Bible:
Filter: String:

OT.filter - rwp sign:

rwp@1Corinthians:1:2 @{The church of God} (\ti ekklsii tou theou\). Belonging to God, not to any individual or faction, as this genitive case shows. In strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:1| Paul wrote "the church of the Thessalonians in God" (\en thei\), but "the churches of God" in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:14|. See same idiom in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:32; strkjv@11:16,22; strkjv@15:9; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:1; strkjv@Galatians:1:13|, etc. {Which is in Corinth} (\ti ousi en Korinthi\). See on strkjv@Acts:13:1| for idiom. It is God's church even in Corinth, "_laetum et ingens paradoxon_" (Bengel). This city, destroyed by Mummius B.C. 146, had been restored by Julius Caesar a hundred years later, B.C. 44, and now after another hundred years has become very rich and very corrupt. The very word "to Corinthianize" meant to practise vile immoralities in the worship of Aphrodite (Venus). It was located on the narrow Isthmus of the Peloponnesus with two harbours (Lechaeum and Cenchreae). It had schools of rhetoric and philosophy and made a flashy imitation of the real culture of Athens. See strkjv@Acts:18| for the story of Paul's work here and now the later developments and divisions in this church will give Paul grave concern as is shown in detail in I and II Corinthians. All the problems of a modern city church come to the front in Corinth. They call for all the wisdom and statesmanship in Paul. {That are sanctified} (\hgiasmenois\). Perfect passive participle of \hagiaz\, late form for \hagiz\, so far found only in the Greek Bible and in ecclesiastical writers. It means to make or to declare \hagion\ (from \hagos\, awe, reverence, and this from \haz\, to venerate). It is significant that Paul uses this word concerning the {called saints} or {called to be saints} (\kltois hagiois\) in Corinth. Cf. \kltos apostolos\ in strkjv@1:1|. It is because they are sanctified {in Christ Jesus} (\en Christi Isou\). He is the sphere in which this act of consecration takes place. Note plural, construction according to sense, because \ekklsia\ is a collective substantive. {With all that call upon} (\sun psin tois epikaloumenois\). Associative instrumental case with \sun\ rather than \kai\ (and), making a close connection with "saints" just before and so giving the Corinthian Christians a picture of their close unity with the brotherhood everywhere through the common bond of faith. This phrase occurs in the LXX (Genesis:12:8; strkjv@Zechariah:13:9|) and is applied to Christ as to Jehovah (2Thessalonians:1:7,9,12; strkjv@Phillipians:2:9,10|). Paul heard Stephen pray to Christ as Lord (Acts:7:59|). Here "with a plain and direct reference to the Divinity of our Lord" (Ellicott). {Their Lord and ours} (\autn kai hmn\). This is the interpretation of the Greek commentators and is the correct one, an afterthought and expansion (\epanorthsis\) of the previous "our," showing the universality of Christ.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:10 @{Ought} (\opheilei\). Moral obligation therefore (\dia touto\, rests on woman in the matter of dress that does not (\ouk opheilei\ in verse 7|) rest on the man. {To have a sign of authority} (\exousian echein\). He means \smeion exousias\ (symbol of authority) by \exousian\, but it is the sign of authority of the man over the woman. The veil on the woman's head is the symbol of the authority that the man with the uncovered head has over her. It is, as we see it, more a sign of subjection (\hypotags\, strkjv@1Timothy:2:10|) than of authority (\exousias\). {Because of the angels} (\dia tous aggelous\). This startling phrase has caused all kinds of conjecture which may be dismissed. It is not preachers that Paul has in mind, nor evil angels who could be tempted (Genesis:6:1f.|), but angels present in worship (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:4:9; strkjv@Psalms:138:1|) who would be shocked at the conduct of the women since the angels themselves veil their faces before Jehovah (Isaiah:6:2|).

