Bible:
Filter: String:

OT.filter - rwp simply:

rwp@1John:3:17 @{Whoso hath} (\hos an echi\). Indefinite relative clause with modal \an\ with \hos\ and the present active subjunctive of \ech\. {The world's goods} (\ton bion tou kosmou\). "The living or livelihood (not \z\, the principle of life, and see strkjv@2:16| for \bios\) of the world" (not in the sense of evil or wicked, but simply this mundane sphere). {Beholdeth} (\therei\). Present active subjunctive of \there\, like \echei\ just before. {In need} (\chreian echonta\). "Having need" (present active predicate participle of \ech\, agreeing with \adelphon\). See the vivid picture of a like case in strkjv@James:2:15f|. {Shutteth up} (\kleisi\). First aorist (effective) active subjunctive of \klei\, to close like the door, changed on purpose from present tense to aorist (graphic slamming the door of his compassion, \splagchna\, common in LXX and N.T. for the nobler viscera, the seat of the emotions, as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:11; strkjv@Colossians:3:12|). Only here in John. {How} (\ps\). Rhetorical question like that in strkjv@James:2:16| (what is the use?). It is practical, not speculative, that counts in the hour of need.

rwp@Acts:9:3 @{As he journeyed} (\en ti poreuesthai\). Luke's common idiom for a temporal clause (in the journeying), \en\ with the locative articular middle infinitive. {Drew nigh} (\eggizein\). Present active infinitive, was drawing nigh. {Shone round about him} (\auton peristrapsen\). First aorist (ingressive) active indicative of \periastrapt\, late compound verb common in LXX and Byzantine writers, here and strkjv@22:6| alone in the N.T. "A light from heaven suddenly flashed around him." It was like a flash of lightning. Paul uses the same verb in strkjv@22:5|, but in strkjv@26:13| he employs \perilampsan\ (shining around). There are numerous variations in the historical narrative of Saul's conversion in strkjv@9:3-18| and Luke's report of Paul's two addresses, one on the steps of the Tower of Antonia facing the murderous mob (22:6-16|), the other before Festus and Agrippa (26:12-20|). A great deal of capital has been made of these variations to the discredit of Luke as a writer as if he should have made Paul's two speeches conform at every point with his own narrative. This objection has no weight except for those who hold that Luke composed Paul's speeches freely as some Greek writers used to do. But, if Luke had notes of Paul's speeches or help from Paul himself, he naturally preserved the form of the two addresses without trying to make them agree with each other in all details or with his own narrative in chapter 9. Luke evidently attached great importance to the story of Saul's conversion as the turning point not simply in the career of the man, but an epoch in the history of apostolic Christianity. In broad outline and in all essentials the three accounts agree and testify to the truthfulness of the account of the conversion of Saul. It is impossible to overestimate the worth to the student of Christianity of this event from every angle because we have in Paul's Epistles his own emphasis on the actual appearance of Jesus to him as the fact that changed his whole life (1Corinthians:15:8; strkjv@Galatians:1:16f.|). The variations that appear in the three accounts do not mar the story, when rightly understood, as we shall see. Here, for instance, Luke simply mentions "a light from heaven," while in strkjv@22:6| Paul calls it "a great (\hikanon\) light" "about noon" and in strkjv@26:13| "above the brightness of the sun," as it would have to be "at midday" with the sun shining.

