CONCORDANCE:String = Johannine

rwp@Info_1John @ THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION RELATION TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL There are few scholars who deny that the Epistles of John and the Fourth Gospel are by the same writer. As a matter of fact "in the whole of the First Epistle there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel" (Schulze). H. J. Holtzmann (_Jahrbuch fur Protestantische Theologie_, 1882, P. 128)...upon to prove the Johannine authorship ...1:1-18| with kjv@1John:1:1-4| to see how the same mind deals with the same ideas in different connections. "No theory of conscious imitation can reasonably explain the subtle coincidences and differences in these two short crucial passages."

rwp@Info_1John @ BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, _Epistles of John_ (Speaker's Comm., 1889). Barrett, _Devotional Comm. on John_ (1910). Baumgartner, _Die Schriften des N.T_. (IV. 3, 1918). Belser, _Komm_. (1906). Bennett, _New-Century Bible_. Brooke, _Int. Crit. Comm_. (Johannine Epistles, 1912). Cox, _Private Letters of St. Paul and St. John_ (1887). Ebrard, _Die Briefe Johannis_ (1859). Ewald, _Die Johanneischen Schriften_ (1861). Findlay, _Fellowship in the Life Eternal_ (1909) Gibbon, _Eternal Life_ (1890). Gore, _Epistles of John_ (1921). Green, _Ephesian Canonical Writings_ (1910). Haring, _Die Johannesbriefe_ (1927). Haupt, _I John_ (1869). Hilgenfeld, _Das Evangelium und die Briefe Johannis nach ihrem Lehrbegriff dargestellt_ (1849). Holtzmann-Bauer, _Hand-Comm. sum N.T_. (1908). Holtzmann, _Das Problem des I Johannesbr. in seinem Ver- haltniss zum Evang_. (Jahrbuch fur Prot. Theologie, 1881, 1882). Huther, _Crit. and Exeget. to the General Eps. of James and John_ (1882). Karl, _Johanneische Studien_ (der I Johannes Brief, 1898). Law, _The Tests of Life_ (1909). Lias, _Epistles of John_ (1887). Loisy, _Les epitres dites de Jean_ (1921) in le quatrieme evan- gile. Lucke, _Comm. on Epistles of John_ (1837). Luthardt, _Strack-Zoeckler Komm_. (1895). Maurice, _The Epistles of St. John_ (1857). Plummer, _Cambridge Greek Test_ (1886). Ramsay, A., _Westminster N.T_. (1910). Ritter, _Die Gemeinschaft der Heiligen_ (1929). Robertson, J. A., _The Johannine Epistles_ (1920). Rothe, _Der erste Brief Johannis_ (1879). Sawtelle, _American Comm_. (1890). Smith, David, _The Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910). Watson, _Epistles of John_ (1910). Weiss, B., _Die drei Briefe des Apostels Johannis_ (Meyer Komm. 1900). Wendt, _Die Johannesbriefe und das Johanneische Christen- tum_ (1925). Westcott, _The Epistles of St. John_. 3rd ed. (1892). Windisch, _Die Katholischer Briefe_ (Handbuch zum N.T., 2 Aufl., 1930). Wrede, _In Die Heiligen Schriften des N.T_. (2 Aufl., 1924). Wurm, _Die Irrlehrer im I Johannes Brief_ (1903). kjv@1John:1:1 @{That which} (\ho\). Strictly speaking, the neuter relative here is not personal, but the message "concerning the Word of life" (\peri tou logou tˆs z“ˆs\), a phrase that reminds one at once of the Word (\Logos\) in kjv@John:1:1,14; kjv@Revelation:19:14| (an incidental argument for identity of authorship for all these books). For discussion of the \Logos\ see on ¯John:1:1-18|. Here the \Logos\ is described by \tˆs z“ˆs\ (of life), while in kjv@John:1:4| he is called \hˆ z“ˆ\ (the Life) as here in verse 2| and as Jesus calls himself (John:11:25; 14:6|), an advance on the phrase here, and in kjv@Revelation:19:14| he is termed \ho logos tou theou\ (the Word of God), though in kjv@John:1:1| the \Logos\ is flatly named \ho theos\ (God). John does use \ho\ in a collective personal sense in kjv@John:6:37,39|. See also \pan ho\ in kjv@1John:5:4|. {From the beginning} (\ap' archˆs\). Anarthrous as in kjv@John:1:1; 6:64; 16:4|. See same phrase in 2:7|. The reference goes beyond the Christian dispensation, beyond the Incarnation, to the eternal purpose of God in Christ (John:3:16|), "coeval in some sense with creation" (Westcott). {That which we have heard} (\ho akˆkoamen\). Note fourfold repetition of \ho\ (that which) without connectives (asyndeton). The perfect tense (active indicative of \akou“\) stresses John's equipment to speak on this subject so slowly revealed. It is the literary plural unless John associates the elders of Ephesus with himself (Lightfoot) the men who certified the authenticity of the Gospel (John:21:24|). {That which we have seen} (\ho he“rakamen\). Perfect active, again, of \hora“\, with the same emphasis on the possession of knowledge by John. {With our eyes} (\tois ophthalmois hˆm“n\). Instrumental case and showing it was not imagination on John's part, not an optical illusion as the Docetists claimed, for Jesus had an actual human body. He could be heard and seen. {That which we beheld} (\ho etheasametha\). Repetition with the aorist middle indicative of \theaomai\ (the very form in kjv@John:1:14|), "a spectacle which broke on our astonished vision" (D. Smith). {Handled} (\epsˆlaphˆsan\). First aorist active indicative of \psˆlapha“\, old and graphic verb (from \psa“\, to touch), the very verb used by Jesus to prove that he was not a mere spirit (Luke:24:39|). Three senses are here appealed to (hearing, sight, touch) as combining to show the reality of Christ's humanity against the Docetic Gnostics and the qualification of John by experience to speak. But he is also "the Word of life" and so God Incarnate.

rwp@1John:1:3 @{That which we have seen} (\ho he“rakamen\). Third use of this form (verses 1,2,3|), this time resumption after the parenthesis in verse 2|. {And heard} (\kai akˆkoamen\). Second (verse 1| for first) use of this form, a third in verse 5|...repetition is a thoroughly Johannine trait. ...{Declare we} (\apaggellomen\). Second use of this word (verse 2| for first), but \aggelia\ (message) and \anaggellomen\ (announce) in verse 5|. {That ye also may have} (\hina kai humeis echˆte\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive of \ech“\ (may keep on having). "Ye also" who have not seen Jesus in the flesh as well as those like John who have seen him. Like \kai humin\ (to you also) just before. {Fellowship with us} (\koin“nian meth' hˆm“n\). Common word in this Epistle, from \koin“nos\, partner (Luke:5:10|), and \koin“ne“\, to share, in (1Peter:4:13|), with \meta\ emphasising mutual relationship (Acts:2:42|). This Epistle often uses \ech“\ with a substantive rather than a verb. {Yea, and our fellowship} (\kai hˆ koin“nia de hˆ hˆmetera\). Careful explanation of his meaning in the word "fellowship" (partnership), involving fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ and only possible in Christ.