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:14 @{And if any one obeyeth not our word by this epistle} (\ei de tis ouch hupakouei ti logi hmn dia ts epistols\). Paul sums up the issue bluntly with this ultimatum. Condition of the first class, with negative \ou\, assuming it to be true. {Note that man} (\touton smeiousthe\). Late verb \smeio\, from \smeion\, sign, mark, token. Put a tag on that man. Here only in N.T. "The verb is regularly used for the signature to a receipt or formal notice in the papyri and the ostraca of the Imperial period" (Moulton & Milligan's _Vocabulary_). How this is to be done (by letter or in public meeting) Paul does not say. {That ye have no company with him} (\m sunanamignusthai auti\). The MSS. are divided between the present middle infinitive as above in a command like strkjv@Romans:12:15; strkjv@Phillipians:3:16| or the present middle imperative \sunanamignusthe\ (\-ai\ and \-e\ often being pronounced alike in the _Koin_). The infinitive can also be explained as an indirect command. This double compound verb is late, in LXX and Plutarch, in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:5:9,11|. \Auti\ is in associative instrumental case. {To the end that he may be ashamed} (\hina entrapi\). Purpose clause with \hina\. Second aorist passive subjunctive of \entrep\, to turn on, middle to turn on oneself or to put to shame, passive to be made ashamed. The idea is to have one's thoughts turned in on oneself.

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:17 @{Of me Paul with mine own hand} (\ti emi cheiri Paulou\). Instrumental case \cheiri\. Note genitive \Paulou\ in apposition with possessive idea in the possessive pronoun \emi\. Paul had dictated the letter, but now wrote the salutation in his hand. {The token in every epistle} (\smeion en pasi epistoli\). Mark (verse 14|) and proof of the genuineness of each epistle, Paul's signature. Already there were spurious forgeries (2Thessalonians:2:2|). Thus each church was enabled to know that Paul wrote the letter. If only the autograph copy could be found!

rwp@Acts:7:8 @{The covenant of circumcision} (\diathkn peritoms\). A covenant marked by (genitive) circumcision (no article) of which circumcision is the sign (Romans:4:11|) as set forth in strkjv@Genesis:17:9-14|. In the ancient Greek \diathk\ was usually will (Latin, _testamentum_) and \sunthk\ was used for covenant (\sun\, together, rather than \dia\, between). But the LXX and the N.T. use \diathk\ for covenant (will in strkjv@Hebrews:9:15f.|) as Lightfoot on strkjv@Galatians:3:16| says: "The LXX translation and New Testament writers probably preferred \diathk\ as better expressing the {free grace} of God than \sunthk\." {And so} (\kai houts\). After the covenant was made and as a sign and seal of it.

rwp@Acts:7:19 @{Dealt subtilly} (\katasophisamenos\). First aorist middle participle of \katasophizomai\, late compound (\kata\ and \sophiz\, old verb, to make wise, to become wise, then to play the sophist), perfective use of \kata\. In the LXX, but here only in the N.T. To use fraud, craft, deceit. {That they should cast out their babes} (\tou poiein ta breph ektheta\). \Tou poiein\ (genitive of the articular present infinitive) can be either design or result. The Revised Version here takes it as purpose while the Authorized as result. In either case Pharaoh required the Israelites to expose their children to death, a possible practice done voluntarily in heathen China and by heathen in so-called Christian lands. But the Israelites fought against such an iniquity. The word \ektheta\ (exposed, cast out) is a verbal adjective from \ektithmi\. It is an old word, but here only in the N.T. and not in the LXX. {To the end they might not live} (\eis to m zogoneisthai\). Purpose with \eis\ and the articular infinitive (present middle). This compound verb is from \zogonos\ (from \zos\, alive, and \gen\, to bear) and is used by late writers and the LXX. It is three times in the N.T. (here, strkjv@Luke:17:33; strkjv@1Timothy:6:13|) in the sense to preserve alive.