rwp@Colossians:3:11 @{Where} (\hopou\). In this "new man" in Christ. Cf. strkjv@Galatians:3:28|. {There cannot be} (\ouk eni\). \Eni\ is the long (original) form of \en\ and \estin\ is to be understood. "There does not exist." This is the ideal which is still a long way ahead of modern Christians as the Great War proved. Race distinctions (Greek \Helln\ and Jew \Ioudaios\) disappear in Christ and in the new man in Christ. The Jews looked on all others as Greeks (Gentiles). Circumcision (\peritom\) and uncircumcision (\akrobustia\) put the Jewish picture with the cleavage made plainer (cf. strkjv@Ephesians:2|). The Greeks and Romans regarded all others as barbarians (\barbaroi\, strkjv@Romans:1:14|), users of outlandish jargon or gibberish, onomatopoetic repetition (\bar-bar\). {A Scythian} (\Skuths\) was simply the climax of barbarity, _bar-baris barbariores_ (Bengel), used for any rough person like our "Goths and Vandals." {Bondman} (\doulos\, from \de\, to bind), {freeman} (\eleutheros\, from \erchomai\, to go). Class distinctions vanish in Christ. In the Christian churches were found slaves, freedmen, freemen, masters. Perhaps Paul has Philemon and Onesimus in mind. But labour and capital still furnish a problem for modern Christianity. {But Christ is all} (\alla panta Christos\). Demosthenes and Lucian use the neuter plural to describe persons as Paul does here of Christ. The plural \panta\ is more inclusive than the singular \pn\ would be. {And in all} (\kai en psin\). Locative plural and neuter also. "Christ occupies the whole sphere of human life and permeates all its developments" (Lightfoot). Christ has obliterated the words barbarian, master, slave, all of them and has substituted the word \adelphos\ (brother).

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:7:3 @{Without father, without mother, without genealogy} (\apatr, amtr, agenealogtos\). Alliteration like strkjv@Romans:1:30|, the first two old words, the third coined by the author (found nowhere else) and meaning simply "devoid of any genealogy." The argument is that from silence, made much of by Philo, but not to be pressed. The record in Genesis tells nothing of any genealogy. Melchizedek stands alone. He is not to be understood as a miraculous being without birth or death. Melchizedek has been made more mysterious than he is by reading into this interpretation what is not there. {Made like} (\aphmoimenos\). Perfect passive participle of \aphomoio\, old verb, to produce a facsimile or copy, only here in N.T. The likeness is in the picture drawn in Genesis, not in the man himself. Such artificial interpretation does not amount to proof, but only serves as a parallel or illustration. {Unto the Son of God} (\ti huii tou theou\). Associative instrumental case of \huios\. {Abideth a priest} (\menei hiereus\). According to the record in Genesis, the only one in his line just as Jesus stands alone, but with the difference that Jesus continues priest in fact in heaven. {Continually} (\eis to dinekes\). Old phrase (for the continuity) like \eis ton aina\, in N.T. only in Hebrews (7:3; strkjv@10:1,14,21|).

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:8:28 @{When ye have lifted up the Son of man} (\hotan hupsste ton huion tou anthrpou\). Indefinite temporal clause with \hotan\ (\hote + an\) and the first aorist active subjunctive of \hupso\, to lift up (_Koin_ verb from \hupsos\, height), used several times in John of the Cross of Christ (3:14; strkjv@8:28; strkjv@12:32,34|). It is unnecessary to render the aorist subjunctive as if a future perfect, simply "whenever ye lift up" (actually lift up, ingressive aorist). In strkjv@Acts:2:33| the verb is used of the Ascension. {Shall ye know} (\gnsesthe\). Future (ingressive aoristic) middle of \ginsk\. _Cognoscetis ex re quod nunc ex verbo non creditis_ (Bengel). But the knowledge from the facts like the fall of Jerusalem will come too late and will not bring a change of heart. The Holy Spirit will convict them concerning judgment (16:8|). For {I am} (\eg eimi\) see on verse ¯24|. {As the Father taught me} (\Kaths edidasken me ho patr\). This claim Jesus repeats (see verse 26|) and clearly makes on his arrival at the feast (7:16f.|). This fact marks Jesus off from the rabbis.

