Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-POET.filter - rwp grammatical:

rwp@Info_2John @ SECOND JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There is little to add to what was said about the First Epistle except that here the author terms himself "the elder" (\ho presbuteros\) and writes to "the elect lady" (\eklekti kurii\). There is dispute about both of these titles. Some hold that it is the mythical "presbyter John" of whom Papias may speak, if so understood, but whose very existence is disproved by Dom Chapman in _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). Peter the apostle (1Peter:1:1|) calls himself "fellow-elder" (\sunpresbuteros\) with the other elders (1Peter:5:1|). The word referred originally to age (Luke:15:25|), then to rank or office as in the Sanhedrin (Matthew:16:21; strkjv@Acts:6:12|) and in the Christian churches (Acts:11:30; strkjv@20:17; strkjv@1Timothy:5:17,19|) as here also. A few even deny that the author is the same as in the First Epistle of John, but just an imitator. But the bulk of modern scholarly opinion agrees that the same man wrote all three Epistles and the Fourth Gospel (the Beloved Disciple, and many still say the Apostle John) whatever is true of the Apocalypse. There is no way of deciding whether "the elect lady" is a woman or a church. The obvious way of taking it is to a woman of distinction in one of the churches, as is true of "the co-elect lady in Babylon" (1Peter:5:13|), Peter's wife, who travelled with him (1Corinthians:9:5|). Some even take \kuria\ to be the name of the lady (Cyria). Some also take it to be "Eklecta the lady." Dr. Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 31) holds that Pergamum is the church to which the letter was sent. The same commentaries treat I, II, and III John as a rule, though Poggel has a book on II, III John (1896) and Bresky (1906) has _Das Verhaltnis des Zweiten Johannesbriefes zum dritten_. Dr. J. Rendel Harris has an interesting article in _The Expositor_ of London for March, 1901, on "The Problem of the Address to the Second Epistle of John," in which he argues from papyri examples that \kuria\ here means "my dear" or "my lady." But Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 26) argues that "the qualifying adjunct 'elect' lifts us into the region of Christian calling and dignity." It is not certain that II John was written after I John, though probable. Origen rejected it and the Peshitta Syriac does not have II and III John. strkjv@2John:1:1 @{And her children} (\kai tois teknois auts\). As with \eklekt kuria\, so here \tekna\ may be understood either literally as in strkjv@1Timothy:3:4|, or spiritually, as in strkjv@Galatians:4:19,25; strkjv@1Timothy:1:2|. For the spiritual sense in \teknia\ see strkjv@1John:2:1,12|. {Whom} (\hous\). Masculine accusative plural, though \teknois\ is neuter plural (dative), construction according to sense, not according to grammatical gender, "embracing the mother and the children of both sexes" (Vincent). See thus \hous\ in strkjv@Galatians:4:19|. {I} (\Eg\). Though \ho presbuteros\ is third person, he passes at once after the Greek idiom to the first and there is also special emphasis here in the use of \agap\ with the addition of \en altheii\ (in truth, in the highest sphere, as in strkjv@John:17:19; strkjv@3John:1:1|) and \ouk eg monos\ (not I only, "not I alone"). Brooke argues that this language is unsuitable if to a single family and not to a church. But Paul employs this very phrase in sending greetings to Prisca and Aquila (Romans:16:4|). {That know} (\hoi egnkotes\). Perfect active articular participle of \ginsk\, "those that have come to know and still know."

rwp@Ephesians:4:4 @{One body} (\hen sma\). One mystical body of Christ (the spiritual church or kingdom, cf. strkjv@1:23; strkjv@2:16|). {One Spirit} (\hen pneuma\). One Holy Spirit, grammatical neuter gender (not to be referred to by "it," but by "he"). {In one hope} (\en mii elpidi\). The same hope as a result of their calling for both Jew and Greek as shown in chapter 2|.

rwp@Info_John @ BUT DIFFERENT FROM THE APOCALYPSE It should be said at once that the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel does not depend on that of the Apocalypse. In fact, some men hold to the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse who deny that of the Gospel while some hold directly the opposite view. Some deny the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, while the majority hold to the Johannine authorship of Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse as was the general rule till after the time of Origen. The author of the Apocalypse claims to be John (Revelation:1:4,9; strkjv@22:8|), though what John he does not say. Denial of the existence of a "Presbyter John" naturally leads one to think of the Apostle John. Origen says that John, the brother of James, was banished to the Isle of Patmos where he saw the Apocalypse. There is undoubted radical difference in language between the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books which will receive discussion when the Apocalypse is reached. Westcott explained these differences as due to the early date of the Apocalypse in the reign of Vespasian before John had become master of the Greek language. Even J. H. Moulton (_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 strkjv@Acts:4:13| where Peter and John are described as \agrammatoi kai iditai\ (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_, for instance. This being true, one is able, in spite of Moulton's dictum, to hold to the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse and not far apart in date.