rwp@1John:1:7 @{If we walk} (\ean peripat“men\). Condition of third class also with \ean\ and present active subjunctive (keep on walking in the light with God). {As he} (\h“s autos\). As God is light (verse 5|) and dwells in light unapproachable (1Timothy:6:16|). {One with another} (\met' allˆl“n\). As he has already said in verse 3|. But we cannot have fellowship with one another unless we have it with God in Christ, and to do that we must walk in the light with God. {And the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin} (\kai to haima Iˆsou tou huiou autou katharizei hˆmƒs apo pƒsˆs hamartias\). This clause with \kai\ in true Johannine style is coordinate with the preceding one. Walking in the light with God makes possible fellowship with one another and is made possible also by the blood of Jesus (real blood and no mere phantom, atoning blood of the sinless Son of God for our sins). John is not ashamed to use this word. It is not the mere "example" of Jesus that "cleanses" us from sin. It does cleanse the conscience and life and nothing else does (Hebrews:9:13f.; kjv@Titus:2:14|). See in verse 9| both forgiveness and cleansing. Cf. kjv@1John:3:3|.

rwp@1John:2:3 @{Hereby} (\en tout“i\). See this phrase also in 2:5; 3:16,19,24; 4:2,13; 5:2|. That is explained by the \ean\ clause, "if we keep his commandments " (\ean tˆr“men\, condition of the third class, \ean\ with present active subjunctive, "if we keep on keeping"), the clause itself in apposition with \tout“i\ (locative case). {Know we that we know him} (\ginoskomen hoti egn“kamen auton\). "Know we that we have come to know and still know him," \egn“kamen\ the perfect active indicative of \gin“sk“\. The Gnostics boasted of their superior knowledge of Christ, and John here challenges their boast by an appeal to experimental knowledge of Christ which is shown by keeping his (\autou\, Christ's) commandments, thoroughly Johannine phrase (12 times in the Gospel, 6 in this Epistle, 6 in the Apocalypse).

rwp@1John:2:25 @{And this is the promise} (\kai hautˆ estin hˆ epaggelia\). See 1:5| for the same idiom with \aggelia\ (message). This is the only instance of \epaggelia\ in the Johannine writings. Here "the promise" is explained to be "the life eternal" (1:2|). In kjv@Acts:1:4| the word is used for the coming of the Holy Spirit. {He promised} (\autos epˆggeilato\). First aorist middle indicative of \epaggell“\. \Autos\ (he) is Christ as is seen in 3:3| by \ekeinos\.

rwp@1John:4:16 @{We know} (\egn“kamen\). Perfect active indicative, "we have come to know and still know" as in kjv@John:6:9|, only there order is changed (\pepisteukamen\ coming before \egn“kamen\). Confession (\homologe“\) follows experimental knowledge (\gin“sk“\) and confident trust (\pisteu“\). Believers are the sphere (\en hˆmin\, in our case) in which the love of God operates (Westcott). See kjv@John:13:35| for "having love." {God is love} (\ho theos agapˆ estin\). Repeated from verse 8|...abiding in him. Thoroughly Johannine style. ...

rwp@1John:5:4 @{For} (\hoti\). The reason why God's commandments are not heavy is the power that comes with the new birth from God. {Whatsoever is begotten of God} (\pƒn to gegennˆmenon ek tou theou\). Neuter singular perfect passive participle of \genna“\ rather than the masculine singular (verse 1|) to express sharply the universality of the principle (Rothe) as in kjv@John:3:6,8; 6:37,39|. {Overcometh the world} (\nikƒi ton kosmon\). Present active indicative of \nika“\, a continuous victory because a continuous struggle, "keeps on conquering the world" ("the sum of all the forces antagonistic to the spiritual life," D. Smith). {This is the victory} (\hautˆ estin hˆ nikˆ\). For this form of expression see 1:5; kjv@John:1:19|. \Nikˆ\ (victory, cf. \nika“\), old word, here alone in N.T., but the later form \nikos\ in kjv@Matthew:12:20; kjv@1Corinthians:15:54f.,57|. {That overcometh} (\hˆ nikˆsasa\). First aorist active articular participle of \nika“\. The English cannot reproduce the play on the word here. The aorist tense singles out an individual experience when one believed or when one met temptation with victory. Jesus won the victory over the world (John:16:33|) and God in us (1John:4:4|) gives us the victory. {Even our faith} (\hˆ pistis hˆm“n\). The only instance of \pistis\ in the Johannine Epistles (not in John's Gospel, though in the Apocalypse). It is our faith in Jesus Christ as shown by our confession (verse 1|) and by our life (verse 2|).

rwp@1Timothy:1:15 @{Faithful is the saying} (\pistos ho logos\). Five times in the Pastorals (1Timothy:1:15; 3:1; 4:9; kjv@Titus:3:8; kjv@2Timothy:2:11|). It will pay to note carefully \pistis, pisteu“, pistos\. Same use of \pistos\ (trustworthy) applied to \logos\ in kjv@Titus:1:9; kjv@Revelation:21:5; 22:6|. Here and probably in kjv@2Timothy:2:11| a definite saying seems to be referred to, possibly a quotation (\hoti\)...saying quite like the Johannine type ...(Christ coming into the world) occurs in kjv@John:9:37; 11:27; 16:28; 18:37|...knowledge of Synoptic and Johannine language" ...(Lock) as in kjv@Luke:5:32; kjv@John:12:47|. {Acceptation} (\apodochˆs\). Genitive case with \axios\ (worthy of). Late word (Polybius, Diod., Jos.) in N.T. only here and 4:9|. {Chief} (\pr“tos\). Not \ˆn\ (I was), but \eimi\ (I am). "It is not easy to think of any one but St. Paul as penning these words" (White). In kjv@1Corinthians:15:9| he had called himself "the least of the apostles" (\elachistos t“n apostol“n\). In kjv@Ephesians:3:8| he refers to himself as "the less than the least of all saints" (\t“i elachistoter“i pant“n hagi“n\). On occasion Paul would defend himself as on a par with the twelve apostles (Galatians:2:6-10|) and superior to the Judaizers (2Corinthians:11:5f.; 12:11|). It is not mock humility here, but sincere appreciation of the sins of his life (cf. kjv@Romans:7:24|) as a persecutor of the church of God (Galatians:1:13|), of men and even women (Acts:22:4f.; 26:11|). He had sad memories of those days.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ BOOKS ON II PETER BESIDES THOSE ON I PETER ALSO Abbott, E. A., _The Expositor_ (Jan. to March, 1822). Chase, F. H., _Hastings D B_ (Second Peter). Deuteronomy:Zwaan, _2 Peter en Judas_ (1909). Dietlein, W. O., _Der 2 Brief Petri_ (1851). Grosch, H., _Die Echtheit des zweiten Briefes Petri_ (1889). Henkel, K., _Der zweite Brief des Apostelfursten Petrus_ (1904). Hofmann, J. C., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda (1875) Hundhausen, _Das zweite Pontifkalschreiben des Apostels Petrus_ (1873). James, M. R., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Cambridge Greek Testament, 1912). Lumby, J. R., _2 Peter and Jude_ (in Bible Commentary). Mayor, J. B., _The Epistle of St. Jude:and the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1907). Plummer, A., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Vol. 3, N.T. Commentary for English Readers by Ellicott). Robson, E. I., _Studies in the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1915). Schott, Th., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda_ (1863). Schott, _Der 2 Br. Petri und der Br. Juda Erkl_. (1863). Schweenhorst, H., _Das Verhaltnis des Judasbriefes zum zweiten Petrusbriefe_ (1904). Snyman, D. R., _The Authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter_ (thesis in 1923 for Th.D. degree at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). Spitta, F, _Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1885). Strachan, R. D., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910), Ullman, C., _Der 2 Brief Petri Krit. untersuch._ (1821). Warfield, B. B., _A Defence of 2 Peter_ (Southern Presbyterian Review, January, 1882). ,_Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the Genuineness of Second Peter (Southern Presbyterian Review_, 1883). Werdermann, _H., Die Irrlehrer des Judasbriefes und 2 Petrusbriefes_ (1913). Wiesinger, J. T. A., _Der zweite Brief des Apostels Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1862). kjv@2Peter:1:1 @{Simon Peter} (\Sim“n Petros\). Aleph A K L P have \Syme“n\ as in kjv@Acts:15:14|, while B has \Sim“n\. The two forms occur indifferently in I Macc. 2:3, 65 for the same man. {Servant and apostle} (\doulos kai apostolos\). Like kjv@Romans:1:1; kjv@Titus:1:1|. {To them that have obtained} (\tois lachousin\). Dative plural articular participle second aorist active of \lagchan“\, old verb, to obtain by lot (Luke:1:9|), here with the accusative (\pistin\) as in kjv@Acts:1:17|. {Like precious} (\isotimon\). Late compound adjective (\isos\, equal, \timˆ\, honor, price), here only in N.T. But this adjective (Field) is used in two ways, according to the two ideas in \timˆ\ (value, honor), either like in value or like in honor. This second idea is the usual one with \isotimos\ (inscriptions and papyri, Josephus, Lucian), while \polutimos\ has the notion of price like \timˆ\ in 1:7,19; 2:4,6f|. The faith which they have obtained is like in honor and privilege with that of Peter or any of the apostles. {With us} (\hˆmin\). Associative-instrumental case after \isotimon\. Equal to \tˆi hˆm“n\ (the faith of us). {In the righteousness} (\en dikaiosunˆi\). Definite because of the preposition \en\ and the following genitive even though anarthrous. The O.T. sense of \dikaiosunˆ\ applied to God (Romans:1:17|) and here to Christ. {Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ} (\tou theou hˆm“n kai s“tˆros Iˆsou Christou\). Songs:the one article (\tou\) with \theou\ and \s“tˆros\ requires precisely as with \tou kuriou hˆm“n kai s“tˆros Iˆsou Christou\ (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in 1:11| as in 2:20; 3:2,18|. Songs:in kjv@1Peter:1:3| we have \ho theos kai patˆr\ (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, _Grammatik_, p. 158) admits: "Grammar demands that one person be meant." Moulton (_Prol._, p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of \theos\ for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in kjv@Titus:2:13|. The use of \theos\ by Peter as a predicate with Jesus Christ no more disproves the Petrine authorship of this Epistle than a like use in kjv@John:1:1| disproves the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the same use in kjv@Titus:2:13| disproves the genuineness of Titus. Peter had heard Thomas call Jesus God (John:20:28|) and he himself had called him the Son of God (Matthew:16:16|).

