Bible:
Filter: String:

OT.filter - rwp love:

rwp@1Corinthians:6:7 @{Nay, already it is altogether a defect among you} (\d men oun hols httma humin estin\). "Indeed therefore there is to you already (to begin with, \d\, before any question of courts) wholly defeat." \Httma\ (from \httaomai\) is only here, strkjv@Romans:11:12; strkjv@Isaiah:31:8| and ecclesiastical writers. See \httaomai\ (from \httn\, less) in strkjv@2Corinthians:12:13; strkjv@2Peter:2:19f.| \Nik\ was victory and \htta\ defeat with the Greeks. It is defeat for Christians to have lawsuits (\krimata\, usually decrees or judgments) with one another. This was proof of the failure of love and forgiveness (Colossians:3:13|). {Take wrong} (\adikeisthe\). Present middle indicative, of old verb \adike\ (from \adikos\, not right). Better undergo wrong yourself than suffer {defeat} in the matter of love and forgiveness of a brother. {Be defrauded} (\apostereisthe\). Permissive middle again like \adikeisthe\. Allow yourselves to be robbed (old verb to deprive, to rob) rather than have a lawsuit.

rwp@1John:3:14 @{We know} (\hmeis oidamen\). Emphatic expression of \hmeis\ (we) in contrast to the unregenerate world, the Christian consciousness shared by writer and readers. {We have passed} (\metabebkamen\). Perfect active indicative of \metabain\, old compound to pass over from one place to another (John:7:3|), to migrate, out of death into life. We have already done it while here on earth. {Because} (\hoti\). Proof of this transition, not the ground of it. {We love the brethren} (\agapmen tous adelphous\). Just this phrase (plural) here alone, but see strkjv@2:9| for the singular. {He that loveth not} (\ho m agapn\). "The not loving man," general picture and picture of spiritual death.

rwp@1John:3:16 @{Know we} (\egnkamen\). Perfect active indicative, "we have come to know and still know." See strkjv@2:3| for "hereby" (\en touti\). {Love} (\tn agapn\). "The thing called love" (D. Smith). {He for us} (\ekeinos huper hmn\). \Ekeinos\ as in strkjv@2:6; strkjv@3:3,5|, \huper\ here alone in this Epistle, though common in John's Gospel (10:11,15; strkjv@11:50|, etc.) and in strkjv@3John:1:7|. {Laid down his life} (\tn psuchn autou ethken\). First aorist active indicative of \tithmi\, the very idiom used by Jesus of himself in strkjv@John:10:11,17f|. {We ought} (\hmeis opheilomen\). Emphatic \hmeis\ again. For \opheil\ see strkjv@2:6|. Of course our laying down our lives for the brethren has no atoning value in our cases as in that of Christ, but is a supreme proof of one's love (John:13:37f.; strkjv@15:13|), as often happens.

rwp@1John:3:20 @{Whereinsoever our heart condemn us} (\hoti ean kataginski hmn h kardia\). A construction like \hoti an\, whatever, in strkjv@John:2:5; strkjv@14:13|. \Kataginsk\ occurs only three times in the N.T., here, verse 21; strkjv@Galatians:2:11|. It means to know something against one, to condemn. {Because God is greater than our heart} (\hoti meizn estin ts kardias hmn\). Ablative \kardias\ after the comparative \meizn\. {And knoweth all things} (\kai ginskei panta\). Just so Peter replied to Jesus in spite of his denials (John:21:17|). God's omniscience is linked with his love and sympathy. God knows every secret in our hearts. This difficult passage strikes the very centre of Christian truth (Brooke).

rwp@1Timothy:3:3 @{No brawler} (\m paroinon\). Later word for the earlier \paroinios\, one who sits long at (beside, \para\) his wine. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:1:3|. {No striker} (\m plktn\). Late word from \plss\, to strike. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:1:3|. {Gentle} (\epieik\). See on ¯Phillipians:4:5| for this interesting word. {Not contentious} (\amachon\). Old word (from \a\ privative and \mach\), not a fighter. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:3:2|. {No lover of money} (\aphilarguron\). Late word (\a\ privative and compound \phil-arguros\) in inscriptions and papyri (Nageli; also Deissmann, _Light_, etc., pp. 85f.). In N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:13:5|.

