CONCORDANCE:String = anarthrous
rwp@1Corinthians:11:3 @{But I would have you know} (\thel de humas eidenai\). But I wish you to know, censure in contrast to the praise in verse 2|. {The head of Christ is God} (\kephal tou Christou ho theos\). Rather, God is the head of Christ, since \kephal\ is anarthrous and predicate.
rwp@1Corinthians:11:7 @{The image and glory of God} (\eikn kai doxa theou\). Anarthrous substantives, but definite. Reference to kjv@Genesis:1:28; 2:26| whereby man is made directly in the image (\eikn\) of God. It is the moral likeness of God, not any bodily resemblance. Ellicott notes that man is the glory (\doxa\) of God as the crown of creation and as endowed with sovereignty like God himself. {The glory of the man} (\doxa andros\). Anarthrous also, man's glory. In kjv@Genesis:2:26| the LXX has \anthrpos\ (Greek word for both male and female), not \anr\ (male) as here. But the woman (\gun\) was formed from the man (\anr\) and this priority of the male (verse 8|) gives a certain superiority to the male. On the other hand, it is equally logical to argue that woman is the crown and climax of all creation, being the last.
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 ts zs\), 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 \ts zs\ (of life), while in kjv@John:1:4| he is called \h z\ (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' archs\). 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 akkoamen\). 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 herakamen\). Perfect active, again, of \hora\, with the same emphasis on the possession of knowledge by John. {With our eyes} (\tois ophthalmois hmn\). 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} (\epslaphsan\). First aorist active indicative of \pslapha\, 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:2:18 @{It is the last hour} (\eschat hra estin\). This phrase only here in N.T., though John often uses \hra\ for a crisis (John:2:4; 4:21,23; 5:25,28|, etc.). It is anarthrous here and marks the character of the "hour." John has seven times "the last day" in the Gospel. Certainly in verse 28| John makes it plain that the \parousia\ might come in the life of those then living, but it is not clear that here he definitely asserts it as a fact. It was his hope beyond a doubt. We are left in doubt about this "last hour" whether it covers a period, a series, or the final climax of all just at hand. {As ye heard} (\kaths kousate\). First aorist active indicative of \akou\. {Antichrist cometh} (\antichristos erchetai\). "Is coming." Present futuristic or prophetic middle indicative retained in indirect assertion. Songs:Jesus taught (Mark:13:6,22; kjv@Matthew:24:5,15,24|) and so Paul taught (Acts:20:30; kjv@2Thessalonians:2:3|). These false Christs (Matthew:24:24; kjv@Mark:13:22|) are necessarily antichrists, for there can be only one. \Anti\ can mean substitution or opposition, but both ideas are identical in the word \antichristos\ (in N.T. only here, 2:22; 4:3; kjv@2John:1:7|). Westcott rightly observes that John's use of the word is determined by the Christian conception, not by the Jewish apocalypses. {Have there arisen} (\gegonasin\). Second perfect active indicative of \ginomai\. {Many antichrists} (\antichristoi polloi\). Not just one, but the exponents of the Gnostic teaching are really antichrists, just as some modern deceivers deserve this title. {Whereby} (\hothen\). By the fact that these many antichrists have come.
rwp@1John:4:8 @{He that loveth not} (\ho m agapn\). Present active articular participle of \agapa\ "keeps on not loving." {Knoweth not God} (\ouk egn ton theon\). Timeless aorist active indicative of \ginsk\, has no acquaintance with God, never did get acquainted with him. {God is love} (\ho theos agap estin\). Anarthrous predicate, not \h agap\. John does not say that love is God, but only that God is love. The two terms are not interchangeable. God is also light (1:5|) and spirit (John:4:24|).
rwp@1John:5:11 @{That God gave} (\hoti edken ho theos\). Declarative \hoti\ in apposition with \marturia\ as in verse 14; kjv@John:3:19|. Note aorist active indicative \edken\ (from \didmi\) as in 3:23f.|, the great historic fact of the Incarnation (John:3:16|), but the perfect \dedken\ in kjv@1John:3:1| to emphasize the abiding presence of God's love. {Eternal life} (\zn ainion\). Anarthrous emphasizing quality, but with the article in 1:2|. {In his Son} (\en ti huii autou\). This life and the witness also. This is why Jesus who is life (John:14:6|) came to give us abundant life (John:10:10|).
