KJV: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
YLT: That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we did behold, and our hands did handle, concerning the Word of the Life --
Darby: That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes; that which we contemplated, and our hands handled, concerning the word of life;
ASV: That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life
| Ὃ | That which |
|
Parse: Personal / Relative Pronoun, Nominative Neuter Singular Root: ὅς Sense: who, which, what, that. |
|
| ἀρχῆς | [the] beginning |
|
Parse: Noun, Genitive Feminine Singular Root: ἀρχή Sense: beginning, origin. |
|
| ὃ | that which |
|
Parse: Personal / Relative Pronoun, Accusative Neuter Singular Root: ὅς Sense: who, which, what, that. |
|
| ἀκηκόαμεν | we have heard |
|
Parse: Verb, Perfect Indicative Active, 1st Person Plural Root: ἀκουστός Sense: to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf. |
|
| ἑωράκαμεν | we have seen |
|
Parse: Verb, Perfect Indicative Active, 1st Person Plural Root: εἶδον Sense: to see with the eyes. |
|
| τοῖς | with the |
|
Parse: Article, Dative Masculine Plural Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
| ὀφθαλμοῖς | eyes |
|
Parse: Noun, Dative Masculine Plural Root: ὀφθαλμός Sense: the eye. |
|
| ἡμῶν | of us |
|
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Genitive 1st Person Plural Root: ἐγώ Sense: I, me, my. |
|
| ἐθεασάμεθα | we have gazed upon |
|
Parse: Verb, Aorist Indicative Middle, 1st Person Plural Root: θεάομαι Sense: to behold, look upon, view attentively, contemplate (often used of public shows). |
|
| χεῖρες | hands |
|
Parse: Noun, Nominative Feminine Plural Root: χείρ Sense: by the help or agency of any one, by means of any one. |
|
| ἐψηλάφησαν | have handled |
|
Parse: Verb, Aorist Indicative Active, 3rd Person Plural Root: ψηλαφάω Sense: to handle, touch and feel. |
|
| περὶ | concerning |
|
Parse: Preposition Root: περί Sense: about, concerning, on account of, because of, around, near. |
|
| Λόγου | Word |
|
Parse: Noun, Genitive Masculine Singular Root: λόγος Sense: of speech. |
|
| τῆς | - |
|
Parse: Article, Genitive Feminine Singular Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
| ζωῆς | of life |
|
Parse: Noun, Genitive Feminine Singular Root: ζωή Sense: life. |
|
Greek Commentary for 1 John 1:1
Strictly speaking, the neuter relative here is not personal, but the message “concerning the Word of life” For discussion of the Λογος Logos see notes on John 1:1-18. Here the Λογος Logos is described by της ζωης tēs zōēs (of life), while in John 1:4 he is called η ζωη hē zōē (the Life) as here in 1 John 1:2 and as Jesus calls himself (John 11:25; John 14:6), an advance on the phrase here, and in Revelation 19:14 he is termed ο λογος του τεου ho logos tou theou (the Word of God), though in John 1:1 the Λογος Logos is flatly named ο τεος ho theos (God). John does use ο ho in a collective personal sense in John 6:37, John 6:39. See also παν ο pan ho in 1 John 5:4. [source]
Anarthrous as in John 1:1; John 6:64; John 16:4. See same phrase in 1 John 2:7. The reference goes beyond the Christian dispensation, beyond the Incarnation, to the eternal purpose of God in Christ (John 3:16), “coeval in some sense with creation” (Westcott).That which we have heard (ο ακηκοαμεν ho akēkoamen). Note fourfold repetition of ο ho (that which) without connectives (asyndeton). The perfect tense (active indicative of ακουω akouō) stresses John‘s equipment to speak on this subject so slowly revealed. It is the literary plural unless John associates the elders of Ephesus with himself (Lightfoot) the men who certified the authenticity of the Gospel (John 21:24).That which we have seen Perfect active, again, of οραω horaō with the same emphasis on the possession of knowledge by John.With our eyes (τοις οπταλμοις ημων tois ophthalmois hēmōn). Instrumental case and showing it was not imagination on John‘s part, not an optical illusion as the Docetists claimed, for Jesus had an actual human body. He could be heard and seen.That which we beheld Repetition with the aorist middle indicative of τεαομαι theaomai (the very form in John 1:14), “a spectacle which broke on our astonished vision” (D. Smith).Handled (επσηλαπησαν epsēlaphēsan). First aorist active indicative of πσηλαπαω psēlaphaō old and graphic verb (from πσαω psaō to touch), the very verb used by Jesus to prove that he was not a mere spirit (Luke 24:39). Three senses are here appealed to (hearing, sight, touch) as combining to show the reality of Christ‘s humanity against the Docetic Gnostics and the qualification of John by experience to speak. But he is also “the Word of life” and so God Incarnate. [source]