rwp@Acts:7:21 @{When he was cast out} (\ektethentos autou\). Genitive absolute with first aorist passive participle of \ektithmi\. {Took up} (\aneilato\). Second aorist middle indicative (with first aorist vowel \a\ instead of \e\ as often in the _Koin_) of \anaire\, common in the N.T. in the sense of take up and make away with, to kill as in verse 28|, but here only in the N.T. in the original sense of taking up from the ground and with the middle voice (for oneself). Quoted here from strkjv@Exodus:2:5|. The word was used of old for picking up exposed children as here. Vincent quotes Aristophanes (_Clouds_, 531): "I exposed (the child), and some other women, having taken it, adopted (\aneileto\) it." Vulgate has _sustulit_. "Adopted" is the idea here. "After the birth of a child the father took it up to his bosom, if he meant to rear it; otherwise it was doomed to perish" (Hackett). {Nourished him for her own son} (\anethrepsato auton heauti eis huion\). Literally, "she nursed him up for herself (\heauti\ besides middle voice) as a son." This use of \eis\=as occurs in the old Greek, but is very common in the LXX as a translation of the Hebrew _le_. The tradition is that she designed Moses for the throne as the Pharaoh had no son (Josephus, _Ant_. ii. 9, 7).

rwp@Acts:12:17 @There were probably loud exclamations of astonishment and joy. {Beckoning with the hand} (\kataseisas ti cheiri\). First aorist active participle of \katasei\, old verb to signal or shake down with the hand (instrumental case \cheiri\). In the N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:12:17; strkjv@13:16; strkjv@19:33; strkjv@21:40|. The speaker indicates by a downward movement of the hand his desire for silence (to hold their peace, \sigin\, present active infinitive, to keep silent). Peter was anxious for every precaution and he wanted their instant attention. {Declared} (\digsato\). First aorist middle of \digeomai\, old verb to carry through a narrative, give a full story. See also strkjv@Acts:9:27| of Barnabas in his defence of Saul. Peter told them the wonderful story. {Unto James and the brethren} (\Iakbi kai tois adelphois\). Dative case after \apaggeilate\ (first aorist active imperative). Evidently "James and the brethren" were not at this meeting, probably meeting elsewhere. There was no place where all the thousands of disciples in Jerusalem could meet. This gathering in the house of Mary may have been of women only or a meeting of the Hellenists. It is plain that this James the Lord's brother, is now the leading presbyter or elder in Jerusalem though there were a number (11:30; strkjv@21:18|). Paul even terms him apostle (Gal strkjv@1:19|), though certainly not one of the twelve. The twelve apostles probably were engaged elsewhere in mission work save James now dead (Acts:12:2|) and Peter. The leadership of James is here recognized by Peter and is due, partly to the absence of the twelve, but mainly to his own force of character. He will preside over the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:13|). {To another place} (\eis heteron topon\). Probably Luke did not know the place and certainly it was prudent for Peter to conceal it from Herod Agrippa. Probably Peter left the city. He is back in Jerusalem at the Conference a few years later (Acts:15:7|) and after the death of Herod Agrippa. Whether Peter went to Rome during these years we do not know. He was recognized later as the apostle to the circumcision (Gal strkjv@2:7; strkjv@1Peter:1:1|) and apparently was in Rome with John Mark when he wrote the First Epistle (1Peter:5:13|), unless it is the real Babylon. But, even if Peter went to Rome during this early period, there is no evidence that he founded the church there. If he had done so, in the light of strkjv@2Corinthians:10:16| it would be strange that Paul had not mentioned it in writing to Rome, for he was anxious not to build on another man's foundation (Romans:15:20|). Paul felt sure that he himself had a work to do in Rome. Unfortunately Luke has not followed the ministry of Peter after this period as he does Paul (appearing again only in chapter strkjv@Acts:15|). If Peter really left Jerusalem at this time instead of hiding in the city, he probably did some mission work as Paul says that he did (1Corinthians:9:5|).