rwp@John:11:39 @{Take ye away the stone} (\arate ton lithon\). First aorist active imperative of \air\. They could do this much without the exercise of Christ's divine power. It was a startling command to them. {By this time he stinketh} (\d ozei\). Present active indicative of old verb, here only in N.T. (cf. strkjv@Exodus:8:14|). It means to give out an odour, either good or bad. {For he hath been dead four days} (\tetartaios gar estin\). The Greek simply says, "For he is a fourth-day man." It is an old ordinal numeral from \tetartos\ (fourth). Herodotus (ii. 89) has \tetartaios genesthai\ of one four days dead as here. The word is only here in the N.T. The same idiom occurs in strkjv@Acts:28:13| with \deuteraioi\ (second-day men). Lightfoot (_Hor. Hebr._) quotes a Jewish tradition (_Beresh. Rabba_) to the effect that the soul hovers around the tomb for three days hoping to return to the body, but on the fourth day leaves it. But there is no suggestion here that Martha held that notion. Her protest is a natural one in spite of her strong faith in verses 22-27|.

rwp@Jude:1:7 @{Even as} (\hs\). Just "as." The third instance (Jude:passes by the deluge) in Jude, the cities of the plain. {The cities about them} (\hai peri autas poleis\). These were also included, Admah and Zeboiim (Deuteronomy:29:23; strkjv@Hosea:11:8|). Zoar, the other city, was spared. {In like manner} (\ton homoion tropon\). Adverbial accusative (cf. \hs\). Like the fallen angels. {Having given themselves over to fornication} (\ekporneusasai\). First aorist active participle feminine plural of \ekporneu\, late and rare compound (perfective use of \ek\, outside the moral law), only here in N.T., but in LXX (Genesis:38:24; strkjv@Exodus:34:15f.|, etc.). Cf. \aselgeian\ in verse 4|. {Strange flesh} (\sarkos heteras\). Horrible licentiousness, not simply with women not their wives or in other nations, but even unnatural uses (Romans:1:27|) for which the very word "sodomy" is used (Genesis:19:4-11|). The pronoun \heteras\ (other, strange) is not in strkjv@2Peter:2:10|. {Are set forth} (\prokeintai\). Present middle indicative of \prokeimai\, old verb, to lie before, as in strkjv@Hebrews:12:1f|. {As an example} (\deigma\). Predicate nominative of \deigma\, old word (from \deiknumi\ to show), here only in N.T., sample, specimen. strkjv@2Peter:2:6| has \hupodeigma\ (pattern). {Suffering} (\hupechousai\). Present active participle of \hupech\, old compound, to hold under, often with \dikn\ (right, justice, sentence strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:9|) to suffer sentence (punishment), here only in N.T. {Of eternal fire} (\puros ainiou\). Like \desmois aidiois\ in verse 7|. Cf. the hell of fire (Matthew:5:22|) and also strkjv@Matthew:25:46|. Jude:has no mention of Lot.

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:2:13 @{Where} (\pou--hopou\). \Pou\ is interrogative adverb used here in an indirect question as in strkjv@John:1:39|. \Hopou\ is relative adverb referring to \pou\. Satan's throne (\ho thronos tou Satan\). Satan not simply resided in Pergamum, but his "throne" or seat of power of king or judge (Matthew:19:28; strkjv@Luke:1:32,52|). The symbol of Asklepios was the serpent as it is of Satan (12:9; strkjv@20:2|). There was, besides, a great throne altar to Zeus cut on the Acropolis rock, symbol of "rampant paganism" (Swete) and the new Caesar-worship with the recent martyrdom of Antipas made Pergamum indeed a very throne of Satan. {Holdest fast my name} (\krateis to onoma sou\). Present active indicative of \krate\, "dost keep on holding," as in strkjv@2:25, strkjv@3:11|. This church refused to say \Kurios Kaisar\ (_Martyrd. Polyc_. 8f.) and continued to say \Kurios Isous\ (1Corinthians:12:3|). They stood true against the emperor-worship. {Didst not deny} (\ouk rns\). First aorist middle second person singular of \arneomai\. Reference to a specific incident not known to us. {My faith} (\tn pistin mou\). Objective genitive, "thy faith in me." {Of Antipas} (\Antipas\). Indeclinable in this form. It is possible that \Antipa\ (genitive) was really written, though unimportant as the nominative follows in apposition. Nothing is really known of this early martyr in Pergamum before the writing of the Apocalypse. One legend is that he was burnt to death in a brazen bull. Other martyrs followed him at Pergamum (Agathonice, Attalus, Carpus, Polybus). {My witness} (\ho martus mou\). Nominative in apposition with a genitive as in strkjv@1:5| (with ablative), common solecism in the Apocalypse. "Witness" as Jesus had said they should be (Acts:1:8|) and Stephen was (Acts:22:20|) and others were (Revelation:17:6|). The word later (by third century) took on the modern meaning of martyr. {My faithful one} (\ho pistos mou\). Nominative also, with \mou\ also. Jesus gives Antipas his own title (Swete) as in strkjv@1:5; strkjv@3:14|. Faithful unto death. {Was killed} (\apektanth\). First aorist passive indicative of \apoktein\, this passive form common in the Apocalypse (?2:13; strkjv@6:11; strkjv@5:9,13; strkjv@13:10,15; 18, 20; strkjv@19:21?). {Among you} (\par humin\). By your side. Proof of the throne of Satan, "where Satan dwells" (\hopou ho Satans katoikei\), repeated for emphasis.