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 kjv@Acts:2:23| in Peter's sermon). In this Epistle Peter often uses substantives rather than verbs (cf. kjv@Romans:8:29|). {Of God the Father} (\theou patros\). Anarthous again and genitive case. See \patr\ applied to God also in 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\)...the Holy Spirit, though anarthrous like ...\theou patros\. Late word from \hagiaz\, to render holy (\hagios\), to consecrate, as in kjv@1Thessalonians:4:7|. The subjective genitive here, sanctification wrought by the Spirit as in kjv@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 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 kjv@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 kjv@Hebrews:9:19f.; 12:24| with allusion to kjv@Exodus:24:3-8|. Paul does not mention this ritual use of the blood of Christ, but Jesus does (Matthew:26:28; kjv@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 kjv@Revelation:7:14f.; 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 kjv@2Peter:1:2; kjv@Jude:1:2|, but nowhere else in N.T. salutations. Grace and peace (\charis kai eirn\) occur together in kjv@2Peter:1:2|, in kjv@2John:1:2| (with \eleos\), and in all Paul's Epistles (with \eleos\ added in I and II Timothy).
rwp@1Timothy:3:5 @{If a man knoweth not} (\ei tis ouk oiden\). Condition of first class, assumed as true. {How to rule} (\prostnai\). Second aorist active infinitive of same verb \proistmi\ and with \oiden\ means "know how to rule," not "know that he rules." {How} (\ps\). Rhetorical question expecting negative answer. {Shall he take care of} (\epimelsetai\). Future middle of \epimeleomai\, old compound (\epi\, direction of care towards) verb, in LXX, in N.T. only here and kjv@Luke:10:34f|. {The church of God} (\ekklsias theou\). Anarthrous as in verse 15|, elsewhere with article (1Corinthians:10:32; 15:9; kjv@2Corinthians:1:1; kjv@Galatians:1:13|). The local church described as belonging to God. No one in N.T. but Paul (Acts:20:28|) so describes the church. This verse is a parenthesis in the characteristics of the bishop.
rwp@1Timothy:5:2 @{The elder women as mothers} (\presbuteras hs mteras\). Anarthrous again, "older women as mothers." Respect and reverence once more. {The younger as sisters, in all purity} (\neteras hs adelphas en pasi hagnii\). Anarthrous also and comparative form as in verse 1|. See 4:12| for \hagnia\. No sort of behavior will so easily make or mar the young preacher as his conduct with young women.
rwp@2Peter:2:4 @{For if God spared not} (\ei gar ho theos ouk epheisato\). First instance (\gar\) of certain doom, that of the fallen angels. Condition of the first class precisely like that in kjv@Romans:11:21| save that here the normal apodosis (\humn ou pheisetai\) is not expressed as there, but is simply implied in verse 9| by \oiden kurios ruesthai\ (the Lord knows how to deliver) after the parenthesis in verse 8|. {Angels when they sinned} (\aggeln hamartsantn\). Genitive case after \epheisato\ (first aorist middle indicative of \pheidomai\) and anarthrous (so more emphatic, even angels), first aorist active participle of \hamartan\, "having sinned." {Cast them down to hell} (\tartarsas\). First aorist active participle of \tartaro\, late word (from \tartaros\, old word in Homer, Pindar, LXX kjv@Job:40:15; 41:23|, Philo, inscriptions, the dark and doleful abode of the wicked dead like the Gehenna of the Jews), found here alone save in a scholion on Homer. \Tartaros\ occurs in Enoch 20:2 as the place of punishment of the fallen angels, while Gehenna is for apostate Jews. {Committed} (\paredken\). First aorist active indicative of \paradidmi\, the very form solemnly used by Paul in kjv@Romans:1:21,26,28|. {To pits of darkness} (\seirois zophou\). \Zophos\ (kin to \gnophos, nephos\) is an old word, blackness, gloom of the nether world in Homer, in N.T. only here, verse 17; kjv@Jude:1:13; kjv@Hebrews:12:18|. The MSS. vary between \seirais\ (\seira\, chain or rope) and \seirois\ (\seiros\, old word for pit, underground granary). \Seirois\ is right (Aleph A B C), dative case of destination. {To be reserved unto judgment} (\eis krisin troumenous\). Present (linear action) passive participle of \tre\. "Kept for judgment." Cf. kjv@1Peter:1:4|. Aleph A have \kolazomenous trein\ as in verse 9|. Note \krisis\ (act of judgment).