rwp@2Corinthians:9:7 @{He hath purposed} (\proirtai\). Perfect middle indicative of \proaireomai\, to choose beforehand, old verb, here only in N.T. Permanent purpose also. {Not grudgingly} (\m ek lups\). The use of \m\ rather than \ou\ shows that the imperative \poieit\ (do) or \didot\ (give) is to be supplied. Not give as out of sorrow. {Or of necessity} (\ ex anagks\). As if it were like pulling eye-teeth. {For God loveth a cheerful giver} (\hilaron gar dotn agapi ho theos\). Our word "hilarious" comes from \hilaron\ which is from \hilaos\ (propitious), an old and common adjective, only here in N.T.

rwp@2Timothy:1:2 @{Beloved} (\agaptoi\). Instead of \gnsii\ (genuine) in strkjv@1Timothy:1:2|. He had already called Timothy \agapton\ (verbal adjective of \agapa\) in strkjv@1Corinthians:4:17|, an incidental and strong proof that it is Paul who is writing here. This argument applies to each of the Pastorals for Paul is known by other sources (Acts and previous Pauline Epistles) to sustain precisely the affectionate relation toward Timothy and Titus shown in the Pastorals.

rwp@2Timothy:1:7 @{A spirit of fearfulness} (\pneuma deilias\). Here \pneuma\ is the \charisma\ of verse 6|, the human spirit as endowed by the Holy Spirit (Romans:8:15|). \Deilia\ is an old word (\deilos, deid\) and always in a bad sense of cowardice, only here in N.T. {Of power} (\dunames\). One of Paul's characteristic words (Romans:1:16|). {Of love} (\agaps\). One of the gifts of the Spirit (Galatians:5:22|). "Which drives out fear" (Lock) as in strkjv@1John:4:18|. {Of discipline} (\sphronismou\). Late _Koin_ word (from \sphroniz\, to control), self-control, here only in N.T. See strkjv@1Timothy:2:9| for \sphrosun\.

rwp@Colossians:3:12 @{Put on therefore} (\endusasthe oun\). First aorist middle imperative of \endun\ (verse 10|). He explains and applies (\oun\ therefore) the figure of "the new man" as "the new garment." {As God's elect} (\hs eklektoi tou theou\). Same phrase in strkjv@Romans:8:33; strkjv@Titus:1:1|. In the Gospels a distinction exists between \kltos\ and \eklektos\ (Matthew:24:22,24,31|), but no distinction appears in Paul's writings. Here further described as "holy and beloved" (\hagioi kai gapmenoi\). The items in the new clothing for the new man in Christ Paul now gives in contrast with what was put off (3:8|). The garments include a heart of compassion (\splagchna oiktirmou\, the nobler _viscera_ as the seat of emotion as in strkjv@Luke:1:78; strkjv@Phillipians:1:8|), kindness (\chrstotta\, as in strkjv@Galatians:5:22|), humility (\tapeinophrosunn\, in the good sense as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:3|), meekness (\prautta\, in strkjv@Galatians:5:23| and in strkjv@Ephesians:4:2| also with \tapeinophrosun\), long-suffering (\makrothumian\, in strkjv@Galatians:5:22; strkjv@Colossians:1:11; strkjv@James:5:10|).