rwp@Revelation:6:8 @{A pale horse} (\hippos chlros\). Old adjective. Contracted from \chloeros\ (from \chlo\, tender green grass) used of green grass (Mark:6:39; strkjv@Revelation:8:7; strkjv@9:4|), here for yellowish, common in both senses in old Greek, though here only in N.T. in this sense, greenish yellow. We speak of a sorrel horse, never of a green horse. Zechariah (Zechariah:6:3|) uses \poikilos\ (grizzled or variegated). Homer used \chlros\ of the ashen colour of a face blanched by fear (pallid) and so the pale horse is a symbol of death and of terror. {His name was Death} (\onoma auti ho thanatos\). Anacoluthon in grammatical structure like that in strkjv@John:3:1| (cf. strkjv@Revelation:2:26|) and common enough. Death is the name of this fourth rider (so personified) and there is with Death "his inseparable comrade, Hades (1:16; strkjv@20:13f.|)" (Swete). Hades (\hids\, alpha privative, and \idein\, to see, the unseen) is the abode of the dead, the keys of which Christ holds (Revelation:1:18|). {Followed} (\kolouthei\). Imperfect active of \akolouthe\, kept step with death, whether on the same horse or on another horse by his side or on foot John does not say. {Over the fourth part of the earth} (\epi to tetarton ts gs\). Partitive genitive \gs\ after \tetarton\. Wider authority (\exousia\) was given to this rider than to the others, though what part of the earth is included in the fourth part is not indicated. {To kill} (\apokteinai\). First aorist active infinitive of \apoktein\, explanation of the \exousia\ (authority). The four scourges of strkjv@Ezekiel:14:21| are here reproduced with instrumental \en\ with the inanimate things (\romphaii, limi thanati\) and \hupo\ for the beasts (\thrin\). Death here (\thanati\) seems to mean pestilence as the Hebrew does (\loimos\ -- cf. \limos\ famine). Cf. the "black death" for a plague.

rwp@Revelation:12:7 @{There was war in heaven} (\egeneto polemos en ti ourani\). "There came to be war in heaven" (\egeneto\, not \n\). "Another \tableau\, not a \smeion\ (vv. 1,3|), but consequent upon the two \smeia\ which precede it. The birth and rapture of the Woman's Son issue in a war which invades the \epourania\" (Swete). The reference is not to the original rebellion of Satan, as Andreas held. As the coming of Christ brought on fresh manifestations of diabolic power (Mark:1:13; strkjv@Luke:22:3,31; strkjv@John:12:31; strkjv@14:30; strkjv@16:11|), just so Christ's return to heaven is pictured as being the occasion of renewed attacks there. We are not to visualize it too literally, but certainly modern airplanes help us to grasp the notion of battles in the sky even more than the phalanxes of storm-clouds (Swete). John even describes this last conflict as in heaven itself. Cf. strkjv@Luke:10:18; strkjv@1Kings:22:1ff.; strkjv@Job:1; 2; strkjv@Zechariah:3:1ff|. {Michael and his angels} (\ho Michal kai hoi aggeloi autou\). The nominative here may be in apposition with \polemos\, but it is an abnormal construction with no verb, though \egeneto\ (arose) can be understood as repeated. Michael is the champion of the Jewish people (Daniel:10:13,21; strkjv@12:1|) and is called the archangel in strkjv@Jude:9|. {Going forth to war} (\tou polemsai\). This genitive articular infinitive is another grammatical problem in this sentence. If \egeneto\ (arose) is repeated as above, then we have the infinitive for purpose, a common enough idiom. Otherwise it is anomalous, not even like strkjv@Acts:10:25|. {With the dragon} (\meta tou drakontos\). On the use of \meta\ with \poleme\ see strkjv@2:16; strkjv@13:4; strkjv@17:14| (nowhere else in N.T.). The devil has angels under his command (Matthew:25:41|) and preachers also (2Corinthians:11:14f.|). {Warred} (\epolemsen\). Constative aorist active indicative of \poleme\, picturing the whole battle in one glimpse.