rwp@Acts:20:35 @{I gave you an example} (\hupedeixa\). First aorist active indicative of \hupodeiknumi\, old verb to show under one's eyes, to give object lesson, by deed as well as by word (Luke:6:47|). \Hupodeigma\ means example (John:13:15; strkjv@James:5:10|). Songs:Paul appeals to his example in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:1; strkjv@Phillipians:3:17|. \Panta\ is accusative plural of general reference (in all things). {Songs:labouring ye ought to help} (\houts kopintas dei antilambanesthai\). So, as I did. Necessity (\dei\). Toiling (\kopintas\) not just for ourselves, but to help (\antilambanesthai\), to take hold yourselves (middle voice) at the other end (\anti\). This verb common in the old Greek, but in the N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:1:54; strkjv@Acts:20:35; strkjv@1Timothy:6:2|. This noble plea to help the weak is the very spirit of Christ (1Thessalonians:5:14; strkjv@1Corinthians:12:28; strkjv@Romans:5:6; strkjv@14:1|). In strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:14| \antechesthe tn asthenountn\ we have Paul's very idea again. Every Community Chest appeal today re-echoes Paul's plea. {He himself said} (\autos eipen\). Not in the Gospels, one of the sayings of Jesus in current use that Paul had received and treasured. Various other _Agrapha_ of Jesus have been preserved in ancient writers and some in recently discovered papyri which may be genuine or not. We are grateful that Paul treasured this one. This Beatitude (on \makarion\ see on strkjv@Matthew:5:3-11|) is illustrated by the whole life of Jesus with the Cross as the culmination. Aristotle (Eth. IV. I) has a saying somewhat like this, but assigns the feeling of superiority as the reason (Page), an utterly different idea from that here. This quotation raises the question of how much Paul personally knew of the life and sayings of Jesus.

rwp@Galatians:4:24 @{Which things contain an allegory} (\hatina estin allgoroumena\). Literally, "Which things are allegorized" (periphrastic present passive indicative of \allgore\). Late word (Strabo, Plutarch, Philo, Josephus, ecclesiastical writers), only here in N.T. The ancient writers used \ainittomai\ to speak in riddles. It is compounded of \allo\, another, and \agoreu\, to speak, and so means speaking something else than what the language means, what Philo, the past-master in the use of allegory, calls the deeper spiritual sense. Paul does not deny the actual historical narrative, but he simply uses it in an allegorical sense to illustrate his point for the benefit of his readers who are tempted to go under the burden of the law. He puts a secondary meaning on the narrative just as he uses \tupiks\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:11| of the narrative. We need not press unduly the difference between allegory and type, for each is used in a variety of ways. The allegory in one sense is a speaking parable like Bunyan's _Pilgrim's Progress_, the Prodigal Son in strkjv@Luke:15|, the Good Shepherd in strkjv@John:10|. But allegory was also used by Philo and by Paul here for a secret meaning not obvious at first, one not in the mind of the writer, like our illustration which throws light on the point. Paul was familiar with this rabbinical method of exegesis (Rabbi Akiba, for instance, who found a mystical sense in every hook and crook of the Hebrew letters) and makes skilful use of that knowledge here. Christian preachers in Alexandria early fell victims to Philo's allegorical method and carried it to excess without regard to the plain sense of the narrative. That startling style of preaching survives yet to the discredit of sound preaching. Please observe that Paul says here that he is using allegory, not ordinary interpretation. It is not necessary to say that Paul intended his readers to believe that this allegory was designed by the narrative. He illustrates his point by it. {For these are} (\hautai gar eisin\). Allegorically interpreted, he means. {From Mount Sinai} (\apo orous Sin\). Spoken from Mount Sinai. {Bearing} (\gennsa\). Present active participle of \genna\, to beget of the male (Matthew:1:1-16|), more rarely as here to bear of the female (Luke:1:13,57|). {Which is Hagar} (\htis estin Hagar\). Allegorically interpreted.

rwp@Hebrews:9:8 @{The Holy Ghost this signifying} (\touto dlountos tou pneumatos tou hagiou\). Genitive absolute with present active participle of \dlo\, to make plain. Used as in strkjv@12:27|. {The way into the Holy place} (\tn tn hagin hodon\). Here as in verses 12,25| \tn hagin\ is used for the very Presence of God as in strkjv@8:2| and is in the objective genitive. \Hodon\ is the accusative of general reference with the infinitive. {Hath not yet been made manifest} (\mp pephanersthai\). Perfect passive infinitive of \phanero\, to make plain (\phaneros\) in indirect discourse after \dlountos\ with negative \mp\. {While as the first tabernacle is yet standing} (\eti ts prts skns echouss stasin\). Another genitive absolute with present active participle of \ech\ (having standing \stasin\), "the first tabernacle still having a place." The veil at the entrance kept the people out of the first tent as the second veil (verse 3|) kept the priests out of the Holy of Holies (the very Presence of God).

