Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp Dods:

rwp@1Corinthians:9:17 @{Of mine own will} (\hekn\) {--not of mine own will} (\akn\). Both common adjectives, but only here in N.T. save \hekn\, also in strkjv@Romans:8:20|. The argument is not wholly clear. Paul's call was so clear that he certainly did his work {willingly} and so had a reward (see on ¯Matthew:6:1| for \misthos\); but the only {reward} that he had for his willing work (Marcus Dods) was to make the gospel {free of expense} (\adapanon\, verse 18|, rare word, here only in N.T., once in inscription at Priene). This was his \misthos\. It was glorying (\kauchma\, to be able to say so as in strkjv@Acts:20:33f.|). {I have a stewardship intrusted to me} (\oikonomian pepisteumai\). Perfect passive indicative with the accusative retained. I have been intrusted with a stewardship and so would go on with my task like any \oikonomos\ (steward) even if \akn\ (unwilling).

rwp@Info_2Corinthians @ Some good commentaries on I Corinthians are the following: On the Greek Bachmann in the _Zahn Kommentar_, Edwards, Ellicott, Findlay (Expositor's Greek Testament), Godet, Goudge, Lietzmann (_Handbuch zum N.T._), Lightfoot (chs. 1-7), Parry, Robertson and Plummer (_Int. Crit._), Stanley, J. Weiss (_Meyer Kommentar_); on the English Dods (_Exp. Bible_), McFadyen, Parry, Ramsay, Rendall, F. W. Robertson, Walker (_Reader's Comm._). strkjv@2Corinthians:1:1 @{And Timothy} (\kai Timotheos\). Timothy is with Paul, having been sent on to Macedonia from Ephesus (Acts:19:22|). He is in no sense co-author any more than Sosthenes was in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:1|. {In all Achaia} (\en holi ti Achaii\). The Romans divided Greece into two provinces (Achaia and Macedonia). Macedonia included also Illyricum, Epirus, and Thessaly. Achaia was all of Greece south of this (both Attica and the Peloponnesus). The restored Corinth was made the capital of Achaia where the pro-consul resided (Acts:18:12|). He does not mention other churches in Achaia outside of the one in Corinth, but only "saints" (\hagiois\). Athens was in Achaia, but it is not clear that there was as yet a church there, though some converts had been won (Acts:17:34|), and there was a church in Cenchreae, the eastern port of Corinth (Romans:16:1|). Paul in strkjv@2Corinthians:9:2| speaks of Achaia and Macedonia together. His language here would seem to cover the whole (\holi\, all) of Achaia in his scope and not merely the environment around Corinth.

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 strkjv@Hebrews:10:1f.|: "Else would they not have ceased to be offered?" And in strkjv@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 strkjv@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), there is left only the years 67 to 69 A.D. as probable or even possible. It is thus the last of the New Testament books before the Johannine Writings all of which come towards the close of the century and after the destruction of Jerusalem.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ SOME BOOKS ON HEBREWS ANDEL, _Deuteronomy:Brief aan de Hebraer_ (1906). ANDERSON, R., _The Hebrews Epistle in the Light of the Types_ (1911). AYLES, _Destination, Date and Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). BAILEY, _Leading Ideas of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1907). BLASS, F., _Brief an die Hebraer, Text, Angabe der Rhythmen_ (1903). BLEEK, F., _Der Hebraerbrief Erklart_ (1840). BRUCE, A. B., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). DALE, R. W., _The Jewish Temple in the Christian Church_ (1865). DAVIDSON, A. B., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1882). DELITZSCH, F., _Commentary on the Hebrews_ (1857). DIBELIUS, M., _Der Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes_ (1910). DODS, M., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910). DU BOSE, W. P., _High Priesthood and sacrifice_ (1908). EDWARDS, T. C., _Expositor's Bible_ (1888). FARRAR, F. W., _Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1893). GOODSPEED, E. J., _Bible for Home and School_ (1908). GRIFFTH-THOMAS, W. H., _Let Us Go On_ (1923). HEIGL, _Verfalser und Addresse des Briefes an die Hebraer_ (1905). HOLLMANN, _Schriften d. N. T_. 2 Aufl. (1907). KENDRICK, A. C., _American Commentary_ (1890). LIDGETT, J. S., _Sonship and Salvation_ (1921). LOWRIE, _An Explanation of Hebrews_ (1921). LUNEMANN, G., _Meyer Komm_. (1882). MACFADYEN, J. F., _Through the Eternal Spirit_ (1925). MACNEILL, _The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1914). MENEGOZ, E., _Lamentations:Theologie de l'epitre aux Hebreaux_ (1894). MILLIGAN, G., _The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). MOFFATT JAMES, _Int. and Cosit. Comm_. (1924) MOULE, H. C., _Messages from the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1909). MURRAY, ANDREW, _Devotional Commentary_. NAIRNE, A., _The Epistle of Priesthood_ (1913). NAIRNE, A., _The Alexandrian Gospel_ (1917). PEAKE, A. S., _New Century Bible_ (1904). PORTER, S. J., _The Twelve-Gemmed Crown_ (1913). RENDALL, F., _The Theology of the Hebrew Christians_ (1886). RIGGENBACH, M., _Zoeckler Komm_. 2 Aufl. (1913). ROTHERHAM, _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1906). SAPHIR, A., _Exposition of Hebrews_. SCOTT, E. F., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1922). SEEBERG, A., _Der Brief an die Hebraer_ (1912). SLOT, _Deuteronomy:Letterkundige Vorm van den Brief aan de Hebraer (1912). SODEN, VON, _Hand-Comm_. (1899). THOLUCK, A., _Komm. zum Briefe an die Hebraer_. VAUGHAN, C. J., _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). WADE, _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1923). WEISS, B., _Meyer-Komm_. 6 Aufl. (1902). WEISS, B., _Der Hebraerbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher Bekuch- tung_ (1910). WELCH, _Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). WESTCOTT, B. F., _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (3rd ed. 1906). WICKHAM, E. C., _Westminster Comm_. (1910). WINDISCH, H., _Handbuch zum N.T_. (1913). WREDE, W., _Das literarisches Ratsel des Hebraerbriefs_ (1906). strkjv@Hebrews:1:1 @{God} (\ho theos\). This Epistle begins like Genesis and the Fourth Gospel with God, who is the Author of the old revelation in the prophets and of the new in his Son. Verses 1-3| are a _proemium_ (Delitzsch) or introduction to the whole Epistle. The periodic structure of the sentence (1-4|) reminds one of strkjv@Luke:1:1-4, strkjv@Romans:1:1-7, strkjv@1John:1:1-4|. The sentence could have concluded with \en huii\ in verse 2|, but by means of three relatives (\hon, di' hou, hos\) the author presents the Son as "the exact counterpart of God" (Moffatt). {Of old time} (\palai\). "Long ago" as in strkjv@Matthew:11:21|. {Having spoken} (\lalsas\). First aorist active participle of \lale\, originally chattering of birds, then used of the highest form of speech as here. {Unto the fathers} (\tois patrasin\). Dative case. The Old Testament worthies in general without "our" or "your" as in strkjv@John:6:58; strkjv@7:22; strkjv@Romans:9:5|. {In the prophets} (\en tois prophtais\). As the quickening power of their life (Westcott). strkjv@Songs:4:7|. {By divers portions} (\polumers\). "In many portions." Adverb from late adjective \polumers\ (in papyri), both in _Vettius Valens_, here only in N.T., but in Wisdom strkjv@7:22 and Josephus (_Ant_. VIII, 3, 9). The Old Testament revelation came at different times and in various stages, a progressive revelation of God to men. {In divers manners} (\polutrops\). "In many ways." Adverb from old adjective \polutropos\, in Philo, only here in N.T. The two adverbs together are "a sonorous hendiadys for 'variously'" (Moffatt) as Chrysostom (\diaphors\). God spoke by dream, by direct voice, by signs, in different ways to different men (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc.).