rwp@Info_3John THIRD JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION Certainly III John is addressed to an individual, not to a church, though which Gaius we do not know. There are three friends of Paul with this name; Gaius of Corinth (1Corinthians:1:14|), Gaius of Macedonia (Acts:19:29|), Gaius of Derbe (Acts:20:4|), but it is unlikely that this Gaius of Pergamum (Findlay would call him) is either of these, though the _Apostolical Constitutions_ does identify him with Gaius of Derbe. It is possible that in kjv@3John:1:9| there is an allusion to II John and, if so, then both letters went to individuals in the same church (one a loyal woman, the other a loyal man). Three persons are sharply sketched in III John (Gaius, Diotrephes, Demetrius)...as in the other Johannine Epistles. ...2:13| as the place "where Satan's throne is." kjv@3John:1:1 @{The beloved} (\t“i agapˆt“i\). Four times in this short letter this verbal adjective is used of Gaius (here, 2,5,11|). See kjv@2John:1:1| for the same phrase here, "whom I love in truth."

rwp@3John:1:3 @{I rejoiced greatly} (\echarˆn lian\). As in kjv@2John:1:4; kjv@Phillipians:4:10|, not epistolary aorist, but reference to his emotions at the good tidings about Gaius. {When brethren came} (\erchomen“n adelph“n\). Genitive absolute with present middle participle of \erchomai\, and so with \marturount“n\ (bare witness, present active participle of \marture“\). Present participle here denotes repetition, from time to time. {To the truth} (\tˆi alˆtheiƒi\)..."As always in the Johannine writings, ...(Brooke). {Even as thou walkest in truth} (\kath“s su en alˆtheiƒi peripateis\). "Thou" in contrast to Diotrephes (verse 9|) and others like him. On \peripate“\ see kjv@1John:1:6| and on \en alˆtheiƒi\ see kjv@2John:1:4|.

rwp@Acts:1:4 @{Being assembled together with them} (\sunalizomenos\). Present passive participle from \sunaliz“\, an old verb in Herodotus, Xenophon, etc., from sun, with, and \haliz“\, from \halˆs\, crowded. The margin of both the Authorized and the Revised Versions has "eating with them" as if from \sun\ and \hals\ (salt). Salt was the mark of hospitality. There is the verb \halisthˆte en aut“i\ used by Ignatius _Ad Magnes_. X, "Be ye salted in him." But it is more than doubtful if that is the idea here though the Vulgate does have _convescens illis_ "eating with them," as if that was the common habit of Jesus during the forty days (Wendt, Feine, etc.). Jesus did on occasion eat with the disciples (Luke:24:41-43; kjv@Mark:16:14|). {To wait for the promise of the Father} (\perimenein tˆn epaggelian tou patros\). Note present active infinitive, to keep on waiting for (around, \peri\). In the Great Commission on the mountain in Galilee this item was not given (Matthew:28:16-20|). It is the subjective genitive, the promise given by the Father (note this Johannine use of the word), that is the Holy Spirit ("the promise of the Holy Spirit," objective genitive). {Which ye heard from me} (\hˆn ˆkousate mou\). Change from indirect discourse (command), infinitives \ch“rizesthai\ and \perimenein\ after \parˆggeilen\ to direct discourse without any \ephˆ\ (said he) as the English (Italics). Luke often does this (_oratior ariata_). Note also the ablative case of \mou\ (from me). Luke continues in verse 5| with the direct discourse giving the words of Jesus.

rwp@Acts:15:9 @{He made no distinction between us and them} (\outhen diekrinen metaxu hˆm“n te kai aut“n\). He distinguished nothing (first aorist active ind.) between (both \dia\ and \metaxu\) both (\te kai\) us and them. In the matter of faith and conversion God treated us Jews as heathen and the heathen as Jews. {Cleansing their hearts by faith} (\tˆi pistei katharisas tas kardias aut“n\)...a thoroughly Pauline and Johannine idea ...10:15|.

rwp@Info_Epistles-General @ IMPORTANCE OF THE GENERAL EPISTLES Without them we should be deprived of much concerning three outstanding personalities in early Christianity. We should know much less of "James, and Cephas, and John, they who were reputed to be pillars" (Galatians:2:9|). We should know less also of the Judaic (not Judaizing)...in Antioch. In the Johannine Epistles ...(Plummer). Songs:we can be grateful for the preservation of these little Epistles which reveal differences in the development of the great Christian leaders and the adaptation of the gospel message to changing world conditions then and now. Info_Epistles-Pastorial

rwp@Galatians:6:8 @{Corruption} (\phthoran\). For this old word from \phtheir“\, see on ¯1Corinthians:15:42|. The precise meaning turns on the context, here plainly the physical and moral decay or rottenness that follows sins of the flesh as all men know. Nature writes in one's body the penalty of sin as every doctor knows. {Eternal life} (\z“ˆn ai“nion\). See on ¯Matthew:25:46|...so common in the Johannine writings. ...\ai“nios\ for perpetual. See also kjv@2Thessalonians:1:9|. It comes as nearly meaning "eternal" as the Greek can express that idea.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE DATE Here again modern scholars differ widely. Westcott places it between A.D. 64 and 67. Harnack and Holtzmann prefer a date between 81 and 96. Marcus Dods argues strongly that the Epistle was written while the temple was still standing. If it was already destroyed, it is hard to understand how the author could have written kjv@Hebrews:10:1f.|: "Else would they not have ceased to be offered?" And in kjv@Hebrews:8:13| "nigh to vanishing away" (\eggus aphanismou\) is only intelligible with the temple service still going on. The author makes use of the tabernacle instead of the temple because the temple was patterned after the tabernacle. On the other hand, the mention of Timothy in kjv@Hebrews:13:23| as being "set free" (\apolelumenon\) raises an inquiry concerning Paul's last plea to Timothy to come to him in Rome (2Timothy:4:11-13|). Apparently Timothy came and was put in prison. If so, since Paul was put to death before Nero's own death (June 8, A.D. 68)...Testament books before the Johannine Writings ...