rwp@Ephesians:1:4 @{Even as he chose us in him} (\kaths exelexato hms en auti\). First aorist middle indicative of \ekleg\, to pick out, to choose. Definitive statement of God's elective grace concerning believers in Christ. {Before the foundation of the world} (\pro katabols kosmou\). Old word from \kataball\, to fling down, used of the deposit of seed, the laying of a foundation. This very phrase with \pro\ in the Prayer of Jesus (John:17:24|) of love of the Father toward the Son. It occurs also in strkjv@1Peter:1:20|. Elsewhere we have \apo\ (from) used with it (Matthew:25:34; strkjv@Luke:11:50; strkjv@Hebrews:4:3; strkjv@9:26; strkjv@Revelation:13:8; strkjv@17:8|). But Paul uses neither phrase elsewhere, though he has \apo tn ainn\ (from the ages) in strkjv@Ephesians:3:9|. Here in strkjv@Ephesians:1:3-14|. Paul in summary fashion gives an outline of his view of God's redemptive plans for the race. {That we should be} (\einai hms\). Infinitive of purpose with the accusative of general reference (\hms\). See strkjv@Colossians:1:22| for the same two adjectives and also \katenpion autou\.

rwp@Ephesians:5:33 @{Nevertheless} (\pln\). "Howbeit," not to dwell unduly (Abbott) on the matter of Christ and the church. {Do ye also severally love} (\kai humeis hoi kath' hena hekastos agapt\). An unusual idiom. The verb \agapt\ (present active imperative) agrees with \hekastos\ and so is third singular instead of \agapte\ (second plural) like \humeis\. The use of \hoi kath' hena\ after \humeis\ = " ye one by one " and then \hekastos\ takes up (individualizes) the "one" in partitive apposition and in the third person. {Let the wife see that she fear} (\h gun hina phobtai\). There is no verb in the Greek for "let see" (\blepet\). For this use of \hina\ with the subjunctive as a practical imperative without a principal verb (an elliptical imperative) see strkjv@Mark:5:23; strkjv@Matthew:20:32; strkjv@1Corinthians:7:29; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:7; strkjv@Ephesians:4:29; strkjv@5:33| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 994). "Fear" (\phobtai\, present middle subjunctive) here is "reverence."

rwp@Hebrews:13:1 @{Brotherly love} (\philadelphia\). Late word from \philadelphos\ (1Peter:3:8|). See strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:9|. It is always in order in a church. {To show love unto strangers} (\ts philoxenias\). Old word for hospitality, from \philoxenos\ (1Timothy:3:2|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:12:3|. In genitive case with \epilanthanesthe\ (present middle imperative, cf. strkjv@Hebrews:6:10|). {Have entertained angels unawares} (\elathon xenisantes aggelous\). Second aorist active indicative of \lanthan\, old verb to escape notice and first aorist active participle of \xeniz\, old verb to entertain a guest (\xenos\, stranger), according to a classic idiom seen with \lanthan, tugchan, phthan\, by which the chief idea is expressed by the participle (supplementary participle), here meaning, "some escaped notice when entertaining angels." The reference is to strkjv@Genesis:18; 19| (Abraham and Sarah did this very thing).

rwp@Hebrews:13:5 @{Be ye free from the love of money} (\aphilarguros ho tropos\). No copula, but supply \esto\: "Let your manner of life (\tropos\, way, strkjv@Matthew:23:37|), be without love of money" (\aphilarguros\, double compound), once found only in the N.T., here and strkjv@1Timothy:3:3|, but now several times--or the adverb \aphilargurs\ --in papyri and inscriptions (Deissmann, _Light_, etc., pp. 85f.). Alpha privative and \philos\ and \arguros\. The N.T. is full of the peril of money on the character as modern life is also. {Content with such things as ye have} (\arkoumenoi tois parousin\). Present passive participle of \arke\, to suffice, to be content as in strkjv@Luke:3:14|. Cf. \autarks\ in strkjv@Phillipians:4:11|. Here in the nominative plural with no substantive or pronoun (anacoluthon, as in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:7|) or the participle used as a principal verb as in strkjv@Romans:12:16|. "Contented with the present things" (\tois parousin\, associative instrumental case of \ta paronta\, present active neuter plural participle of \pareimi\, to be present or on hand). {For himself hath said} (\autos gar eirken\). God himself as in strkjv@Acts:20:33| of Christ. Perfect active indicative as in strkjv@1:13; strkjv@4:3f.; strkjv@10:9|. The quotation is a free paraphrase of strkjv@Genesis:28:15; strkjv@Deuteronomy:31:8; strkjv@Joshua:1:5; strkjv@1Chronicles:28:20|. Philo (de Confus. Ling. 32) has it in this form, "a popular paraphrase" (Moffatt). Note the five negatives strengthening each other (\ou m\ with the second aorist active subjunctive \an\ from \animi\, to relate, as in strkjv@Acts:16:26|; \oud' ou m\ with second aorist active subjunctive \egkatalip\ from \egkataleip\, to leave behind, as in strkjv@Matthew:27:46; strkjv@2Timothy:4:10|). A noble promise in times of depression.