rwp@Hebrews:1:2 @{At the end of these days} (\ep' eschatou tn hmern toutn\). In contrast with \palai\ above. {Hath spoken} (\elalsen\). First aorist indicative of \lale\, the same verb as above, "did speak" in a final and full revelation. {In his Son} (\en huii\). In sharp contrast to \en tois prophtais\. "The Old Testament slopes upward to Christ" (J. R. Sampey). No article or pronoun here with the preposition \en\, giving the absolute sense of "Son." Here the idea is not merely what Jesus said, but what he is (Dods), God's Son who reveals the Father (John:1:18|). "The revelation was a _son-revelation_" (Vincent). {Hath appointed} (\ethken\). First aorist (kappa aorist) active of \tithmi\, a timeless aorist. {Heir of all things} (\klronomon pantn\). See strkjv@Mark:12:6| for \ho klronomos\ in Christ's parable, perhaps an allusion here to this parable (Moffatt). The idea of sonship easily passes into that of heirship (Galatians:4:7; strkjv@Romans:8:17|). See the claim of Christ in strkjv@Matthew:11:27; strkjv@28:18| even before the Ascension. {Through whom} (\di' hou\). The Son as Heir is also the Intermediate Agent (\dia\) in the work of creation as we have it in strkjv@Colossians:1:16f.; strkjv@John:1:3|. {The worlds} (\tous ainas\). "The ages" (_secula_, Vulgate). See strkjv@11:3| also where \tous ainas=ton kosmon\ (the world) or the universe like \ta panta\ (the all things) in strkjv@1:3; strkjv@Romans:11:36; strkjv@Colossians:1:16|. The original sense of \ain\ (from \aei\, always) occurs in strkjv@Hebrews:5:20|, but here "by metonomy of the container for the contained" (Thayer) for "the worlds" (the universe) as in LXX, Philo, Josephus.

rwp@Hebrews:1:5 @{Unto which} (\Tini\). "To which individual angel." As a class angels are called sons of God (Elohim) (Psalms:29:1|), but no single angel is called God's Son like the Messiah in strkjv@Psalms:2:7|. Dods takes "have I begotten thee" (\gegennka se\, perfect active indicative of \genna\) to refer to the resurrection and ascension while others refer it to the incarnation. {And again} (\kai palin\). This quotation is from strkjv@2Samuel:7:14|. Note the use of \eis\ in the predicate with the sense of "as" like the Hebrew (LXX idiom), not preserved in the English. See strkjv@Matthew:19:5; strkjv@Luke:2:34|. Like Old English "to" or "for." See strkjv@2Corinthians:6:18; strkjv@Revelation:21:7| for the same passage applied to relation between God and Christians while here it is treated as Messianic.

rwp@Hebrews:2:10 @{It became him} (\eprepen auti\). Imperfect active of \prep\, old verb to stand out, to be becoming or seemly. Here it is impersonal with \teleisai\ as subject, though personal in strkjv@Hebrews:7:26|. \Auti\ (him) is in the dative case and refers to God, not to Christ as is made plain by \ton archgon\ (author). One has only to recall strkjv@John:3:16| to get the idea here. The voluntary humiliation or incarnation of Christ the Son a little lower than the angels was a seemly thing to God the Father as the writer now shows in a great passage (2:10-18|) worthy to go beside strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. {For whom} (\di' hon\). Referring to \auti\ (God) as the reason (cause) for the universe (\ta panta\). {Through whom} (\di' hou\). With the genitive \dia\ expresses the agent by whom the universe came into existence, a direct repudiation of the Gnostic view of intermediate agencies (aeons) between God and the creation of the universe. Paul puts it succinctly in strkjv@Romans:11:36| by his \ex autou kai di' autou kai eis auton ta panta\. The universe comes out of God, by means of God, for God. This writer has already said that God used his Son as the Agent (\di' hou\) in creation (1:2|), a doctrine in harmony with strkjv@Colossians:1:15f.| (\en auti, di' autou eis auton\) and strkjv@John:1:3|. {In bringing} (\agagonta\). Second aorist active participle of \ag\ in the accusative case in spite of the dative \auti\ just before to which it refers. {The author} (\ton archgon\). Old compound word (\arch\ and \ag\) one leading off, leader or prince as in strkjv@Acts:5:31|, one blazing the way, a pioneer (Dods) in faith (Hebrews:12:2|), author (Acts:3:15|). Either sense suits here, though author best (verse 9|). Jesus is the author of salvation, the leader of the sons of God, the Elder Brother of us all (Romans:8:29|). {To make perfect} (\teleisai\). First aorist active infinitive of \teleio\ (from \teleios\). If one recoils at the idea of God making Christ perfect, he should bear in mind that it is the humanity of Jesus that is under discussion. The writer does not say that Jesus was sinful (see the opposite in strkjv@4:15|), but simply that "by means of sufferings" God perfected his Son in his human life and death for his task as Redeemer and Saviour. One cannot know human life without living it. There was no moral imperfection in Jesus, but he lived his human life in order to be able to be a sympathizing and effective leader in the work of salvation.

rwp@Hebrews:3:12 @{Take heed} (\blepete\). Present active imperative as in strkjv@Phillipians:3:2| (three times) of \blep\ in place of the more usual \horate\. Solemn warning to the Jewish Christians from the experience of the Israelites as told in strkjv@Psalms:95|. {Lest haply there shall be} (\m pote estai\). Negative purpose with \m pote\ and the future indicative as in strkjv@Mark:14:2|. But we have in strkjv@Colossians:2:8| \m tis estai\ as in strkjv@Hebrews:12:25|; \m\ occurs with the aorist subjunctive, and \m pote\ with present subjunctive (Hebrews:4:1|) or aorist subjunctive (Acts:5:39|). {In any one of you} (\en tini humn\). The application is personal and pointed. {An evil heart of unbelief} (\kardia ponra apistias\). A remarkable combination. {Heart} (\kardia\) is common in the LXX (about 1,000 times), but "evil heart" only twice in the O.T. (Jeremiah:16:12; strkjv@18:12|). \Apistias\ is more than mere unbelief, here rather disbelief, refusal to believe, genitive case describing the evil heart marked by disbelief which is no mark of intelligence then or now. {In falling away from the living God} (\en ti apostnai apo theou zntos\). "In the falling away" (locative case with \en\ of the second aorist active (intransitive) infinitive of \aphistmi\, to stand off from, to step aside from (\apo\ with the ablative case \theou\) the living God (common phrase in the O.T. and the N.T. for God as opposed to lifeless idols)). "Remember that to apostatize from Christ in whom you have found God is to apostatize from God" (Dods). That is true today. See strkjv@Ezekiel:20:8| for this use of the verb.