rwp@Info_John @ EARLY AND CLEAR WITNESS TO THE APOSTLE JOHN Ignatius (_ad Philad_. vii. 1) about A.D. 110 says of the Spirit that "he knows whence he comes and whither he is going," a clear allusion to kjv@John:3:8|. Polycarp (_ad Phil_. S 7) quotes kjv@1John:4:2,3|. Eusebius states that Papias quoted First John. Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius (H.E. V, 20) as saying that he used as a boy to hear Polycarp tell "of his intercourse with John and the others who had seen the Lord." Irenaeus accepted all our Four Gospels. Tatian made his _Diatessaron_ out of the Four Gospels alone. Theophilus of Antioch (_Ad Autol_. ii. 22)...no opposition to the Johannine authorship ...

rwp@Info_John @ A DIFFERENT STYLE OF TEACHING Songs:different is it in fact that some men bluntly assert that Jesus could not have spoken in the same fashion as presented in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel. Such critics need to recall the Socrates of Xenophon's _Memorabilia_ and of Plato's _Dialogues_. There is a difference beyond a doubt, but there is also some difference in the reports in the Synoptics. Jesus for the most part spoke in Aramaic, sometimes in Greek, as to the great crowds from around Palestine (the Sermon on the Mount, for instance). There is the Logia of Jesus (Q of criticism) preserved in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke besides Mark, and the rest of Matthew and Luke. Certain natural individualities are preserved. The difference is greater in the Fourth Gospel, because John writes in the ripeness of age and in the richness of his long experience. He gives his reminiscences mellowed by long reflection and yet with rare dramatic power. The simplicity of the language leads many to think that they understand this Gospel when they fail to see the graphic pictures as in chapters kjv@John:7-11|...is, no doubt, a Johannine style ...(Q) a genuine Johannine passage written long before the Fourth Gospel (Matthew:11:25-30; kjv@Luke:10:21-24|)...that Jesus used the Johannine type ...

rwp@Info_John @...some who admit the Johannine authorship. ..._Diatessaron_, the first harmony of the Gospels. Some even follow Schmiedel in seeing only a symbolic or parabolic character in the miracles in the Fourth Gospel, particularly in the narrative of the raising of Lazarus in chapter kjv@John:11| which occurs here alone. But John makes this miracle play quite an important part in the culmination of events at the end. Clearly the author professes to be giving actual data largely out of his own experience and knowledge. It is objected by some that the Fourth Gospel gives an unnatural picture of Christ with Messianic claims at the very start. But the Synoptics give that same claim at the baptism and temptation, not to mention Luke's account of the Boy Jesus in the temple. The picture of the Jews as hostile to Jesus is said to be overdrawn in the Fourth Gospel. The answer to that appears in the Sermon on the Mount, the Sabbath miracles, the efforts of the Pharisees and lawyers to catch Jesus in his talk, the final denunciation in kjv@Matthew:23|, all in the Synoptics. The opposition to Jesus grew steadily as he revealed himself more clearly. Some of the difficulties raised are gratuitous as in the early cleansing of the temple as if it could not have happened twice, confounding the draught of fishes in chapter kjv@John:21| with that in kjv@Luke:5|, making Mary of Bethany at the feast of a Simon in chapter kjv@John:12| the same as the sinful woman at the feast of another Simon in kjv@Luke:7|, making John's Gospel locate the last passover meal a day ahead instead of at the regular time as the Synoptics have it. Rightly interpreted these difficulties disappear. In simple truth, if one takes the Fourth Gospel at its face value, the personal recollections of the aged John phrased in his own way to supplement the narratives in the Synoptics, there is little left to give serious trouble. The Jerusalem ministry with the feasts is a case in point. The narrative of the call of the first disciples in chapter kjv@John:1| is another. The author followed Simon in bringing also his own brother James to Jesus. John was present in the appearance of Christ before Annas, and Pilate. He was at the Cross when no other apostles were there. He took the mother of Jesus to his home and then returned to the Cross. He saw the piercing of the side of Jesus. He knew and saw the deed of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. E. H. Askwith has a most helpful discussion of this whole problem in _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1910).

rwp@Info_John @ LIKE THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES Critics of all classes agree that, whoever was the author of the Fourth Gospel, the same man wrote the First Epistle of John. There is the same inimitable style, the same vocabulary, the same theological outlook. Undoubtedly the same author wrote also Second and Third John, for, brief as they are, they exhibit the same characteristics. In Second and Third John the author describes himself as "the Elder" (\ho presbuteros\), which fact has led some to argue for the mythical "Presbyter John" as the author in place of the Apostle John and so of First John and the Fourth Gospel. It is argued that the Apostle John would have termed himself "the Apostle John" after the fashion of Paul. But the example of the Apostle Peter disposes of that argument, for in addressing the elders (1Peter:5:1|) he calls himself "your fellow-elder" (\ho sunpresbuteros\). In the Epistles John opposes Gnosticism both of the Docetic type which denied the actual humanity of Jesus as in kjv@1John:1:1-4| and the Cerinthian type which denied the identity of the man Jesus and the _aeon_ Christ which came on Jesus at his baptism and left him at his death on the Cross as in kjv@1John:2:22|. One of the many stories told about John is his abhorrence of Cerinthus when found in the same public bath with him. As Westcott shows, the Epistles of John prove his actual humanity while assuming his deity, whereas the Fourth Gospel proves his deity while assuming his humanity.

rwp@Info_John @...majority hold to the Johannine authorship ...(Revelation:1:4,9; 22:8|)...Apocalypse and the other Johannine books ...(_Prolegomena_, p. 9, note 4) says bluntly: "If its date was 95 A.D., the author cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time after." Or before, he would say. But the date of the Apocalypse seems definitely to belong to the reign of Domitian. Songs:one ventures to call attention to the statement in kjv@Acts:4:13| where Peter and John are described as \agrammatoi kai idi“tai\ (unlettered and private or unschooled men). It is curious also that it is precisely in 2Peter and the Apocalypse that we have so many grammatical solecisms and peculiarities. We know that the Fourth Gospel was reviewed by a group of John's friends in Ephesus, while he was apparently alone in the Isle of Patmos. The excitement of the visions would naturally increase the uncouth vernacular of the Apocalypse so much like that in the Greek papyri as seen in Milligan's _Greek Papyri_...to hold to the Johannine authorship ...