rwp@2Peter:2:5 @{The ancient world} (\archaiou kosmou\). Genitive case after \epheisato\ (with \ei\ understood) repeated (the second example, the deluge). This example not in Jude. Absence of the article is common in the prophetic style like II Peter. For \archaios\ see kjv@Luke:9:8|. {Preserved} (\ephulaxen\). Still part of the long protasis with \ei\, first aorist active indicative of \phulass\. {With seven others} (\ogdoon\). "Eighth," predicate accusative adjective (ordinal), classic idiom usually with \auton\. See kjv@1Peter:3:20| for this same item. Some take \ogdoon\ with \kruka\ (eighth preacher), hardly correct. {A preacher of righteousness} (\dikaiosuns kruka\). "Herald" as in kjv@1Timothy:2:7; kjv@2Timothy:1:11| alone in N.T., but \kruss\ is common. It is implied in kjv@1Peter:3:20| that Noah preached to the men of his time during the long years. {When he brought} (\epaxas\). First aorist active participle (instead of the common second aorist active \epagagn\) of \eisag\, old compound verb to bring upon, in N.T. only here and kjv@Acts:5:28| (by Peter here also). {A flood} (\kataklusmon\). Old word (from \katakluz\, to inundate), only of Noah's flood in N.T. (Matthew:24:38ff.; kjv@Luke:17:27; kjv@2Peter:2:5|). {Upon the world of the ungodly} (\kosmoi asebn\). Anarthrous and dative case \kosmi\. The whole world were "ungodly" (\asebeis\ as in kjv@1Peter:4:18|) save Noah's family of eight.
rwp@2Peter:2:9 @{The Lord knoweth how} (\oiden kurios\). The actual apodosis of the long protasis begun in verse 4|. God can deliver his servants as shown by Noah and Lot and he will deliver you. The idiomatic use of \oida\ and the infinitive (\ruesthai\ present middle and see verse 7|) for knowing how as in kjv@Matthew:7:11; kjv@James:4:17|. {The godly} (\eusebeis\). Old anarthrous adjective (from \eu\ and \sebomai\, to worship), in N.T. only here and kjv@Acts:10:2,7| (by Peter). For {temptation} (\peirasmou\) see kjv@James:1:2,12; kjv@1Peter:1:6|. {To keep} (\trein\). Present active infinitive of \tre\ after \oiden\. {Unrighteous} (\adikous\). As in kjv@1Peter:3:18|. {Under punishment} (\kolazomenous\). Present passive participle of \kolaz\, old verb (from \kolos\, lopped off), in N.T. only here and kjv@Acts:4:21|. Present tense emphasises continuity of the punishment. See \kolasin ainion\ in kjv@Matthew:25:46|.
