the second aorist active subjunctive). {She is discharged} (\katrgtai\). Perfect passive indicative of \katarge\, to make void. She stands free from the law of the husband. Cf. strkjv@6:6|.

rwp@Romans:9:3 @{I could wish} (\uchomn\). Idiomatic imperfect, "I was on the point of wishing." We can see that \euchomai\ (I do wish) would be wrong to say. \An uchomn\ would mean that he does not wish (conclusion of second class condition). \An uchomn\ would be conclusion of fourth class condition and too remote. He is shut up to the imperfect indicative (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 886). {Anathema} (\anathema\). See for this word as distinct from \anathma\ (offering) strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3; strkjv@Galatians:1:8f.| {I myself} (\autos eg\). Nominative with the infinitive \einai\ and agreeing with subject of \uchomn\. {According to the flesh} (\kata sarka\). As distinguished from Paul's Christian brethren.