rwp@Hebrews:4:10 @{As God did from his} (\hsper apo tn idin ho theos\). It is not cessation of work, but rather of the weariness and pain in toil. The writer pictures salvation as God's rest which man is to share and God will have perfect satisfaction when man is in harmony with him (Dods).

rwp@Hebrews:5:2 @{Who can bear gently} (\metriopathein dunamenos\). Present active infinitive of the late verb \metriopathe\ (\metrios\, moderate, \pate\, to feel or suffer). It is a philosophical term used by Aristotle to oppose the \apatheia\ (lack of feeling) of the Stoics. Philo ranks it below \apatheia\. Josephus (_Ant_. XII. 32) uses it of the moderation of Vespasian and Titus towards the Jews. It occurs here only in the N.T. "If the priest is cordially to plead with God for the sinner, he must bridle his natural disgust at the loathsomeness of sensuality, his impatience at the frequently recurring fall, his hopeless alienation from the hypocrite and the superficial, his indignation at any confession he hears from the penitent" (Dods). {With the ignorant} (\tois agnoousin\). Dative case of the articular present active participle of \agnoe\, old verb not to know (Mark:9:32|). {And erring} (\kai planmenois\). Present middle participle (dative case) of \plana\. The one article with both participles probably makes it a hendiadys, sins of ignorance (both accidence and sudden passion) as opposed to high-handed sins of presumption and deliberate purpose. People who sinned "willingly" (\hekousis\, strkjv@10:26|) had no provision in the Levitical system. For deliberate apostasy (3:12; strkjv@10:26|) no pardon is offered. {Is compassed with infirmity} (\perikeitai astheneian\). Present passive indicative of the old verb \perikeimai\ here used transitively as in strkjv@Acts:28:20| (\halusin\, chain). The priest himself has weakness lying around him like a chain. Not so Jesus.

rwp@Hebrews:5:5 @{Songs:Christ also} (\houts kai ho Christos\). Just as with Aaron. Jesus had divine appointment as high priest also. {To be made} (\genthnai\). First aorist passive infinitive of \ginomai\. {High priest} (\archierea\). Predicate accusative agreeing with \heauton\ (himself) object of \edoxasen\. {But he that spake unto him} (\all' ho lalsas pros auton\). Ellipsis of \edoxasen\ to be supplied from preceding clause. God did glorify Jesus in appointing him priest as we see in strkjv@Psalms:2:7| quoted already as Messianic (Hebrews:1:5|). Jesus himself repeatedly claimed that the Father sent him on his mission to the world (John:5:30,43; strkjv@8:54; strkjv@17:5|, etc.). Bruce holds that Christ's priesthood is co-eval with his Sonship. Davidson thinks it is merely suitable because he is Son. Clearly the Father nominated (Dods) the Son to the Messianic priesthood (John:3:16|).

rwp@Hebrews:8:11 @{They shall not teach} (\ou m didaxsin\). Strong double negative (\ou m\) with the first aorist active (futuristic) subjunctive of \didask\. {His fellow-citizen} (\ton politn autou\). See strkjv@Luke:15:15; strkjv@19:14|. {Know the Lord} (\Gnthi ton kurion\). Second aorist active imperative of \ginsk\. In the new covenant all will be taught of God (Isaiah:54:13; strkjv@John:6:45|), whereas under the old only the educated scribe could understand the minutiae of the law (Dods). See Paul's comparison in strkjv@2Corinthians:3:7-18|. {Shall know} (\eidsousin\). Future perfect active, old form of \oida\ (note \ginsk\ just before of recognizing God), one of the rare future perfects (cf. strkjv@2:13|, \esomai pepoiths\).

rwp@Hebrews:9:4 @{Having a golden censer} (\chrusoun echousa thumiatrion\). The present active participle \echousa\ (feminine singular) agrees with \skn\ (the Holy of Holies). It is not certain whether \thumiatrion\ here means censer or altar of incense. In the LXX (2Chronicles:26:19; strkjv@Exodus:8:11|; IV Macc. strkjv@7:11) it means censer and apparently so in the inscriptions and papyri. But in Philo and Josephus it means altar of incense for which the LXX has \thusiastrion tou thumiatos\ (Exodus:30:1-10|). Apparently the altar of incense was in the Holy Place, though in strkjv@Exodus:30:1-10| it is left quite vague. B puts it in verse 2|. Songs:we leave the discrepancy unsettled. At any rate the altar of incense was used for the Holy of Holies ("its ritual associations," Dods). {The ark of the covenant} (\tn kibton ts diathks\). A box or chest four feet long, two and a half broad and high (Exodus:25:10f.|). The Scotch have a "meal-ark." {Wherein} (\en hi\). In the ark. There were three treasures in the ark of the covenant (a pot of manna, Aaron's rod, the tables of the covenant). For the pot of manna (golden added in the LXX) see strkjv@Exodus:16:32-34|. For Aaron's rod that budded (\h blastsasa\, first aorist active participle of \blastan\) see strkjv@Numbers:17:1-11|. For the tables of the covenant see strkjv@Exodus:25:16f.; strkjv@31:18; strkjv@Deuteronomy:9:9; strkjv@10:5|. Not definitely clear about these items in the ark, but on front, except that strkjv@1Kings:8:9| states that it did contain the tables of the covenant. For \plakes\ (tables) see strkjv@2Corinthians:3:3| (only other N.T. example).

rwp@Hebrews:9:20 @{This is} (\touto\). Instead of \idou\ of the LXX (Exodus:24:8|), just like our Lord's words in strkjv@Mark:14:24|, a possible reminiscence of the Master's words (Dods). The author also has \eneteilato\ (he commanded) for \dietheto\ of the LXX.

rwp@Hebrews:9:24 @{Made with hands} (\cheiropoita\). See verse 11| for this word. {Like in pattern to the true} (\antitupa tn althinn\). Late compound word, only twice in N.T. (here, strkjv@1Peter:3:21|). Polybius uses \antitupos\ for infantry "opposite" to the cavalry. In modern Greek it means a copy of a book. Here it is the "counterpart of reality" (Moffatt). Moses was shown a \tupos\ (model) of the heavenly realities and he made an \antitupon\ on that model, "answering to the type" (Dods) or model. In strkjv@1Peter:3:21| \antitupos\ has the converse sense, "the reality of baptism which corresponds to or is the antitype of the deluge" (Dods). {Now to appear} (\nun emphanisthnai\). Purpose clause by the first aorist passive infinitive of \emphaniz\ (Matthew:27:53; strkjv@John:14:21f.|). For the phrase see strkjv@Psalms:42:3|. For this work of Christ as our High Priest and Paraclete in heaven see strkjv@Hebrews:7:25; strkjv@Romans:8:34; strkjv@1John:2:1f|.