rwp@3John:1:6 @{Before the church} (\enpion ekklsias\)...Public meeting as the anarthrous use ...\ekklsia\ indicates, like \en ekklsii\ in kjv@1Corinthians:14:19,35|. {Thou wilt do well} (\kals poiseis\). Future active of \poie\ with adverb \kals\, a common polite phrase in letters (papyri) like our "please." See also kjv@Acts:10:33; kjv@James:2:19; kjv@1Corinthians:7:37f.; kjv@Phillipians:4:14; kjv@2Peter:1:19|. {To set forward on their journey} (\propempsas\). First aorist active participle (simultaneous action) of \propemp\, to send forward, "sending forward," old word, in N.T. in kjv@Acts:15:3; 20:38; 21:5; kjv@1Corinthians:16:6,11; kjv@2Corinthians:1:16; kjv@Romans:15:24; kjv@Titus:3:13|. {Worthily of God} (\axis tou theou\). Precisely this phrase in kjv@1Thessalonians:2:12| and the genitive with \axis\ also in kjv@Romans:16:2; kjv@Phillipians:1:27; kjv@Colossians:1:10; kjv@Ephesians:4:1|. See kjv@John:13:20| for Christ's words on the subject. "Since they are God's representatives, treat them as you would God" (Holtzmann). From Homer's time (_Od_. XV. 74) it was customary to speed the parting guest, sometimes accompanying him, sometimes providing money and food. Rabbis were so escorted and Paul alludes to the same gracious custom in kjv@Romans:15:24; kjv@Titus:3:13|.
rwp@James:4:4 @{Ye adulteresses} (\moichalides\). \Moichoi kai\ (ye adulterers) is spurious (Syrian text only). The feminine form here is a common late word from the masculine \moichoi\. It is not clear whether the word is to be taken literally here as in kjv@Romans:7:3|, or figuratively for all unfaithful followers of Christ (like an unfaithful bride), as in kjv@2Corinthians:11:1f.; kjv@Ephesians:5:24-28| (the Bride of Christ). Either view makes sense in this context, probably the literal view being more in harmony with the language of verses 2f|. In that case James may include more than Christians in his view, though Paul talks plainly to church members about unchastity (Ephesians:5:3-5|). {Enmity with God} (\echthra tou theou\). Objective genitive \theou\ with \echthra\ (predicate and so without article), old word from \echthros\, enemy (Romans:5:10|), with \eis theon\ (below and kjv@Romans:8:7|). {Whosoever therefore would be} (\hos ean oun boulthi\). Indefinite relative clause with \hos\ and modal \ean\ and the first aorist passive (deponent) subjunctive of \boulomai\, to will (purpose). {A friend of the world} (\philos tou kosmou\). Predicate nominative with infinitive \einai\ agreeing with \hos\. See 2:23| for \philos theou\ (friend of God). {Maketh himself} (\kathistatai\). Present passive (not middle) indicative as in 3:6|, "is constituted," "is rendered." {An enemy of God} (\echthros tou theou\). Predicate nominative and anarthrous and objective genitive (\theou\).
rwp@James:4:6 @{More grace} (\meizona charin\). "Greater grace." Greater than what? "Greater grace in view of the greater requirement" (Ropes), like kjv@Romans:5:20f|. God does this. {Wherefore} (\dio\). To prove this point James quotes kjv@Proverbs:3:34|. {God resisteth the proud} (\ho theos huperphanois antitassetai\). Present middle (direct) indicative of \antitass\, old military term, to range in battle against, with dative case (Romans:13:2|) as in 5:6|. \Huperphanois\ (\huper, phainomai\) is like our vernacular "stuck-up folks" (Romans:1:30|), "haughty persons." {But giveth grace to the humble} (\tapeinois de didsin charin\). Anarthrous adjective again, "to humble or lowly persons," for which word see 1:9f|. Cf. 2:5-7; 5:1-6|.
rwp@James:4:8 @{Draw nigh to God} (\eggisate ti thei\). First aorist active imperative of \eggiz\, late verb from \eggus\ (near) as in kjv@Matthew:3:2|. With dative case again of personal relation. The priests in the sanctuary drew nigh to God (Exodus:19:22|), as we should now. {Cleanse your hands} (\katharisate cheiras\). First aorist active imperative of \kathariz\, to cleanse, from dirt in a ritual sense (Exodus:30:19-21; kjv@Mark:7:3,19|). Here it is figurative, as in kjv@Hosea:1:16; kjv@Psalms:24:4|. If we always had clean (from sin) hands and hearts? {Ye sinners} (\hamartloi\). A sharp term to strike the conscience, "a reproach meant to startle and sting" (Ropes). {Purify your hearts} (\hagnisate kardias\). First aorist active imperative of \hagniz\, old verb from \hagnos\ (James:3:17|), ceremonially (Acts:21:24,26|), but here morally as in kjv@1Peter:1:22; kjv@1John:3:3|. Anarthrous use of \kardias\ as of \cheiras\ (wash hands, purify hearts). {Ye double-minded} (\dipsuchoi\). As in 1:8|.