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@Revelation:6:13 @{Her unripe figs} (\tous olunthous auts\). An old word (Latin _grossi_) for figs that grow in winter and fall off in the spring without getting ripe (Songs:2:11f.|), here only in N.T. Jesus used the fig tree (Mark:13:28|) as a sign of the "end of the world's long winter" (Swete). Cf. strkjv@Isaiah:34:4; strkjv@Nahum:3:12|. {When she is shaken of a great wind} (\hupo anemou megalou seiomen\). Present passive participle of \sei\, "being shaken by a great wind." See strkjv@Matthew:11:7| for the reed so shaken.

rwp@Revelation:7:9 @{Which no man could number} (\hon arithmsai auton oudeis edunato\). Redundant repetition of the pronoun \auton\ after the relative \hon\ as in strkjv@7:5; strkjv@3:8|. \Edunato\ imperfect indicative and \arithmsai\ first aorist active infinitive of \arithme\, old verb, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Matthew:10:30; strkjv@Luke:12:7|. See strkjv@5:9| (also strkjv@11:9; strkjv@13:7; strkjv@14:10; strkjv@17:15|) for the list of words after \ek\ (the spiritual Israel carried on all over the world), "a polyglott cosmopolitan crowd" (Swete). {Standing} (\hesttes\). Same form in strkjv@7:1|, only nominative masculine plural referring to \ochlos\ (masculine singular), construction according to sense like the plural \legontn\ with \ochlou\ in strkjv@19:1|. {Arrayed} (\peribeblmenous\). Perfect passive participle of \periball\, but in the accusative plural (not nominative like \hesttes\), a common variation in this book when preceded by \eidon\ and \idou\ as in strkjv@4:4| (\thronoi, presbuterous\). Charles regards this as a mere slip which would have been changed to \peribeblmenoi\ if John had read the MS. over. {In white robes} (\stolas leukas\). Predicate accusative retained with this passive verb of clothing as in strkjv@7:13; strkjv@10:1; strkjv@11:3; strkjv@12:1; strkjv@17:4; strkjv@18:16; strkjv@19:13|. {Palms} (\phoinikes\). Nominative again, back to construction with \idou\, not \eidon\. Old word, in N.T. only here for palm branches and strkjv@John:12:13| for palm trees. Both these and the white robes are signs of victory and joy.

rwp@Revelation:8:6 @{Prepared themselves} (\htoimasan hautous\). First aorist active indicative of \hetoimaz\. They knew the signal and got ready. {To sound} (\hina salpissin\). Sub-final (object) clause with \hina\ and the first aorist ingressive active subjunctive of \salpiz\. The infinitive could have been used.

rwp@Revelation:9:15 @{Were loosed} (\eluthsan\). First aorist (ingressive) passive indicative of \lu\, "were let loose." {Which had been prepared} (\hoi htoimasmenoi\). Perfect passive articular participle of \hetoimaz\, to make ready (\hetoimos\), in a state of readiness prepared by God (12:6; strkjv@16:12; strkjv@Matthew:25:34|). {For the hour and day and month and year} (\eis tn hran kai hmeran kai mna kai eniauton\). For this use of \eis\ with \htoimasmenon\ see strkjv@2Timothy:2:21|. All preparation over, the angels are waiting for the signal to begin. {That they should kill} (\hina apokteinsin\). The same idiom in verse 5| about the fifth trumpet, which brought torture. This one brings death.