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., _...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). kjv@John:1:1 @{In the beginning} (\en archˆi\). \Archˆ\ is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew _be reshith_ in kjv@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} (\ˆn\). 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 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 kjv@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 kjv@John:1:1,14; kjv@Revelation:19:13; kjv@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 kjv@Hebrews:4:12|. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; kjv@Phillipians:2:6f.; kjv@Colossians:1:17|) and in kjv@Hebrews:1:2f.| and in kjv@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 kjv@1John:2:1| we have a like use of \pros\: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (\paraklˆton echomen pros ton patera\). See \pros“pon pros pros“pon\ (face to face, kjv@1Corinthians:13:12|), a triple use of \pros\. There is a papyrus example of \pros\ in this sense \to gn“ston tˆs pros allˆlous sunˆtheias\, "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 kjv@Mark:6:3| is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is _Koin‚_, not old Attic. In kjv@John:17:5| John has \para soi\ the more common idiom. {And the Word was God} (\kai theos ˆn ho logos\). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying \ho theos ˆn 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 kjv@John:4:24| \pneuma ho theos\ can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." Songs:in kjv@1John:4:16| \ho theos agapˆ 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 kjv@John:1:14| \ho Logos sarx egeneto\, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

rwp@John:1:8 @{He} (\ekeinos\). "That one," i.e. John. He was a light (John:5:35|) as all believers are (Matthew:5:14|), but not "the light" (\to ph“s\). {But came} (\all'\). No verb in the Greek, to be supplied by repeating \ˆlthen\ of verse 7|. See similar ellipses in 9:3; 13:18; 15:25|. In Johannine fashion we have the final \hina\ clause of verse 7| repeated.

rwp@John:1:14 @{And the Word became flesh} (\kai ho logos sarx egeneto\). See verse 3| for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than \ˆn\ of verse 1|. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive \sarx\, so that it cannot mean "the flesh became the Word." The Pre-existence of the Logos has already been plainly stated and argued. John does not here say that the Logos entered into a man or dwelt in a man or filled a man. One is at liberty to see an allusion to the birth narratives in kjv@Matthew:1:16-25; kjv@Luke:1:28-38|, if he wishes, since John clearly had the Synoptics before him and chiefly supplemented them in his narrative. In fact, one is also at liberty to ask what intelligent meaning can one give to John's language here apart from the Virgin Birth? What ordinary mother or father ever speaks of a child "becoming flesh"? For the Incarnation see also kjv@2Corinthians:8:9; kjv@Galatians:4:4; kjv@Romans:1:3; 8:3; kjv@Phillipians:2:7f.; kjv@1Timothy:3:16; kjv@Hebrews:2:14|. "To explain the exact significance of \egeneto\ in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter" (Bernard). Unless, indeed, as seems plain, John is referring to the Virgin Birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. "The Logos of philosophy is, John declares, the Jesus of history" (Bernard). Thus John asserts the deity and the real humanity of Christ. He answers the Docetic Gnostics who denied his humanity. {Dwelt among us} (\eskˆn“sen en hˆmin\). First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of \skˆno“\, old verb, to pitch one's tent or tabernacle (\skˆnos\ or \skˆnˆ\), in N.T. only here and kjv@Revelation:7-15; 12:12; 13:6; 21:3|. In Revelation it is used of God tabernacling with men and here of the Logos tabernacling, God's Shekinah glory here among us in the person of his Son. {We beheld his glory} (\etheasametha tˆn doxan autou\). First aorist middle indicative of \theaomai\ (from \thea\, spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory (\doxa\) of God as James, the brother of Jesus, so describes him (James:2:1|). John employs \theaomai\ again in 1:32| (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and 1:38| of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. Songs:also 4:35; 11:45; kjv@1John:1:1f.; 4:12,14|. By this word John insists that in the human Jesus he beheld the Shekinah glory of God who was and is the Logos who existed before with God. By this plural John speaks for himself and all those who saw in Jesus what he did. {As of the only begotten from the Father} (\h“s monogenous para patros\). Strictly, "as of an only born from a father," since there is no article with \monogenous\ or with \patros\. In kjv@John:3:16; kjv@1John:4:9| we have \ton monogenˆ\ referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of \patˆr\ of God in relation to the Logos. \Monogenˆs\ (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in 1:18|) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children (\tekna\) of God. The word is used of human relationships as in kjv@Luke:7:12; 8:42; 9:38|. It occurs also in the LXX and kjv@Hebrews:11:17|, but elsewhere in N.T. only in John's writings. It is an old word in Greek literature. It is not clear whether the words \para patros\ (from the Father) are to be connected with \monogenous\ (cf. 6:46; 7:29|, etc.) or with \doxan\ (cf. 5:41,44|). John clearly means to say that "the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son" (Bernard). Cf. 8:54; 14:9; 17:5|. {Full} (\plˆrˆs\). Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with \doxan\ (or genitive with \monogenous\) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 275). As nominative \plˆrˆs\ can agree with the subject of \eskˆn“sen\. {Of grace and truth} (\charitos kai alˆtheias\). Curiously this great word \charis\ (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John's Gospel save in 1:14,16,17|, though \alˆtheia\ (truth) is one of the keywords in the Fourth Gospel and in 1John, occurring 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Johannine Epistles, 7 times in the Synoptics and not at all in Revelation (Bernard). In 1:17| these two words picture the Gospel in Christ in contrast with the law of Moses. See Epistles of Paul for origin and use of both words.

rwp@John:1:20 @{And he confessed} (\kai h“mologˆsen\). The continued paratactic use of \kai\ (and) and the first aorist active indicative of \homologe“\, old verb from \homologos\ (\homon, leg“\, to say the same thing), to confess, in the Synoptics (Matthew:10:32|) as here. {And denied not} (\kai ouk ˆrnˆsato\)...of same thing in Johannine fashion, ...\arneomai\, another Synoptic and Pauline word (Matthew:10:33; kjv@2Timothy:2:12|). He did not contradict or refuse to say who he was. {And he confessed} (\kai h“mologˆsen\). Thoroughly Johannine again in the paratactic repetition. {I am not the Christ} (\Eg“ ouk eimi ho Christos\). Direct quotation again with recitative \hoti\ before it like our modern quotation marks. "I am not the Messiah," he means by \ho Christos\ (the Anointed One). Evidently it was not a new question as Luke had already shown (Luke:3:15|).

rwp@John:3:19 @{And this is the judgment} (\hautˆ de estin hˆ krisis\). A thoroughly Johannine phrase for sequence of thought (15:12; 17:3; kjv@1John:1:5; 5:11,14; kjv@3John:1:6|). It is more precisely the process of judging (\kri-sis\) rather than the result (\kri-ma\) of the judgment. "It is no arbitrary sentence, but the working out of a moral law" (Bernard). {The light is come} (\to ph“s elˆluthen\). Second perfect active indicative of \erchomai\, a permanent result as already explained in the Prologue concerning the Incarnation (1:4,5,9,11|). Jesus is the Light of the world. {Loved darkness} (\ˆgapˆsan to skotos\). Job:(Job:24:13|) spoke of men rebelling against the light. Here \to skotos\, common word for moral and spiritual darkness (1Thessalonians:5:5|), though \hˆ skotia\ in kjv@John:1:5|. "Darkness" is common in John as a metaphor for the state of sinners (8:12; 12:35, 46; kjv@1John:1:6; 2:8,9,11|). Jesus himself is the only moral and spiritual light of the world (8:12|) as he dared claim to his enemies. The pathos of it all is that men fall in love with the darkness of sin and rebel against the light like denizens of the underworld, "for their works were evil (\ponˆra\)." When the light appears, they scatter to their holes and dens. \Ponˆros\ (from \ponos\, toil, \pone“\, to toil) is used of the deeds of the world by Jesus (7:7|). In the end the god of this world blinds men's eyes so that they do not see the light (2Corinthians:4:4|). The fish in the Mammoth Cave have no longer eyes, but only sockets where eyes used to be. The evil one has a powerful grip on the world (1John:5:19|).