rwp@Hebrews:10:22 @{Let us draw near} (\proserchmetha\). Present middle volitive subjunctive as in strkjv@4:16| with which exhortation the discussion began. There are three exhortations in verses strkjv@22:25| (Let us draw near, \proserchmetha\, let us hold fast, \katechmen\, let us consider one another, \katanomen alllous\). Four items are added to this first exhortation. {With a true heart} (\meta althins kardias\). With loyalty and fealty. {In fulness of faith} (\en plrophorii pistes\). See strkjv@6:11| for this very phrase. {Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience} (\rerantismenoi tas kardias apo suneidses ponras\). Perfect passive participle of \rantiz\ with the accusative retained in the passive, an evident allusion to the sprinkling of blood in the old tabernacle (9:18-22|) and the shedding of Christ's blood for the cleansing of our consciences (10:1-4|). Cf. strkjv@1Peter:1:2| for "the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." {Our body washed with pure water} (\lelousmenoi to sma hudati kathari\). Perfect passive (or middle) of \lou\, old verb to bathe, to wash. Accusative also retained if passive. \Hudati\ can be either locative (in) or instrumental (with). See strkjv@Ephesians:5:26; strkjv@Titus:3:5| for the use of \loutron\. If the reference here is to baptism (quite doubtful), the meaning is a symbol (Dods) of the previous cleansing by the blood of Christ.