rwp@Revelation:12:10 @{A great voice saying} (\phnn megaln legousan\). Accusative after \kousa\ in this phrase as in strkjv@5:11; strkjv@10:4; strkjv@14:2; strkjv@18:4|, but the genitive \phns legouss\ in strkjv@11:12; strkjv@14:13|. We are not told whence this voice or song comes, possibly from one of the twenty-four elders (Swete) or some other heavenly beings (11:15|) who can sympathize with human beings (19:10|), the martyrs in heaven (Charles). {Now is come} (\arti egeneto\). \Arti\ (John:13:33|) shows how recent the downfall of Satan here proleptically pictured as behind us in time (aorist tense \egeneto\). {The salvation} (\h stria\). Here "the victory" as in strkjv@7:10; strkjv@19:1|. {The power} (\h dunamis\). Gods power over the dragon (cf. strkjv@7:12; strkjv@11:17; strkjv@19:1|). {The kingdom} (\h basileia\). "The empire of God" as in strkjv@11:15|. {The authority of his Christ} (\h exousia tou Christou autou\). Which Christ received from the Father (Matthew:28:18; strkjv@John:17:2|). See strkjv@11:15| (Psalms:2:2|) for "his Anointed." {The accuser} (\ho katgr\). The regular form, \katgoros\, occurs in strkjv@John:8:10; strkjv@Acts:23:30,35; strkjv@25:16,18| and in many MSS. here in strkjv@Revelation:12:10|, but A reads \katgr\, which Westcott and Hort accept. It was once considered a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew word, but Deissmann (_Light_, etc., p. 93f.) quotes it from a vernacular magical papyrus of the fourth century A.D. with no sign of Jewish or Christian influence, just as \diakn\ appears as a vernacular form of \diakonos\. Only here is the word applied to Satan in the N.T. In late Judaism Satan is the accuser, and Michael the defender, of the faithful. {Of our brethren} (\tn adelphn hmn\). The saints still on earth battling with Satan and his devices. {Which accuseth them} (\ho katgorn autous\). Articular present active participle of \katgore\, old verb, to accuse, usually with the genitive of the person (John:5:45|), but here with the accusative. This is the devil's constant occupation (Job:1:6f.|). {Day and night} (\hmeras kai nuktos\). Genitive of time. "By day and by night."

rwp@Romans:4:11 @{The sign of circumcision} (\smeion peritoms\). It is the genitive of apposition, circumcision being the sign. {A seal of the righteousness of the faith} (\sphragida ts dikaiosuns ts pistes\). \Sphragis\ is old word for the seal placed on books (Revelation:5:1|), for a signet-ring (Revelation:7:2|), the stamp made by the seal (2Timothy:2:19|), that by which anything is confirmed (1Corinthians:9:2|) as here. The circumcision did not convey the righteousness, but only gave outward confirmation. It came by faith and "the faith which he had while in uncircumcision" (\ts en ti akrobustii\), "the in the state of uncircumcision faith." Whatever parallel exists between baptism and circumcision as here stated by Paul argues for faith before baptism and for baptism as the sign and seal of the faith already had before baptism. {That he might be} (\eis to einai auton\). This idiom may be God's purpose (contemplated result) as in \eis to logisthnai\ below, or even actual result (so that he was) as in strkjv@1:20|. {Though they be in uncircumcision} (\di' akrobustias\). Simply, "of those who believe while in the condition of uncircumcision."

rwp@Romans:6:17 @{Whereas ye were} (\te\). Imperfect but no "whereas" in the Greek. Paul is not grateful that they were once slaves of sin, but only that, though they once were, they turned from that state. {To that form of doctrine whereunto ye were delivered} (\eis hon paredothte tupon didachs\). Incorporation of the antecedent (\tupon didachs\) into the relative clause: "to which form of doctrine ye were delivered." See on ¯5:14| for \tupon\. It is hardly proper to take "form" here to refer to Paul's gospel (2:16|), possibly an allusion to the symbolism of baptism which was the outward sign of the separation.

rwp@Romans:7:12 @{Holy, and righteous, and good} (\hagia kai dikaia kai agath\). This is the conclusion (wherefore, \hste\) to the query in verse 7|. The commandment is God's and so holy like Him, just in its requirements and designed for our good. The modern revolt against law needs these words.