rwp@John:7:29 @{I know him} (\eg“ oida auton\). In contrast to the ignorance of these people. See the same words in 8:55| and the same claim in 17:25; kjv@Matthew:11:27; kjv@Luke:10:22| (the Johannine aerolite). "These three words contain the unique claim of Jesus, which is pressed all through the chapters of controversy with the Jews" (Bernard). Jesus is the Interpreter of God to men (John:1:18|). {And he sent me} (\kakeinos me apesteilen\). First aorist active indicative of \apostell“\, the very verb used of Jesus when he sent forth the twelve (Matthew:10:5|) and used by Jesus again of himself in kjv@John:17:3|. He is the Father's Apostle to men.

rwp@John:8:9 @{Went out} (\exˆrchonto\). Inchoative imperfect. Graphic picture. {One by one} (\heis kath' heis\). Not a Johannine phrase, but in kjv@Mark:14:19| where also the second nominative is retained as if \kath'\ (\kata\) is regarded as a mere adverb and not as a preposition. {Beginning from the eldest} (\arxamenoi apo t“n presbuter“n\). "From the elder (comparative form, common in _Koin‚_ as superlative) men," as was natural for they had more sins of this sort which they recalled. "They are summoned to judge themselves rather than the woman" (Dods). {Was left alone} (\kateleiphthˆ monos\). First aorist effective passive indicative of \kataleip“\, to leave behind, with predicate nominative \monos\. "Jesus was left behind alone." {And the woman, where she was, in the midst} (\kai hˆ gunˆ en mes“i ousa\). The woman was left behind also "being in the midst" as they had placed her (verse 3|) before they were conscience stricken and left.

rwp@John:17:5 @{With thine own self} (\para seaut“i\). "By the side of thyself." Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre-incarnate glory and fellowship (cf. 1:1|) enjoyed before the Incarnation (John:1:14|). This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father's side (\para soi\, with thee) "which I had" (\hˆi eichon\, imperfect active of \ech“\, I used to have, with attraction of case of \hˆn\ to \hˆi\ because of \doxˆi\), "before the world was" (\pro tou ton kosmon einai\), "before the being as to the world" (cf. verse 24|)...have trouble with the Johannine authorship ...24| are "undoubtedly the reflection of the certainty with which Jesus himself spoke" (_What Is Christianity_, Engl. Tr., p. 132). But Paul, as clearly as John, believes in the actual pre-existence and deity of Jesus Christ (Phillipians:2:5-11|).

rwp@Info_Jude:@...purpose appears in the Johannine Epistles, ...

rwp@Luke:4:22 @{Bare him witness} (\emarturoun\). Imperfect active, perhaps inchoative. They all began to bear witness that the rumours were not exaggerations (4:14|) as they had supposed, but had foundation in fact if this discourse or its start was a fair sample of his teaching. The verb \marture“\...Paul's Epistles, and the Johannine books. ...\martur\ is seen in our English \martyr\, one who witnesses even by his death to his faith in Christ. {And wondered} (\kai ethaumazon\). Imperfect active also, perhaps inchoative also. They began to marvel as he proceeded with his address. This verb is an old one and common in the Gospels for the attitude of the people towards Jesus. {At the words of grace} (\epi tois logois tˆs charitos\). See on ¯Luke:1:30; 2:52| for this wonderful word \charis\ so full of meaning and so often in the N.T. The genitive case (case of genus or kind) here means that the words that came out of the mouth of Jesus in a steady stream (present tense, \ekporeuomenois\) were marked by fascination and charm. They were "winning words" as the context makes plain, though they were also "gracious" in the Pauline sense of "grace." There is no necessary antithesis in the ideas of graceful and gracious in these words of Jesus. {Is not this Joseph's son?} (\Ouchi huios estin I“sˆph houtos;\). Witness and wonder gave way to bewilderment as they began to explain to themselves the situation. The use of \ouchi\ intensive form of \ouk\ in a question expects the answer "yes." Jesus passed in Nazareth as the son of Joseph as Luke presents him in 3:23|. He does not stop here to correct this misconception because the truth has been already amply presented in 1:28-38; 2:49|. This popular conception of Jesus as the son of Joseph appears also in kjv@John:1:45|. The puzzle of the people was due to their previous knowledge of Jesus as the carpenter (Mark:6:3|; the carpenter's son, kjv@Matthew:13:55|). For him now to appear as the Messiah in Nazareth where he had lived and laboured as the carpenter was a phenomenon impossible to credit on sober reflection. Songs:the mood of wonder and praise quickly turned with whispers and nods and even scowls to doubt and hostility, a rapid and radical transformation of emotion in the audience.

rwp@Luke:4:43 @{I must} (\me dei\). Jesus felt the urge to go with the work of evangelism "to the other cities also," to all, not to a favoured few. {For therefore was I sent} (\hoti epi touto apestalˆn\). "A phrase of Johannine ring" (Ragg). Second aorist passive indicative of \apostell“\. Christ is the great Apostle of God to men.

rwp@Luke:10:21 @{In that same hour} (\en autˆi tˆi h“rƒi\). Literally, "at the hour itself," almost a demonstrative use of \autos\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 686) and in Luke alone in the N.T. (2:38; 10:21; 12:12; 20:19|). kjv@Matthew:11:25| uses the demonstrative here, "at that time" (\en ekein“i t“i kair“i\). {Rejoiced in the Holy Spirit} (\ˆgalliasato t“i pneumati t“i hagi“i\). First aorist middle of the late verb \agallia“\ for \agall“\, to exult. Always in the middle in the N.T. save kjv@Luke:1:47| in Mary's _Magnificat_. This holy joy of Jesus was directly due to the Holy Spirit. It is joy in the work of his followers, their victories over Satan, and is akin to the joy felt by Jesus in kjv@John:4:32-38| when the vision of the harvest of the world stirred his heart. The rest of this verse is precisely like kjv@Matthew:11:25f.|, a peculiarly Johannine passage in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark, and so from Q (the Logia of Jesus)...unwilling to admit the Johannine style ...(Plummer).

rwp@Luke:10:22 @{Knoweth who the Son is} (\gin“skei tis estin ho huios\). Knows by experience, \gin“skei\. Here kjv@Matthew:11:27| has \epigin“skei\ (fully knows) and simply \ton huion\ (the Son) instead of the "who" (\tis\) clause. Songs:also in "who the Father is" (\tis estin ho pater\). But the same use and contrast of "the Father," "the Son." in both Matthew and Luke, "an aerolite from the Johannean heaven" (Hase)...get rid of this Johannine bit ...(the Logia) and the picture is that drawn in the Fourth Gospel (see my _The Christ of the Logia_). It is idle to try to whittle away by fantastic exegesis the high claims made by Jesus in this passage. It is an ecstatic prayer in the presence of the Seventy under the rapture of the Holy Spirit on terms of perfect equality and understanding between the Father and the Son in the tone of the priestly prayer in kjv@John:17|. We are justified in saying that this prayer of supreme Fellowship with the Father in contemplation of final victory over Satan gives us a glimpse of the prayers with the Father when the Son spent whole nights on the mountain alone with the Father. Here is the Messianic consciousness in complete control and with perfect confidence in the outcome. Here as in kjv@Matthew:11:27| by the use of {willeth to reveal him} (\boulˆtai apokalupsai\). The Son claims the power to reveal the Father "to whomsoever he wills" (\h“i an boulˆtai\, indefinite relative and present subjunctive of \boulomai\, to will, not the future indicative). This is divine sovereignty most assuredly. Human free agency is also true, but it is full divine sovereignty in salvation that is here claimed along with possession (\paredothˆ\, timeless aorist passive indicative) of all power from the Father. Let that supreme claim stand.