rwp@James:2:22 @{Thou seest} (\blepeis\). Obvious enough with any eyes to see. This may be a question, seest thou? {Wrought with} (\sunrgei\). Imperfect active of \sunerge\, old verb for which see strkjv@Romans:8:28|. Followed by associative-instrumental case \ergois\. Faith cooperated with the deed of offering up Isaac. {Was made perfect} (\eteleith\). First aorist passive indicative of \teleio\, to carry to the end, to complete like love in strkjv@1John:4:18|. See strkjv@James:1:4| for \teleion ergon\.

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

rwp@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:8:42 @{Ye would love me} (\gapate an eme\). Conclusion of second-class condition with distinct implication that their failure to love Jesus is proof that God is not their Father (protasis). {For I came forth from God} (\eg gar ek tou theou exlthon\). Second aorist active indicative of \exerchomai\, definite historical event (the Incarnation). See strkjv@4:30| for \exlthon ek\. In strkjv@13:3; strkjv@16:30| Jesus is said to have come from (\apo\) God. The distinction is not to be pressed. Note the definite consciousness of pre-existence with God as in strkjv@17:5|. {And am come} (\kai hk\). Present active indicative with perfect sense in the verb stem (state of completion) before rise of the tense and here retained. "I am here," Jesus means. {Of myself} (\ap' emautou\). His coming was not self-initiated nor independent of the Father. "But he (\ekeinos\, emphatic demonstrative pronoun) sent me" and here I am.

rwp@John:20:23 @{Whosesoever sins ye forgive} (\an tinn aphte tas hamartias\). "If the sins of any ye forgive" (\aphte\, second aorist active subjunctive with \an\ in the sense of \ean\), a condition of the third class. Precisely so with "retain" (\kratte\, present active subjunctive of \krate\). {They are forgiven} (\aphentai\). Perfect passive indicative of \aphimi\, Doric perfect for \apheintai\. {Are retained} (\kekratntai\). Perfect passive indicative of \krate\. The power to forgive sin belongs only to God, but Jesus claimed to have this power and right (Mark:2:5-7|). What he commits to the disciples and to us is the power and privilege of giving assurance of the forgiveness of sins by God by correctly announcing the terms of forgiveness. There is no proof that he actually transferred to the apostles or their successors the power in and of themselves to forgive sins. In strkjv@Matthew:16:19; strkjv@18:18| we have a similar use of the rabbinical metaphor of binding and loosing by proclaiming and teaching. Jesus put into the hands of Peter and of all believers the keys of the Kingdom which we should use to open the door for those who wish to enter. This glorious promise applies to all believers who will tell the story of Christ's love for men.

rwp@Jude:1:11 @{Woe to them} (\ouai autois\). Interjection with the dative as is common in the Gospels (Matthew:11:21|). {Went} (\eporeuthsan\). First aorist passive (deponent) indicative of \poreuomai\. {In the way of Cain} (\ti hodi tou Kain\). Locative case \hodi\. Cain is Jude's fourth example. Not in II Peter, but in strkjv@Hebrews:11:4; strkjv@1John:3:11f|. From strkjv@Genesis:4:7|. {Ran riotously} (\exechuthsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \ekche\, to pour out, "they were poured out," vigorous metaphor for excessive indulgence. But it is used also of God's love for us (Romans:5:5|). {In the error of Balaam} (\ti plani tou Balaam\). The fifth example in Jude. In II Peter also (2Peter:2:15|). Either locative case (in) or instrumental (by). \Plan\ (in Peter also) is the common word for such wandering (Matthew:24:4ff.|, etc.). {Perished} (\aplonto\). Second aorist middle (intransitive) of \apollumi\. {In the gainsaying of Korah} (\ti antilogii tou Kore\). Again either locative or instrumental. The word \antilogia\ is originally answering back (Hebrews:6:16|), but it may be by act also (Romans:10:21|) as here. This is the sixth example in Jude, not in II Peter.