rwp@Info_John @ A BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE (SINCE 1880) ABBOT, EZRA, _On the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_ (1880). ABBOT, PEABODY, and LIGHTFOOT, _The Fourth Gospel_ (1891). ABBOTT, E.A., _Johannine Vocabulary_ (1935).,_Johannine Grammar_ (1906). APPEL, _Die Echtheit des Johannesevangeliums_ (1915). ASKWITH, E.H., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1910). BACON, B.W., _The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate_ (1910). BALDENSPERGER, W., _Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums_ (1898). BARTH, K., _The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels_ (1907). BAUER, W., _Das Johannes-Evangelium_. 2 Aufl. (1925). BELZER, _Das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes_ (1905). BERNARD, J. H., _Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1929), in Int. Crit. Comm. BERT, _Das Evangelium des Johannes_ (1922). BLASS, F., _Evangelium secundum Johannem_ (1902). BROOKE, A. E., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (Cambridge Biblical Essays, pp. 289 to 328. 1909). BURCH, VACHER, _The Structure and Message of St. John's Gospel_ (1928). BURNEY, C. F., _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922). CALMES, _L'Evangile selon S. Jean_ (1904). CANDLER, W. A., _Practical Studies in the Gospel of John_ (3 vols,, 1912-15). CARPENTER, J. ESTLIN, _The Johannine Writings_ (1927). CHAPMAN, DOM JOHN, _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). CHARNWOOD, LORD, _According to St. John_ (1925). CLEMEN, C., _Die Entstehung des Johannesevangeliums_ (1912). D'ALMA, _Lamentations:Controverse du quatrieme evangile_ (1908).,Philo et le quotrieme evangile_ (1911). DAUSCH' _Das Johannesevangelium_ (1909). DELFF, H., _Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt_ (1890).,Neue Beitrage zur Kritik und Erklarung des vierten Evangeliums (1890). DODS, M., _Expositor's Bible_ (2 vols., 1891).,Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1897). DRUMMOND, JAMES, _An Inquiry into the Character and Author- ship of the Fourth Gospel_ (1904). EVANS, H. H., _St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel_ (1888). EWALD, P., _Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage und der Weg zu seiner Losung_ (1890). FOUARD, S., _Jean et la hn de l'age apostolique_ (1904). GARDNER, P., _The Ephesian Gospel_ (1915). GARVIE, A. E., _The Beloved Disciple_ (1922). GOBEL, _Die Reden des Herrn nach Johannes_ (2 vols., 1906, 1910). GODET, F., _Comm. on the Gospel of St. John_ (Tr., 2 vols., 1886--90). GOGUEL, M., _Les sources du recit Johannique de la Passion_ (1910).,Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1924). GORDON, S. D., _Quiet Talks on St. John's Gospel_. GORE, C., _Exposition of the Gospel of John_ (1920). GREEN, A. V., _The Ephesian Canonical Writings_ (1910). GREGORY, C. R., _Wellhausen und Johannes_ (1910). GRILL, J., _Untersuchungen uber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums_ (1902). GUMBEL, _Das Johannesevangelium Eine Erganzung des Lukas ev_. (1911). HARRIS, J. RENDEL, _The Origin of the Prologue to St. John's Gospel_ (1917). HAYES, D. A., _John and His Writings_ (1917). HOERNLE, E. S., _The Record of the Loved Disciple_ etc. (1913). HOLLAND, H. S., _The Philosophy of Faith and the Fourth Gospel_ (1919).,_The Fourth Gospel_ (1923). HOLTZMANN, H. J., _Evangelium, Briefe, und Offenbarung des Johannes_. 3 Aufl. (1908). HOLTZMANN, _Hand-Comm_. 3 Aufl. von Bauer (1908). HOVEY, A. H., _In American Comm_. (1885). HOWARD, W. F., _The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation_ (1931). IVERACH, JAMES, _Gospel of John_ (Int. Stand. Bible Encycl.). JACKSON, H. L., _The Fourth Gospel and Some Recent German Criticism_ (1906).,_The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_ (1918). JOHNSTON, J. S., _The Philosophy of the Fourth Gospel_ (1909). KEISKER, _The Inner Witness of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922). KREYENBUHL, _Neue Losung der Johanneischen Frage_ (1905). LARFIELD, _Die beide Johannes von Ephesus_ (1914). LEATHES, STANLEY, _The Witness of St. John to Christ_. LEPIN, _L'origine du quatrieme evangile_ (1907; 1927).,_Lamentations:valeur historique du quatrieme euangile_ (1910). LEWIS, F. G., _The Irenaeus Testimony to the Fourth Gospel_ (1908). LEWIS, F. G., _Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel_ (1910). LIGHTFOOT, J. B., _Biblical Essays_ (pages 1-198; I-III, 1893). LLOYD, J. P. D., _The Son of Thunder_ (1932). LOISY, A., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1903). LOWRIE, _The Doctrine of John_ (1899). LYMAN, MARY ELY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Life of Today_ (1931). MANSON, W., _The Incarnate Glory_ (1923). MAURICE, F. D., _The Gospel of St. John_ (1906). McGREGoR, G. H., _The Moffatt Commentary_ (1930). MONTGOMERY, J. A., _The Origin of the Gospel According to St. John_ (1923). MOUSE, _Johannes und Paulus_ (1915). MUIRHEAD, L. A., _The Message of the Fourth Gospel_ (1925). NOLLOTH, C. F., _The Fourth Evangelist_ (1925). NUNN, H. P. V., _The Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel (1927). ORR, JAMES, _The Authenticity of St. John's Gospel Deduced from Internal Evidence_. OVERBECK, _Das Johannesevangelium_ (1911). PLUMMER, A., _Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1913). REVILLE, J., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1901). REYNOLDS, H. R., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D. B., 1899). RICHMOND, W., _The Gospel of the Rejection_ (1906). ROBERTSON, A. T., _The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John_ (1916). ROBINSON, A., _The Historical Character of St. John's Gospel_ (1929). ROBINSON, B. W., _The Gospel of John_ (1925). SANDAY, W., _Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_ (1905). SCHLATTER, _Die Sprache und Heimath des vierten Evangelisten_ (1903). SCHMIEDEL, P. W., _The Johannine Writings_ (1908). SCOTT, E. F., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology_ (1906). SCOTT, E. F., _The Historical and Religious Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1903). SCOTT-MONCRIEFF, C. E., _St. John, Apostle, Evangelist and Prophet_ (1909). SELBIE, W. B., _Belief and Life: Studies in the Thought of the Fourth Gospel_ (1916). SMITH, J. R., _The Teaching of the Fourth Gospel_ (1903). SMITH, P. V., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Historical Importance_ (1926). SPEER, R. E., _The Greatest Book in the World_ (1915). SPITTA, F., _Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu_ (1910). STANGE, _Die Eigenart des Johanneischen Produktion_ (1914). STANTON, V. H., _The Fourth Gospel_ (Part III of Gospels as Hist. Documents, 1921). STEVENS, G. B., _The Johannine Theology_ (1898). STRACHAN, R. H., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D C G 1906).,The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environ- ment_ (1917).,The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian_ (1925). TILLMANN, FRITZ, _Das Johannesevangelium Uebersetzt und Erklart_ (1931). VEDDER, H. C., _The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problems_ (1917). WARSCHAUER, J., _The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_. WATKINS, W. H., _Modern Criticism Considered in its Rela- tion to the Fourth Gospel_ (1890). WATSON, H. A., _The Mysticism of St. John's Gospel_ (1916). WEARING, _The World View of the Fourth Gospel_ (1918). WEISS, B., _Meyer Komm_. 9 Aufl. (1902).,_Das Johannesevangelium als einheitliches Werk_ (1911). WELLHAUSEN, J., _Das Evangelium Johannis_ (1908). WENDT, H. H., _The Gospel according to St. John: An Inquiry into its Genesis and Historical Value_ (1911).,_Die Schichten im vierten Evangelium_ (1911). WESTCOTT, B. F., _The Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1908). WHITELAW, _The Gospel of John_ (1888). WINDISCH, H., _Johannes und die Synoptiker_ (1927). WORSLEY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists_ (1911). WREDE, W., _Charakter und Tendenz del Johannesevangelium_ (1903). ZAHN, TH., _Dal Evangelium Johannis (1908). 6 Aufl. (1921). strkjv@John:1:1 @{In the beginning} (\en archi\). \Arch\ is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew _be reshith_ in strkjv@Genesis:1:1|. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. {Was} (\n\). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of \eimi\ to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (\egeneto\, became) appears in verse 14| for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in strkjv@8:58| "before Abraham came (\genesthai\) I am" (\eimi\, timeless existence). {The Word} (\ho logos\). \Logos\ is from \leg\, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. \Logos\ is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (\anima mundi\) and Marcus Aurelius used \spermatikos logos\ for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew _memra_ was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in strkjv@Proverbs:8:23|. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (_The Origin of the _Prologue to St. John_, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term \Logos\, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term \Logos\ is applied to Christ only in strkjv@John:1:1,14; strkjv@Revelation:19:13; strkjv@1John:1:1| "concerning the Word of life" (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God" in strkjv@Hebrews:4:12|. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f.; strkjv@Colossians:1:17|) and in strkjv@Hebrews:1:2f.| and in strkjv@John:17:5|. This term suits John's purpose better than \sophia\ (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the \aeon\ Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh" (\sarx egeneto\, verse 14|) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. {With God} (\pros ton theon\). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. \Pros\ with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In strkjv@1John:2:1| we have a like use of \pros\: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (\paraklton echomen pros ton patera\). See \prospon pros prospon\ (face to face, strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|), a triple use of \pros\. There is a papyrus example of \pros\ in this sense \to gnston ts pros alllous suntheias\, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., _Vocabulary_) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, _Origin of Prologue_, p. 8) that the use of \pros\ here and in strkjv@Mark:6:3| is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is _Koin_, not old Attic. In strkjv@John:17:5| John has \para soi\ the more common idiom. {And the Word was God} (\kai theos n ho logos\). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying \ho theos n ho logos\. That would mean that all of God was expressed in \ho logos\ and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (\ho logos\) and the predicate without it (\theos\) just as in strkjv@John:4:24| \pneuma ho theos\ can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." Songs:in strkjv@1John:4:16| \ho theos agap estin\ can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 767f. Songs:in strkjv@John:1:14| \ho Logos sarx egeneto\, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

rwp@John:1:2 @{The same} (\houtos\). "This one," the Logos of verse 1|, repeated for clarity, characteristic of John's style. He links together into one phrase two of the ideas already stated separately, "in the beginning he was with God," "afterwards in time he came to be with man" (Marcus Dods). Thus John clearly states of the Logos Pre-existence before Incarnation, Personality, Deity.

rwp@John:3:1 @{Now} (\de\). Songs:often in John \de\ is explanatory and transitional, not adversative. Nicodemus is an instance of Christ's knowledge of men (2:25|) and of one to whom he did trust himself unlike those in strkjv@2:24|. As a Pharisee "he belonged to that party which with all its bigotry contained a salt of true patriotism and could rear such cultured and high-toned men as Gamaliel and Paul" (Marcus Dods). {Named Nicodemus} (\Nikodmos onoma\). Same construction as in strkjv@1:6|, "Nicodemus name to him." Songs:Revelation:6:8|. It is a Greek name and occurs in Josephus (_Ant_. XIV. iii. 2) as the name of an ambassador from Aristobulus to Pompey. Only in John in N.T. (here, strkjv@7:50; strkjv@19:39|). He was a Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin, and wealthy. There is no evidence that he was the young ruler of strkjv@Luke:18:18| because of \archn\ (ruler) here.