rwp@Revelation:6:1 @{And I saw} (\kai eidon\). As in strkjv@4:1; strkjv@5:1|. The vision unfolds without anything being said about opening the book and reading from it. In a more vivid and dramatic fashion the Lamb breaks the seals one by one and reveals the contents and the symbolism. The first four seals have a common note from one of the four \za\ and the appearance of a horse. No effort will be made here to interpret these seals as referring to persons or historical events in the past, present, or future, but simply to relate the symbolism to the other symbols in the book. It is possible that there is some allusion here to the symbolism in the so-called "Little Apocalypse" of strkjv@Mark:13; strkjv@Matthew:24f.; strkjv@Luke:21|. The imagery of the four horses is similar to that in strkjv@Zechariah:1:7-11; strkjv@6:1-8| (cf. strkjv@Jeremiah:14:12; strkjv@24:10; strkjv@42:17|). In the Old Testament the horse is often the emblem of war (Job:39:25; strkjv@Psalms:76:6; strkjv@Proverbs:21:31; strkjv@Ezekiel:26:10|). "Homer pictures the horses of Rhesus as whiter than snow, and swift as the wind" (Vincent). {When the Lamb opened} (\hote noixen to arnion\). First aorist active indicative of \anoig\. This same phrase recurs in rhythmical order at the opening of each seal (6:1,3,5,7,9,12|) till the last (8:1|), where we have \hotan noixen\ (\hotan\ rather than \hote\ calling particular attention to it). {One} (\mian\). Probably used here as an ordinal (the first) as in strkjv@Matthew:28:1|. See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 671f. {Of} (\ek\). This use of \ek\ with the ablative in the partitive sense is common in the Apocalypse, as twice in this verse (\ek tn\, etc.). Songs:\henos ek tn\ (one of the four living creatures) is "the first of," etc. {In a voice of thunder} (\en phni bronts\). Old word used of John and James (Mark:3:17|) and elsewhere in N.T. only strkjv@John:12:29| and a dozen times in the Apocalypse. {Come} (\Erchou\). Present middle imperative of \erchomai\, but with exclamatory force (not strictly linear). The command is not addressed to the Lamb nor to John (the correct text omits \kai ide\ "and see") as in strkjv@17:1; strkjv@21:9|, but to one of the four horsemen each time. Swete takes it as a call to Christ because \erchou\ is so used in strkjv@22:17,20|, but that is not conclusive.