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

rwp@Revelation:20:9 @{They went up} (\anebsan\). Second aorist active indicative of \anabain\, a return to the manner of the seer as in verses 4,5|. {Over the breadth of the earth} (\epi to platos ts gs\). \Platos\ is old word, in N.T. only here, strkjv@21:16; strkjv@Ephesians:3:18|. The hosts of Satan spread over the earth. {Compassed} (\ekukleusan\). First aorist (prophetic) active indicative of \kukleu\, to encircle, late verb (Strabo) from \kuklos\ (circle), in N.T. only here and margin in strkjv@John:10:24| (for \ekuklsan\ from \kuklo\). {The camp of the saints} (\tn paremboln tn hagin\). \Parembol\ (\para, en, ball\) is common late word for military camp, in LXX for the Israelites in the desert (Exodus:29:14|, etc.), in N.T. for Roman barracks (Acts:24:34,37|) and for an army in line of battle (Hebrews:11:34; strkjv@Revelation:20:9|). {The beloved city} (\tn polin tn gapmenn\). Perfect passive participle of \agapa\, "the city the beloved." See strkjv@Psalms:78:68; strkjv@87:2| for Jerusalem so described. Songs:Charles takes it here, but Swete holds it to be "the Church the New Zion" that is meant. {And fire came down out of heaven} (\kai kateb pur ek tou ouranou\). Second aorist (prophetic) active indicative of \katabain\. Cf. strkjv@Genesis:19:24; strkjv@39:6; strkjv@Ezekiel:38:22; strkjv@2Kings:1:10,12; strkjv@Luke:9:54| (about John). {Devoured them} (\katephagen autous\). Second aorist (prophetic) active of \katesthi\, to eat up (down). Vivid climax to this last great battle with Satan.

rwp@Romans:5:15 @{But not as the trespass} (\all' ouch hs\). It is more contrast than parallel: "the trespass" (\to paraptma\, the slip, fall to one side) over against the free gift (\to charisma\, of grace \charis\). {Much more} (\polli mallon\). Another _a fortiori_ argument. Why so? As a God of love he delights {much more} in showing mercy and pardon than in giving just punishment (Lightfoot). The gift surpasses the sin. It is not necessary to Paul's argument to make "the many" in each case correspond, one relates to Adam, the other to Christ.

rwp@Romans:8:35 @{Shall separate} (\chrisei\). Future active of old verb \choriz\ from adverb \chris\ and that from \chra\, space. Can any one put a distance between Christ's love and us (objective genitive)? Can any one lead Christ to cease loving us? Such things do happen between husband and wife, alas. Paul changes the figure from "who" (\tis\) to "what" (\ti\). The items mentioned will not make Christ love us less. Paul here glories in tribulations as in strkjv@5:3ff|.

rwp@Romans:8:37 @{Nay} (\alla\). On the contrary, we shall not be separated. {We are more than conquerors} (\hupernikmen\). Late and rare compound. Here only in N.T. "We gain a surpassing victory through the one who loved us."

rwp@Romans:8:39 @{To separate us} (\hms chrisai\). Aorist active infinitive of \choriz\ (same verb as in 35|). God's love is victor over all possible foes, "God's love that is in Christ Jesus." Paul has reached the mountain top. He has really completed his great argument concerning the God-kind of righteousness save for its bearing on some special problems. The first of these concerns the fact that the Jews (God's chosen people) have so largely rejected the gospel (chapters 9-11|).