rwp@John:3:8 @{The wind} (\to pneuma\). In Greek \pneuma\ means either wind or spirit as _spiritus_ does in Latin (so also in Hebrew and Syriac). Wycliff follows the Latin and keeps spirit here and Marcus Dods argues for it. The word \pneuma\ occurs 370 times in the N.T. and never means wind elsewhere except in a quotation from the O.T. (Hebrews:1:7| from strkjv@Psalms:104:4|), though common in the LXX. On the other hand \pne\ (bloweth, \pnei\) occurs five times elsewhere in the N.T. and always of the wind (like strkjv@John:6:18|). Songs:\phn\ can be either sound (as of wind) or voice (as of the Spirit). In simple truth either sense of \pneuma\ can be taken here as one wills. Tholuck thinks that the night-wind swept through the narrow street as Jesus spoke. In either case the etymology of \pneuma\ is "wind" from \pne\, to blow. The Spirit is the use of \pneuma\ as metaphor. Certainly the conclusion "of the Spirit" is a direct reference to the Holy Spirit who works his own way beyond our comprehension even as men even yet do not know the law of the wind.

rwp@John:3:23 @{John was also baptizing} (\n de kai ho Ians baptizn\). Periphrastic imperfect picturing the continued activity of the Baptist simultaneous with the growing work of Jesus. There was no real rivalry except in people's minds. {In Aenon near to Salim} (\en Ainn eggus tou Saleim\). It is not clearly known where this place was. Eusebius locates it in the Jordan valley south of Beisan west of the river where are many springs (fountains, eyes). There is a place called Salim east of Shechem in Samaria with a village called 'Aimen, but with no water there. There may have been water there then, of course. {Because there was much water there} (\hoti hudata polla n ekei\). "Because many waters were there." Not for drinking, but for baptizing. "Therefore even in summer baptism by immersion could be continued" (Marcus Dods). {And they came, and were baptized} (\kai pareginonto kai ebaptizonto\). Imperfects both, one middle and the other passive, graphically picturing the long procession of pilgrims who came to John confessing their sins and receiving baptism at his hands.

rwp@John:7:15 @{Marvelled} (\ethaumazon\). Picturesque imperfect active of \thaumaz\, "were wondering." After all the bluster of the rulers (verse 13|) here was Jesus teaching without interruption. {Knoweth letters} (\grammata oiden\). Second perfect active indicative used as present. \Grammata\, old word from \graph\, to write, is originally the letters formed (Galatians:6:11|), then a letter or epistle (Acts:28:21|), then the sacred Scriptures (John:5:47; strkjv@2Timothy:3:15|), then learning like Latin _litterae_ and English letters (Acts:26:24; strkjv@John:7:15|). "The marvel was that Jesus showed Himself familiar with the literary methods of the time, which were supposed to be confined to the scholars of the popular teachers" (Westcott). {Having never learned} (\m memathks\). Perfect active participle of \manthan\ with \m\, the usual negative (subjective) with the participle. It is not the wisdom of Jesus that disconcerted the Jewish leaders, but his learning (Marcus Dods). And yet Jesus had not attended either of the rabbinical theological schools in Jerusalem (Hillel, Shammai). He was not a rabbi in the technical sense, only a carpenter, and yet he surpassed the professional rabbis in the use of their own methods of debate. It is sometimes true today that unschooled men in various walks of life forge ahead of men of lesser gifts with school training. See the like puzzle of the Sanhedrin concerning Peter and John (Acts:4:13|). This is not an argument against education, but it takes more than education to make a real man. Probably this sneer at Jesus came from some of the teachers in the Jerusalem seminaries. "Christ was in the eyes of the Jews a merely self-taught enthusiast" (Westcott).

rwp@John:7:20 @{The multitude} (\ho ochlos\). Outside of Jerusalem (the Galilean crowd as in verses 11f.|) and so unfamiliar with the effort to kill Jesus recorded in strkjv@5:18|. It is important in this chapter to distinguish clearly the several groups like the Jewish leaders (7:13,15,25,26,30,32|, etc.), the multitude from Galilee and elsewhere (10-13,20,31,40,49|), the common people of Jerusalem (25|), the Roman soldiers (45f.|). {Thou hast a devil} (\daimonion echeis\). "Demon," of course, as always in the Gospels. These pilgrims make the same charge against Jesus made long ago by the Pharisees in Jerusalem in explanation of the difference between John and Jesus (Matthew:11:18; strkjv@Luke:7:33|). It is an easy way to make a fling like that. "He is a monomaniac labouring under a hallucination that people wish to kill him" (Dods).

rwp@John:7:25 @{Some therefore of them of Jerusalem} (\oun tines ek tn Ierosolumeitn\). The people of the city in contrast to the multitude of pilgrims at the feast. They form a separate group. The word is made from \Ierosoluma\ and occurs in Josephus and IV Maccabees. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:1:5|. These Jerusalem people knew better than the pilgrims the designs of the rulers (Vincent). {Is not this?} (\ouch houtos estin;\). Expecting affirmative answer. Clearly they were not as familiar with the appearance of Jesus as the Galilean multitude (Dods). {They seek} (\ztousin\). The plural refers to the group of leaders already present (7:15|) to whom the Jerusalem crowd probably pointed. They knew of their threats to kill Jesus (5:18|).

rwp@John:7:35 @{Among themselves} (\pros heautous\). These Jewish leaders of verse 32| talk among themselves about what Jesus said in a spirit of contempt (this man or fellow, \houtos\). {That} (\hoti\). Almost result like \hoti\ in strkjv@Matthew:8:27|. {Will he go?} (\m mellei poreuesthai;\). Negative answer expected in an ironical question, "Is he about to go?" {Unto the Dispersion among the Greeks} (\eis tn diasporan tn Hellnn\). Objective genitive \tn Hellnn\ (of the Greeks) translated here "among," because it is the Dispersion of Jews among the Greeks. \Diaspora\ is from \diaspeir\, to scatter apart (Acts:8:1,4|). It occurs in Plutarch and is common in the LXX, in the N.T. only here, strkjv@James:1:1; strkjv@1Peter:1:1|. There were millions of these scattered Jews. {And teach the Greeks} (\kai didaskein tous Hellnas\). Confessing his failure to teach the Jews in Palestine, "thus ignorantly anticipating the course Christianity took; what seemed unlikely and impossible to them became actual" (Dods).

rwp@John:7:45 @{Why did ye not bring him?} (\Dia ti ouk gagete auton;\). Second aorist active indicative of \ag\. Indignant outburst of the Sanhedrin (both Sadducees and Pharisees) at the failure of the (\tous\, note article here referring to verse 32|) temple police to arrest Jesus. "Apparently they were sitting in expectation of immediately questioning him" (Dods). They were stunned at this outcome.

rwp@John:7:48 @{Hath any of the rulers believed on him?} (\M tis ek tn archontn episteusen eis auton;\). Negative answer sharply expected. First aorist active indicative of \pisteu\. "Did any one of the rulers believe on him?" "What right have subordinates to have a mind of their own?" (Dods). These police were employed by the temple authorities (rulers). "Power was slipping through their fingers" (Dods) and that was the secret of their hostility to Jesus. {Or of the Pharisees} (\ ek tn Pharisain\). A wider circle and the most orthodox of all.