rwp@Matthew:11:25 @{At that season Jesus answered and said} (\en ekein“i t“i kair“i apokritheis eipen\). Spoke to his Father in audible voice. The time and place we do not know. But here we catch a glimpse of Jesus in one of his moods of worship. "It is usual to call this golden utterance a prayer, but it is at once prayer, praise, and self-communing in a devout spirit" (Bruce). Critics are disturbed because this passage from the Logia of Jesus or Q of Synoptic criticism (Matthew:11:25-30; kjv@Luke:10:21-24|) is so manifestly Johannine in spirit and very language, "the Father" (\ho patˆr\), "the son" (\ho huios\), whereas the Fourth Gospel was not written till the close of the first century and the Logia was written before the Synoptic Gospels. The only satisfying explanation lies in the fact that Jesus did have this strain of teaching that is preserved in John's Gospel. Here he is in precisely the same mood of elevated communion with the Father that we have reflected in John 14 to 17. Even Harnack is disposed to accept this Logion as a genuine saying of Jesus. The word "thank" (\homologoumai\) is better rendered "praise" (Moffatt). Jesus praises the Father "not that the \sophoi\ were ignorant, but that the \nˆpioi\ knew" (McNeile).

rwp@Revelation:1:2 @{Bare witness} (\emarturˆsen\). First aorist active indicative of \marture“\, which, along with \martus\ and \marturia\...common in all the Johannine books ...(cf. 22:18,20|), usually with \peri\ or \hoti\, but with cognate accusative as here in 22:16,20; kjv@1John:5:10|. Epistolary aorist here, referring to this book. {The word of God} (\ton logon tou theou\). Subjective genitive, given by God. The prophetic word as in 1:9; 6:9; 20:4|, not the personal Word as in 19:14|. {The testimony of Jesus Christ} (\tˆn marturian Iˆsou Christou\). Subjective genitive again, borne witness to by Jesus Christ. {Even of all the things that he saw} (\hosa eiden\). Relative clause in apposition with \logon\ and \marturian\.

rwp@Revelation:1:3 @{Blessed} (\makarios\). As in kjv@Matthew:5:3ff|. This endorses the book as a whole. {He that readeth} (\ho anagin“sk“n\). Present active singular articular participle of \anagin“sk“\ (as in kjv@Luke:4:16|). Christians in their public worship followed the Jewish custom of public reading of the Scriptures (2Corinthians:3:14f.|). The church reader (\anagn“stˆs\, lector) gradually acquired an official position. John expects this book to be read in each of the seven churches mentioned (1:4|) and elsewhere. Today the public reading of the Bible is an important part of worship that is often poorly done. {They that hear} (\hoi akouontes\). Present active plural articular participle of \akou“\ (the audience). {And keep} (\kai tˆrountes\). Present active participle of \tˆre“\, a common Johannine word (1John:2:4|, etc.). Cf. kjv@Matthew:7:24|. "The content of the Apocalypse is not merely prediction; moral counsel and religious instruction are the primary burdens of its pages" (Moffatt). {Written} (\gegrammena\). Perfect passive participle of \graph“\. {For the time is at hand} (\ho gar kairos eggus\). Reason for listening and keeping. On \kairos\ see kjv@Matthew:12:1|, time of crisis as in kjv@1Corinthians:7:29|. How near \eggus\ (at hand) is we do not know any more than we do about \en tachei\ (shortly) in 1:1|.

rwp@Revelation:2:2 @{I know} (\oida\). Rather than \gin“sk“\ and so "emphasizes better the absolute clearness of mental vision which photographs all the facts of life as they pass" (Swete). Songs:also in 2:9,13,19; 3:1,8,15|. For the distinction see kjv@John:21:17|, "where the universal knowledge passes into the field of special observation." {Works} (\erga\). The whole life and conduct as in kjv@John:6:29|. {And thy toil and patience} (\kai ton kopon kai tˆn hupomonˆn sou\). "Both thy toil and patience," in explanation of \erga\, and see kjv@1Thessalonians:1:3|, where all three words (\ergon, kopos, hupomonˆ\) occur together as here. See 14:13| for sharp distinction between \erga\ (activities) and \kopoi\ (toils, with weariness). Endurance (\hupomonˆ\) in hard toil (\kopos\). {And that} (\kai hoti\). Further explanation of \kopos\ (hard toil). {Not able} (\ou dunˆi\). This _Koin‚_ form for the Attic \dunasai\ (second person singular indicative middle) occurs also in kjv@Mark:9:22; kjv@Luke:16:2|. {Bear} (\bastasai\). First aorist active infinitive of \bastaz“\, for which verb see kjv@John:10:31; 12:6; kjv@Galatians:6:2|. These evil men were indeed a heavy burden. {And didst try} (\kai epeirasas\). First aorist active indicative of \peiraz“\, to test, a reference to a recent crisis when these Nicolaitans (verse 6|) were condemned. The present tenses (\dunˆi, echeis\) indicate the continuance of this attitude. Cf. kjv@1John:4:1|. {Which call themselves apostles} (\tous legontas heautous apostolous\). Perhaps itinerant missionaries of these Nicolaitans who posed as equal to or even superior to the original apostles, like the Judaizers so described by Paul (2Corinthians:11:5,13; 12:11|). Paul had foretold such false teachers (Gnostics), grievous wolves, in kjv@Acts:20:29|; in sheep's clothing, Jesus had said (Matthew:7:15|). {And they are not} (\kai ouk eisin\). A parenthesis in Johannine style (John:2:9; 3:9; kjv@1John:3:1|) for \kai ouk ontas\ to correspond to \legontas\. {And didst find} (\kai heures\). Second aorist active indicative of \heurisk“\. Dropping back to the regular structure parallel with \epeirasas\. {False} (\pseudeis\). Predicate accusative plural of \pseudˆs\, self-deceived deceivers as in 21:8|.

rwp@Revelation:2:7 @{He that hath an ear} (\ho ech“n ous\). An individualizing note calling on each of the hearers (1:3|) to listen (2:7,11,17,28; 3:3,6,13,22|) and a reminiscence of the words of Jesus in the Synoptics (Matthew:11:15; 13:9,43; kjv@Mark:4:9,23; kjv@Luke:8:8; 14:35|), but not in John's Gospel. {The spirit} (\to pneuma\). The Holy Spirit as in 14:13; 22:17|. Both Christ and the Holy Spirit deliver this message. "The Spirit of Christ in the prophet is the interpreter of Christ's voice" (Swete). {To him that overcometh} (\t“i nik“nti\). Dative of the present (continuous victory) active articular participle of \nika“\, a common Johannine verb (John:16:33; kjv@1John:2:13f; 4:4; 5:4f.; kjv@Revelation:2:7,11,17,26; 3:5,12,21; 5:5; 12:11; 15:2; 17:14; 21:7|). Faith is dominant in Paul, victory in John, faith is victory (1John:5:4|). Songs:in each promise to these churches. {I will give} (\d“s“\). Future active of \did“mi\ as in 2:10,17,23,26,28; 3:8,21; 6:4; 11:3; 21:6|. {To eat} (\phagein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \esthi“\. {Of the tree of life} (\ek tou xulou tˆs z“ˆs\). Note \ek\ with the ablative with \phagein\, like our "eat of" (from or part of). From kjv@Genesis:2:9; 3:22|. Again in kjv@Revelation:22:2,14| as here for immortality. This tree is now in the Garden of God. For the water of life see 21:6; 22:17| (Cf. kjv@John:4:10,13f.|). {Which} (\ho\). The \xulon\ (tree). {In the Paradise of God} (\en t“i paradeis“i tou theou\). Persian word, for which see kjv@Luke:23:43; kjv@2Corinthians:12:4|. The abode of God and the home of the redeemed with Christ, not a mere intermediate state. It was originally a garden of delight and finally heaven itself (Trench), as here.