rwp@Revelation:13:2 @{Like unto a leopard} (\homoion pardalei\). Associative-instrumental case of \pardalis\, old word for panther, leopard, here only in N.T. The leopard (\leo, pard\) was considered a cross between a panther and a lioness. {As the feet of a bear} (\hs arkou\). Old word, also spelled \arktos\, here only in N.T. From strkjv@Daniel:7:4|. No word in the Greek for "feet" before "bear." {As the mouth of a lion} (\hs stoma leontos\). From strkjv@Daniel:7:4|. This beast combines features of the first three beasts in strkjv@Daniel:7:2ff|. The strength and brutality of the Babylonian, Median, and Persian empires appeared in the Roman Empire. The catlike vigilance of the leopard, the slow and crushing power of the bear, and the roar of the lion were all familiar features to the shepherds in Palestine (Swete). {The dragon gave him} (\edken auti ho drakn\). First aorist active indicative of \didmi\ (to give) and dative case \auti\ (the beast). The dragon works through this beast. The beast is simply Satan's agent. Satan claimed this power to Christ (Matthew:4:9; strkjv@Luke:4:6|) and Christ called Satan the prince of this world (John:12:31; strkjv@14:30; strkjv@16:11|). Songs:the war is on.

rwp@Revelation:18:6 @{Render as she rendered} (\apodote hs apedken\). Second aorist (effective) active imperative and first aorist (effective) active of \apodidmi\, old and common verb for requital, to give back, the _lex talionis_ which is in the O.T. (Jeremiah:50:15,29; strkjv@51:24,56; strkjv@Psalms:137:8|), and in the N.T. also (Matthew:7:2|). Here the reference is to persecutions by Rome, particularly the martyrdom of the saints (18:24; strkjv@19:2|). {Double the double} (\diplsate ta dipla\). First aorist imperative of \diplo\, old verb (from \diploos\, double, strkjv@Matthew:23:15|), here only in N.T. \Dipl\ is simply the neuter plural accusative (cognate) contract form for \diploa\ (not \dipl\). Requite here in double measure, a full requital (Exodus:22:4,7,9; strkjv@Isaiah:40:2; strkjv@Jeremiah:16:18; strkjv@17:18; strkjv@Zechariah:9:12|). The double recompense was according to the Levitical law. {Which she mingled} (\hi ekerasen\). First aorist active indicative of \kerannumi\. The relative \hi\ is attracted to the locative case of its antecedent \potrii\ (cup), for which see strkjv@14:8,10; strkjv@17:4; strkjv@18:3|. {Mingle unto her double} (\kerasate auti diploun\). First aorist active imperative of the same verb \kerannumi\, with the same idea of double punishment.

rwp@Revelation:21:23 @{To shine upon it} (\hina phainsin auti\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the present active subjunctive of \phain\, to keep on shining. Light is always a problem in our cities. See strkjv@Isaiah:60:19ff|. {Did lighten it} (\ephtisen autn\). First aorist active indicative of \phtiz\, to illumine, old verb from \phs\ (Luke:11:36|). If the sun and moon did shine, they would give no added light in the presence of the Shekinah Glory of God. See verse 11| for "the glory of God." Cf. strkjv@18:1; strkjv@21:3|. "Their splendour is simply put to shame by the glory of God Himself" (Charles). {And the lamp thereof is the Lamb} (\kai ho luchnos auts to arnion\). Charles takes \ho luchnos\ as predicate, "and the Lamb is the lamp thereof." Bousset thinks that John means to compare Christ to the moon the lesser light (Genesis:1:16|), but that contrast is not necessary. Swete sees Christ as the one lamp for all in contrast with the many \luchniai\ of the churches on earth (1:12,20|). "No words could more clearly demonstrate the purely spiritual character of St. John's conception of the New Jerusalem" (Swete).

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:6:18 @{Ye became servants of righteousness} (\edoulthte ti dikaiosuni\). First aorist passive indicative of \doulo\, to enslave. "Ye were made slaves to righteousness." You have simply changed masters, no longer slaves of sin (set free from that tyrant), but ye are slaves of righteousness. There is no middle ground, no "no man's land" in this war.

rwp@Romans:9:8 @{The children of the promise} (\ta tekna ts epaggelias\). Not through Ishmael, but through Isaac. Only the children of the promise are "children of God" (\tekna tou theou\) in the full sense. He is not speaking of Christians here, but simply showing that the privileges of the Jews were not due to their physical descent from Abraham. Cf. strkjv@Luke:3:8|.