rwp@John:8:1 @{But Jesus went} (\Isous de eporeuth\). Same deponent use of \poreuomai\ as in strkjv@7:53| and in contrast to the Sanhedrin's conduct, though it seems "pointless" (Dods). Apparently Jesus was lodging in the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.

rwp@John:8:3 @{The scribes and the Pharisees} (\hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi\). John does not mention "scribes," though this combination (note two articles) is common enough in the Synoptics (Luke:5:30; strkjv@6:7|, etc.). {Bring} (\agousin\). Vivid dramatic present active indicative of \ag\. Dods calls this "in itself an unlawful thing to do" since they had a court for the trial of such a case. Their purpose is to entrap Jesus. {Taken in adultery} (\epi moicheii kateilemmenn\). Perfect passive participle of \katalamban\, old compound to seize (Mark:9:18|), to catch, to overtake (John:12:35|), to overcome (or overtake) in strkjv@1:5|. {Having let her in the midst} (\stsantes autn en mesi\). First aorist active (transitive) participle of \histmi\. Here all could see her and what Jesus did with such a case. They knew his proneness to forgive sinners.

rwp@John:8:9 @{Went out} (\exrchonto\). Inchoative imperfect. Graphic picture. {One by one} (\heis kath' heis\). Not a Johannine phrase, but in strkjv@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 tn presbutern\). "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} (\kateleiphth 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 h gun en mesi 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:8:19 @{Where is thy Father?} (\pou estin ho patr sou;\). "The testimony of an unseen and unheard witness would not satisfy them" (Vincent). Bernard understands the Pharisees to see that Jesus claims God the Father as his second witness and so ask "where," not "who" he is. Augustine has it: _Patrem Christi carnaliter acceperunt_, Christ's human father, as if the Pharisees were "misled perhaps by the Lord's use of \anthrpon\ (verse 17|)" (Dods). Cyril even took it to be a coarse allusion to the birth of Jesus as a bastard according to the Talmud. Perhaps the Pharisees used the question with _double entendre_, even with all three ideas dancing in their hostile minds. {Ye would know my Father also} (\kai ton patera mou an ideite\). Conclusion of second-class condition determined as unfulfilled with \an\ and second perfect active of \oida\ used as imperfect in both condition and conclusion. See this same point made to Philip in strkjv@14:9|. In strkjv@14:7| Jesus will use \ginsk\ in the condition and \oida\ in the conclusion. The ignorance of the Pharisees about Jesus proves it and is due to their ignorance of the Father. See this point more fully stated in strkjv@5:36-38| when Jesus had his previous controversy in Jerusalem. In strkjv@7:28| Jesus said that they knew his home in Nazareth, but he denied then that they knew the Father who sent him. Jesus will again on this occasion (8:55|) deny their knowledge of the Father. Later he will deny their knowledge of the Father and of the Son (16:3|). The Pharisees are silenced for the moment.

rwp@John:8:47 @{He that is of God} (\ho n ek tou theou\). See this use of \ek\ in strkjv@3:31f|. "Their not listening proved that they were not of God" (Dods). They were of the earth and the devil, not of God.

rwp@John:9:6 @{He spat on the ground} (\eptusen chamai\). First aorist active indicative of the old verb \ptu\ for which see strkjv@Mark:7:33|. \Chamai\ is an old adverb either in the dative or locative (sense suits locative), in N.T. only here and strkjv@John:18:6|. Jesus was not asked to cure this man. The curative effects of saliva are held in many places. The Jews held saliva efficacious for eye-trouble, but it was forbidden on the Sabbath. "That Jesus supposed some virtue lay in the application of the clay is contradicted by the fact that in other cases of blindness He did not use it" (Dods). Cf. strkjv@Mark:8:23|. Why he here accommodated himself to current belief we do not know unless it was to encourage the man to believe. {He made clay} (\epoisen plon\). Only use of \plos\, old word for clay, in N.T. in this chapter and strkjv@Romans:9:21|. The kneading of the clay and spittle added another offence against the Sabbath rules of the rabbis. {Anointed his eyes with the clay} (\epechrisen autou ton plon epi tous ophthalmous\). First aorist active indicative of \epichri\, old verb, to spread on, anoint, here only and verse 11| in N.T. "He spread the clay upon his eyes." B C read \epethken\ (first aorist active indicative of \epitithmi\, to put on).

rwp@John:10:11 @{I am the good shepherd} (\eg eimi ho poimn ho kalos\). Note repetition of the article, "the shepherd the good one." Takes up the metaphor of verses 2ff|. Vulgate _pastor bonus_. Philo calls his good shepherd \agathos\, but \kalos\ calls attention to the beauty in character and service like "good stewards" (1Peter:4:10|), "a good minister of Christ Jesus" (1Timothy:4:6|). Often both adjectives appear together in the ancient Greek as once in the New Testament (Luke:8:15|). "Beauty is as beauty does." That is \kalos\. {Layeth down his life for his sheep} (\tn psuchn autou tithsin huper tn probatn\). For illustration see strkjv@1Samuel:17:35| (David's experience) and strkjv@Isaiah:31:4|. Dods quotes Xenophon (_Mem_. ii. 7, 14) who pictures even the sheep dog as saying to the sheep: "For I am the one that saves you also so that you are neither stolen by men nor seized by wolves." Hippocrates has \psuchn katetheto\ (he laid down his life, i.e. died). In strkjv@Judges:12:3| \ethka tn psuchn\ means "I risked my life." The true physician does this for his patient as the shepherd for his sheep. The use of \huper\ here (over, in behalf of, instead of), but in the papyri \huper\ is the usual preposition for substitution rather than \anti\. This shepherd gives his life for the sin of the world (1:29; strkjv@1John:2:2|).

rwp@John:10:17 @{For this reason} (\dia touto\). Points to the following \hoti\ clause. The Father's love for the Son is drawn out (John:3:16|) by the voluntary offering of the Son for the sin of the world (Romans:5:8|). Hence the greater exaltation (Phillipians:2:9|). Jesus does for us what any good shepherd does (10:11|) as he has already said (10:15|). The value of the atoning death of Christ lies in the fact that he is the Son of God, the Son of Man, free of sin, and that he makes the offering voluntarily (Hebrews:9:14|). {That I may take it again} (\hina palin lab autn\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \lamban\. He looked beyond his death on the Cross to the resurrection. "The purpose of the Passion was not merely to exhibit his unselfish love; it was in order that He might resume His life, now enriched with quickening power as never before" (Bernard). The Father raised Jesus from the dead (Acts:2:32|). There is spontaneity in the surrender to death and in the taking life back again (Dods).