rwp@Revelation:2:19 @{Thy works} (\sou ta erga\) . As in 2:2| and explained (explanatory use of \kai\ =namely) by what follows. Four items are given, with separate feminine article for each (\tˆn agapˆn, tˆn pistin, tˆn diakonian, tˆn hupomonˆn\), a longer list of graces than in 2:2|...this list in true Johannine fashion. ...(\pistin\) here may be "faithfulness," and ministry (\diakonian\) is ministration to needs of others (Acts:11:29; kjv@1Corinthians:16:15|). {And that} (\kai\). Only \kai\ (and) in the Greek, but doubtless \hoti\ (that) is understood. {Than the first} (\t“n pr“t“n\). Ablative after the comparative \pleiona\ (more).

rwp@Revelation:3:9 @{I give} (\did“\). Late omega form for \did“mi\, but the \-mi\ form in 17:13| (\didoasin\). These Jewish converts are a gift from Christ. For this use of \did“mi\ see kjv@Acts:2:27; 10:40; 14:3|. There is ellipse of \tinas\ before \ek\ as in 2:10| (\ex hum“n\) and see 2:9| for "the synagogue of Satan." {Of them which say} (\t“n legont“n\). Ablative plural in apposition with \sunag“gˆs\. On the construction of \heautous Ioudaious einai\ see on ¯2:9| (\Ioudaious einai heautous\, the order of words being immaterial). {But do lie} (\alla pseudontai\). Present middle indicative of \pseudomai\, explanatory positive, addition here to \kai ouk eisin\ of 2:9|, in contrast also with \ho alˆthinos\ of verse 7| and in Johannine style (John:8:44; kjv@1John:1:10; 2:4|). {I will make them} (\poiˆs“ autous\). Future active indicative of \poie“\, resuming the prophecy after the parenthesis (\t“n--pseudontai\, which say--but do lie). {To come and worship} (\hina hˆxousin kai proskunˆsousin\). "That they come and worship" (final clause, like _facio ut_ in Latin, with \hina\ and the future active of \hˆk“\ and \proskune“\). The language is based on kjv@Isaiah:45:14; 60:14|. The Jews expected homage (not worship in the strict sense) from the Gentiles, but it will come to the Christians at last (1Corinthians:14:24|). Later Ignatius (_Philad_. 6) warns this church against Judaizing Christians, perhaps one result of an influx of Jews. {And to know} (\kai gn“sin\). Continuation of the purpose clause with \hina\, but with the second aorist active subjunctive rather than the less usual future indicative. See both constructions also with \hina\ in 22:14|. Probably a reminiscence of kjv@Isaiah:43:4| in \eg“ ˆgapˆsa se\ (I loved thee), first aorist active indicative.

rwp@Revelation:19:13 @{Arrayed} (\peribeblˆmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \periball“\, to clothe, often in this book. {In a garment} (\himation\). Accusative case after the passive participle \peribeblˆmenos\. {Sprinkled} (\rerantismenon\). Perfect passive participle of \rantiz“\, in the predicate accusative case agreeing with \himation\. A Q here read \bebammenon\ (perfect passive participle of \bapt“\, to dip). Probably \rerantismenon\ (sprinkled) is correct, because the picture comes from kjv@Isaiah:63:3|, where Aquila and Symmachus use \rantiz“\. The use of \bebammenon\ (dipped) is a bolder figure and Charles considers it correct. In either case it is the blood of Christ's enemies with which his raiment (\himation\, perhaps a \chlamus\ kjv@Matthew:27:28,31|) is sprinkled or dipped as the case may be, not his own blood on Calvary (1:5; 5:9; 7:14; 12:11|), but proleptically and prophetically the blood of Christ's enemies. \Haimati\ can be either locative case with \bebammenon\ (dipped in blood) or instrumental with \rerantismenon\ (sprinkled with blood). {The Word of God} (\ho Logos tou theou\). Some scholars hold this addition inconsistent with verse 12|...occurs only in the Johannine writings ...4:12|. In kjv@John:1:1,14| it is merely \ho Logos\ (the Word), in kjv@1John:1:1| \ho Logos tˆs z“ˆs\ (the Word of Life), while here it is \ho Logos tou theou\ (the Word of God), one of the strongest arguments for identity of authorship. The idiom here is one common in Luke and Paul for the teaching of Christ (Luke:5:1; 8:11|, etc.; kjv@1Corinthians:14:36; kjv@2Corinthians:2:17|, etc.). Jesus is himself the final and perfect revelation of God to men (Hebrews:1:1f.|).

rwp@Info_Revelation @...relation to the other Johannine books, ...(about A.D. 360) omitted it, but the third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) accepted it. The dispute about millenarianism led Dionysius of Alexandria (middle of the third century, A.D.) to deny the authorship to the Apostle John, though he accepted it as canonical. Eusebius suggested a second John as the author. But finally the book was accepted in the east as Hebrews was in the west after a period of doubt.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE AUTHOR The writer calls himself John (Revelation:1:1,4,9; 22:8|). But what John? The book can hardly be pseudonymous, though, with the exception of the Shepherd of Hermas, that is the rule with apocalypses. There would have been a clearer claim than just the name. The traditional and obvious way to understand the name is the Apostle John, though Dionysius of Alexandria mentions John Mark as held by some and he himself suggests another John, like the so-...write any of the Johannine books. ...

rwp@Info_Revelation @...Westcott argued for the Johannine authorship ...(time of Nero or Vespasian) when John did not know Greek so well as when the Epistles and the Gospel were written. There are numerous grammatical laxities in the Apocalypse, termed by Charles a veritable grammar of its own. They are chiefly retention of the nominative case in appositional words or phrases, particularly participles, many of them sheer Hebraisms, many of them clearly intentional (as in kjv@Revelation:1:4|), all of them on purpose according to Milligan (_Revelation_ in Schaff's Pop. Comm.) and Heinrici (_Der Litterarische Charakter der neutest. Schriften_, p. 85). Radermacher (_Neutestamentliche Grammatik_, p. 3) calls it "the most uncultured literary production that has come down to us from antiquity," and one finds frequent parallels to the linguistic peculiarities in later illiterate papyri. J. H. Moulton (_Grammar_, Vol. II, Part I, p. 3) says: "Its grammar is perpetually stumbling, its idiom is that of a foreign language, its whole style that of a writer who neither knows nor cares for literary form." But we shall see that the best evidence is for a date in Domitian's reign and not much later than the Fourth Gospel. It is worth noting that in kjv@Acts:4:13| Peter and John are both termed by the Sanhedrin \agrammatoi kai idi“tai\ (unlettered and unofficial men). We have seen the possibility that II Peter represents Peter's real style or at least that of a different amanuensis from Silvanus in kjv@1Peter:5:12|. It seems clear that the Fourth Gospel underwent careful scrutiny and possibly by the elders in Ephesus (John:21:24|). If John wrote the Apocalypse while in Patmos and so away from Ephesus, it seems quite possible that here we have John's own uncorrected style more than in the Gospel and Epistles. There is also the added consideration that the excitement of the visions played a part along with a certain element of intentional variations from normal grammatical sequence. An old man's excitement would bring back his early style. There are numerous coincidences in vocabulary and style between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse.

rwp@Info_Revelation @...and phrases in true Johannine style. ...(3 1/2, 7, 3, 4, 12, 24, 1000) cannot be pressed, though some do so. Even Harnack called the Apocalypse the plainest book in the New Testament, by using Harnack's key for the symbols.

Close Tab