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). kjv@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 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} (\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 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" (\paraklton echomen pros ton patera\). See \prospon pros prospon\ (face to face, kjv@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 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 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 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 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 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@Revelation:1:20 @{The mystery of the seven stars} (\to mustrion tn hepta astern\). On the word \mustrion\ see on ¯Matthew:13:11; kjv@2Thessalonians:2:7; kjv@Colossians:1:26|. Here it means the inner meaning (the secret symbol) of a symbolic vision (Swete) as in 10:7; 13:18; 17:7,9; kjv@Daniel:2:47|. Probably the accusative absolute (Charles), "as for the mystery" (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 490, 1130), as in kjv@Romans:8:3|. This item is picked out of the previous vision (1:16|) as needing explanation at once and as affording a clue to what follows (2:1,5|). {Which} (\hous\). Masculine accusative retained without attraction to case of \astern\ (genitive, \hn\). {In my right hand} (\epi ts dexias mou\). Or "upon," but \en ti\, etc., in verse 16|. {And the seven golden candlesticks} (\kai tas hepta luchnias tas chruss\). "The seven lampstands the golden," identifying the stars of verse 16| with the lampstands of verse 12|. The accusative case here is even more peculiar than the accusative absolute \mustrion\, since the genitive \luchnin\ after \mustrion\ is what one would expect. Charles suggests that John did not revise his work. {The angels of the seven churches} (\aggeloi tn hepta ekklsin\). Anarthrous in the predicate (angels of, etc.). "The seven churches" mentioned in 1:4,11|. Various views of \aggelos\ here exist. The simplest is the etymological meaning of the word as messenger from \aggell\ (Matthew:11:10|) as messengers from the seven churches to Patmos or by John from Patmos to the churches (or both). Another view is that \aggelos\ is the pastor of the church, the reading \tn gunaika sou\ (thy wife) in 2:20| (if genuine) confirming this view. Some would even take it to be the bishop over the elders as \episcopos\ in Ignatius, but a separate \aggelos\ in each church is against this idea. Some take it to be a symbol for the church itself or the spirit and genius of the church, though distinguished in this very verse from the churches themselves (the lampstands). Others take it to be the guardian angel of each church assuming angelic patrons to be taught in kjv@Matthew:18:10; kjv@Acts:12:15|. Each view is encompassed with difficulties, perhaps fewer belonging to the view that the "angel" is the pastor. {Are seven churches} (\hepta ekklsiai eisin\). These seven churches (1:4,11|) are themselves lampstands (1:12|) reflecting the light of Christ to the world (Matthew:5:14-16; kjv@John:8:12|) in the midst of which Christ walks (1:13|).
rwp@Revelation:14:1 @{The Lamb} (\to arnion\). See 5:6; 7:17; 12:11; 13:8|...in contrast with the anarthrous... \arnion\ in 13:11|. This proleptic vision of the Lamb "standing on the mount Zion" (\hestos epi to oros Sin\, second perfect active participle neuter of \histmi\ with \epi\ and accusative) is reasoning after the visions of the two beasts. Mount Zion is the site of the new city of God (Hebrews:12:22|), the Jerusalem above (Galatians:4:26|), the seat of the Messianic Kingdom whether heaven or the new earth (Revelation:21; 22|). These victors have the name of the Lamb and God upon their foreheads as in 3:12; 22:4|, in place of the mark of the beast above (13:16; 14:11|). This seal protects them (9:4|). {A hundred and forty and four thousand} (\hekaton tesserakonta tessares chiliades\). "Thousands" literally (\chilias\ feminine word for a thousand and so \echousai\ feminine plural). For the 144,000 see 7:5,8|, though some scholars seek a distinction somehow.