rwp@John:11:33 @{When Jesus therefore saw her weeping} (\Isous oun hs eiden autn klaiousan\). Proleptic position of "Jesus," "Jesus therefore when he saw." She was weeping at the feet of Jesus, not at the tomb. {And the Jews also weeping} (\kai tous Ioudaious klaiontas\). Mary's weeping was genuine, that of the Jews was partly perfunctory and professional and probably actual "wailing" as the verb \klai\ can mean. \Klai\ is joined with \alalaz\ in strkjv@Mark:5:38|, with \ololuz\ in strkjv@James:5:1|, with \thorube\ in strkjv@Mark:5:39|, with \penthe\ in strkjv@Mark:16:10|. It was an incongruous combination. {He groaned in the spirit} (\enebrimsato ti pneumati\). First aorist middle indicative of \embrimaomai\, old verb (from \en\, and \brim\, strength) to snort with anger like a horse. It occurs in the LXX (Daniel:11:30|) for violent displeasure. The notion of indignation is present in the other examples of the word in the N.T. (Mark:1:43; strkjv@14:5; strkjv@Matthew:9:30|). Songs:it seems best to see that sense here and in verse 38|. The presence of these Jews, the grief of Mary, Christ's own concern, the problem of the raising of Lazarus--all greatly agitated the spirit of Jesus (locative case \ti pneumati\). He struggled for self-control. {Was troubled} (\etaraxen heauton\). First aorist active indicative of \tarass\, old verb to disturb, to agitate, with the reflexive pronoun, "he agitated himself" (not passive voice, not middle). "His sympathy with the weeping sister and the wailing crowd caused this deep emotion" (Dods). Some indignation at the loud wailing would only add to the agitation of Jesus.

rwp@John:11:41 @{Songs:they took away the stone} (\ran oun ton lithon\). First aorist active indicative of \air\, but without the explanatory gloss of the Textus Receptus "from the place where the dead was laid" (not genuine). {I thank thee that thou heardest me} (\eucharist soi hoti kousas mou\). See strkjv@6:11| for \euchariste\. Clearly Jesus had prayed to the Father concerning the raising of Lazarus. He has the answer before he acts. "No pomp of incantation, no wrestling in prayer even; but simple words of thanksgiving, as if already Lazarus was restored" (Dods). Jesus well knew the issues involved on this occasion. If he failed, his own claims to be the Son of God (the Messiah), would be hopelessly discredited with all. If he succeeded, the rulers would be so embittered as to compass his own death.

rwp@John:12:5 @{Sold} (\eprath\). First aorist passive indicative of \piprask\, old verb to sell (Matthew:13:46|). {For three hundred pence} (\triakosin dnarin\). Genitive of price. Same item in strkjv@Mark:14:5|, while in strkjv@Matthew:26:9| it is simply "for much" (\pollou\). But all three have "given to the poor" (\edoth ptchois\). First aorist passive indicative of \didmi\ with dative case \ptchois\ (note absence of the article, poor people), real beggars, mendicants (Matthew:19:21; strkjv@Luke:14:13|). But only John singles out Judas as the one who made the protest against this waste of money while Mark says that "some" had indignation and Matthew has it that "the disciples" had indignation. Clearly Judas was the spokesman for the group who chimed in and agreed with his protest. The amount here spent by Mary (ten guineas) would equal a day labourer's wages for a year (Dods).

rwp@John:12:27 @{My soul} (\h psuch mou\). The soul (\psuch\) here is synonymous with spirit (\pneuma\) in strkjv@13:21|. {Is troubled} (\tetaraktai\). Perfect passive indicative of \tarass\, used also in strkjv@11:33; strkjv@13:21| of Jesus. While John proves the deity of Jesus in his Gospel, he assumes throughout his real humanity as here (cf. strkjv@4:6|). The language is an echo of that in strkjv@Psalms:6:4; strkjv@42:7|. John does not give the agony in Gethsemane which the Synoptics have (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:22:42|), but it is quite beside the mark to suggest, as Bernard does, that the account here is John's version of the Gethsemane experience. Why do some critics feel called upon to level down to a dead plane every variety of experience in Christ's life? {And what shall I say?} (\kai ti eip;\). Deliberative subjunctive which expresses vividly "a genuine, if momentary indecision" (Bernard). The request of the Greeks called up graphically to Jesus the nearness of the Cross. {Father, save me from this hour} (\pater, sson me ek ts hras tauts\). Jesus began his prayers with "Father" (11:41|). Dods thinks that this should be a question also. Westcott draws a distinction between \ek\ (out of) and \apo\ (from) to show that Jesus does not pray to draw back from the hour, but only to come safely out of it all and so interprets \ek\ in strkjv@Hebrews:5:7|, but that distinction will not stand, for in strkjv@John:1:44| \ek\ and \apo\ are used in the same sense and in the Synoptics (Mark:14:35f.; strkjv@Matthew:26:39; strkjv@Luke:52:42|) we have \apo\. If it holds here, we lose the point there. Here as in Gethsemane the soul of Jesus instinctively and naturally shrinks from the Cross, but he instantly surrenders to the will of God in both experiences. {But for this cause came I unto this hour} (\alla dia touto lthon eis tn hran tautn\). It was only a moment of human weakness as in Gethsemane that quickly passed. Thus understood the language has its natural meaning.

rwp@John:13:8 @{Thou shalt never wash my feet} (\ou m nipsis mou tous podas eis ton aina\). Strong double negative \ou m\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \nipt\ with \eis ton aina\ (for ever) added and \mou\ (my) made emphatic by position. Peter's sudden humility should settle the issue, he felt. {If I wash thee not} (\ean m nips se\). Third-class condition with \ean m\ (negative). Jesus picks up the challenge of Peter whose act amounted to irreverence and want of confidence. "The first condition of discipleship is self-surrender" (Westcott). Songs:"Jesus, waiting with the basin" (Dods), concludes. {Thou hast no part with me} (\ouk echeis meros met' emou\). Not simply here at the supper with its fellowship, but in the deeper sense of mystic fellowship as Peter was quick to see. Jesus does not make foot-washing essential to spiritual fellowship, but simply tests Peter's real pride and mock-humility by this symbol of fellowship.

rwp@John:13:9 @{Not my feet only, but also my hands and my head} (\m tous podas mou monon alla kai tas cheiras kai tn kephaln\). Nouns in the accusative case object of \nipson\ understood. Peter's characteristic impulsiveness that does not really understand the Master's act. "A moment ago he told his Master He was doing too much: now he tells Him He is doing too little" (Dods).

rwp@John:13:26 @{He} (\ekeinos\). Emphatic pronoun again. {For whom I shall dip the sop} (\hi eg baps to psmion\). Dative case of the relative (\hi\) and future active of \bapt\, to dip (Luke:16:24|). \Psmion\ is a diminutive of \psmos\, a morsel, a common _Koin_ word (in the papyri often), in N.T. only in this passage. It was and is in the orient a token of intimacy to allow a guest to dip his bread in the common dish (cf. strkjv@Ruth:2:14|). Songs:Mark:14:20|. Even Judas had asked: "Is it I?" (Mark:14:19; strkjv@Matthew:26:22|). {Giveth it to Judas} (\didsin Ioudi\). Unobserved by the others in spite of Christ's express language, because "it was so usual a courtesy" (Bernard), "the last appeal to Judas' better feeling" (Dods). Judas now knew that Jesus knew his plot.