Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-POET.filter - rwp John:1:4:

rwp@2John:1:4 @{I rejoice} (\echarn\). Second aorist passive of \chair\ as in strkjv@3John:1:3|, "of a glad surprise" (D. Smith), as in strkjv@Mark:14:11|, over the discovery about the blessing of their godly home on these lads. {Greatly} (\lian\). Only here and strkjv@3John:1:3| in John's writings. {I have found} (\heurka\). Perfect active indicative of \heurisk\ as in strkjv@John:1:41|, our "eureka," here with its usual force, a continued discovery. "He sits down at once and writes to Kyria. How glad she would be that her lads, far away in the great city, were true to their early faith" (David Smith). {Certain of thy children} (\ek tn teknn\). No \tinas\ as one would expect before \ek\, a not infrequent idiom in the N.T. (John:16:17|). {Walking} (\peripatountas\). Present active accusative supplementary participle agreeing with \tinas\ understood. Probably members of the church off here in Ephesus. {In truth} (\en altheii\). As in verse 1; strkjv@3John:1:4|. {We received} (\elabomen\). Second aorist active (possibly, though not certainly, literary plural) of \lamban\. This very idiom (\entoln lamban\) in strkjv@John:10:18; strkjv@Acts:17:15; Co strkjv@4:10|. Perhaps the reference here is to strkjv@1John:2:7f.; strkjv@3:23|.

rwp@2John:1:12 @{I would not} (\ouk eboulthn\). Epistolary aorist (first passive indicative). {With paper and ink} (\dia chartou kai melanos\). The \charts\ was a leaf of papyrus prepared for writing by cutting the pith into strips and pasting together, old word (Jeremiah:43:23|), here only in N.T. \Melas\ is old adjective for black (Matthew:5:36; strkjv@Revelation:6:5,12|), and for black ink here, strkjv@3John:1:13; strkjv@2Corinthians:3:3|. Apparently John wrote this little letter with his own hand. {To come} (\genesthai\). Second aorist middle infinitive of \ginomai\ after \elpiz\, I hope. {Face to face} (\stoma pros stoma\). "Mouth to mouth." Songs:in strkjv@3John:1:14; strkjv@Numbers:12:8|. "Face to face" (\prospon pros prospon\) we have in strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|. {Your} (\humn\). Or "our" (\hmn\). Both true. {That may be fulfilled} (\hina peplrmen i\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the periphrastic perfect passive subjunctive of \plro\, as in strkjv@1John:1:4|, which see.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ CLAIMS PETRINE AUTHORSHIP Not only so, but in fuller form than strkjv@1Peter:1:1|, for the writer terms himself "Simon (Symeon in some MSS.) Peter," a fact that has been used against the genuineness. If no claim had been made, that would have been considered decisive against him. Simon (Symeon was the Jewish form as used by James in strkjv@Acts:15:14|) is the real name (John:1:42|) and Peter merely the Greek for Cephas, the nickname given by Christ. There is no reason why both could not properly be employed here. But the claim to Petrine authorship, if not genuine, leaves the Epistle pseudonymous. That was a custom among some Jewish writers and even Christian writers, as the spurious Petrine literature testifies (Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.), works of a heretical or curious nature. Whatever the motive for such a pious fraud, the fact remains that II Peter, if not genuine, has to take its place with this pseudonymous literature and can hardly be deemed worthy of a place in the New Testament. And yet there is no heresy in this Epistle, no startling new ideas that would lead one to use the name of Simon Peter. It is the rather full of edifying and orthodox teaching.

rwp@Ephesians:3:8 @{Unto me who am less than the least of all saints} (\emoi ti elachistoteri pantn hagin\). Dative case \emoi\ with \eloth\. The peculiar form \elachistoteri\ (in apposition with \emoi\) is a comparative (\-teros\) formed on the superlative \elachistos\. This sort of thing was already done in the older Greek like \eschatoteros\ in Xenophon. It became more common in the _Koin_. Songs:the double comparative \meizoteran\ in strkjv@3John:1:4|. The case of \hagin\ is ablative. This was not mock humility (15:19|), for on occasion Paul stood up for his rights as an apostle (2Corinthians:11:5|). {The unsearchable riches of Christ} (\to anexichniaston ploutos tou Christou\). \Anexichniastos\ (\a\ privative and verbal of \exichniaz\, to track out, \ex\ and \ichnos\, track) appears first in strkjv@Job:5:9; strkjv@9:10|. Paul apparently got it from Job. Nowhere else in N.T. except strkjv@Romans:11:33|. In later Christian writers. Paul undertook to track out the untrackable in Christ.

rwp@John:1:4 @{In him was life} (\en auti z n\). That which has come into being (verse 3|) in the Logos was life. The power that creates and sustains life in the universe is the Logos. This is what Paul means by the perfect passive verb \ektistai\ (stands created) in strkjv@Colossians:1:16|. This is also the claim of Jesus to Martha (John:11:25|). This is the idea in strkjv@Hebrews:1:3| "bearing (upholding) the all things by the word of his power." Once this language might have been termed unscientific, but not so now after the spiritual interpretation of the physical world by Eddington and Jeans. Usually in John \z\ means spiritual life, but here the term is unlimited and includes all life; only it is not \bios\ (manner of life), but the very principle or essence of life. That is spiritual behind the physical and to this great scientists today agree. It is also personal intelligence and power. Some of the western documents have \estin\ here instead of \n\ to bring out clearly the timelessness of this phrase of the work of the \Logos\. {And the life was the light of men} (\kai h z n to phs tn anthrpn\). Here the article with both \z\ and \phs\ makes them interchangeable. "The light was the life of men" is also true. That statement is curiously like the view of some physicists who find in electricity (both light and power) the nearest equivalent to life in its ultimate physical form. Later Jesus will call himself the light of the world (John:8:12|). John is fond of these words life and light in Gospel, Epistles, Revelation. He here combines them to picture his conception of the Pre-incarnate Logos in his relation to the race. He was and is the Life of men (\tn anthrpon\, generic use of the article) and the Light of men. John asserts this relation of the Logos to the race of men in particular before the Incarnation.

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

rwp@Mark:8:29 @{Thou art the Christ} (\Su ei ho Christos\). Mark does not give "the Son of the living God" (Matthew:16:16|) or "of God" (Luke:9:20|). The full confession is the form in Matthew. Luke's language means practically the same, while Mark's is the briefest. But the form in Mark really means the full idea. Mark omits all praise of Peter, probably because Peter had done so in his story of the incident. For criticism of the view that Matthew's narrative is due to ecclesiastical development and effort to justify ecclesiastical prerogatives, see discussion on ¯Matthew:16:16,18|. The disciples had confessed him as Messiah before. Thus strkjv@John:1:41; strkjv@4:29; strkjv@6:69; strkjv@Matthew:14:33|. But Jesus had ceased to use the word Messiah to avoid political complications and a revolutionary movement (John:6:14f.|). But did the disciples still believe in Jesus as Messiah after all the defections and oppositions seen by them? It was a serious test to which Jesus now put them.