Note fourfold repetition of ο ho (that which) without connectives (asyndeton). The perfect tense (active indicative of ακουω akouō) stresses John‘s equipment to speak on this subject so slowly revealed. It is the literary plural unless John associates the elders of Ephesus with himself (Lightfoot) the men who certified the authenticity of the Gospel (John 21:24). [source]
Perfect active, again, of οραω horaō with the same emphasis on the possession of knowledge by John.With our eyes (τοις οπταλμοις ημων tois ophthalmois hēmōn). Instrumental case and showing it was not imagination on John‘s part, not an optical illusion as the Docetists claimed, for Jesus had an actual human body. He could be heard and seen.That which we beheld Repetition with the aorist middle indicative of τεαομαι theaomai (the very form in John 1:14), “a spectacle which broke on our astonished vision” (D. Smith).Handled (επσηλαπησαν epsēlaphēsan). First aorist active indicative of πσηλαπαω psēlaphaō old and graphic verb (from πσαω psaō to touch), the very verb used by Jesus to prove that he was not a mere spirit (Luke 24:39). Three senses are here appealed to (hearing, sight, touch) as combining to show the reality of Christ‘s humanity against the Docetic Gnostics and the qualification of John by experience to speak. But he is also “the Word of life” and so God Incarnate. [source]
Instrumental case and showing it was not imagination on John‘s part, not an optical illusion as the Docetists claimed, for Jesus had an actual human body. He could be heard and seen. [source]
Repetition with the aorist middle indicative of τεαομαι theaomai (the very form in John 1:14), “a spectacle which broke on our astonished vision” (D. Smith).Handled (επσηλαπησαν epsēlaphēsan). First aorist active indicative of πσηλαπαω psēlaphaō old and graphic verb (from πσαω psaō to touch), the very verb used by Jesus to prove that he was not a mere spirit (Luke 24:39). Three senses are here appealed to (hearing, sight, touch) as combining to show the reality of Christ‘s humanity against the Docetic Gnostics and the qualification of John by experience to speak. But he is also “the Word of life” and so God Incarnate. [source]
First aorist active indicative of πσηλαπαω psēlaphaō old and graphic verb (from πσαω psaō to touch), the very verb used by Jesus to prove that he was not a mere spirit (Luke 24:39). Three senses are here appealed to (hearing, sight, touch) as combining to show the reality of Christ‘s humanity against the Docetic Gnostics and the qualification of John by experience to speak. But he is also “the Word of life” and so God Incarnate. [source]
It is disputed whether John uses this in a personal sense as equivalent to He whom, or in its strictly neuter sense as meaning something relating to the person and revelation of Christ. On the whole, the ( περί ), concerning (A. V., of ), seems to be against the personal sense. The successive clauses, that which was from the beginning, etc., express, not the Eternal Word Himself, but something relating to or predicated concerning ( περί ) Him. The indefinite that which, is approximately defined by these clauses; that about the Word of Life which was from the beginning, that which appealed to sight, to hearing is, to touch. Strictly, it is true, the περί is appropriate only with we have heard, but it is used with the other clauses in a wide and loose sense (compare John 16:8). “The subject is not merely a message, but all that had been made clear through manifold experience concerning it” (Westcott). [source]
Lit., the life. See on John 1:4. The phrase ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς , the Word of the Life, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. The nearest approach to it is Philemon 2:16; but there neither word has the article. In the phrase words of eternal life (John 6:68), and in Acts 5:20, all the words of this life, ῥήματα is used. The question is whether λόγος is used here of the Personal Word, as John 1:1, or of the divine message or revelation. In the four passages of the Gospel where λόγος is used in a personal sense (John 1:1, John 1:14), it is used absolutely, the Word (compare Revelation 19:13). On the other hand, it is often used relatively in the New Testament; as word of the kingdom (Matthew 8:19); word of this salvation (Acts 8:26); word of His grace (Acts 20:32); word of truth (James 1:18). By John ζωῆς oflife, is often used in order to characterize the word which accompanies it. Thus, crown of life (Revelation 2:10); water of life (Revelation 21:6); book of life (Revelation 3:5); bread of life (John 6:35); i.e., the water which is living and communicates life; the book; which contains the revelation of life; the bread which imparts life. In the same sense, John 6:68; Acts 5:20. Compare Titus 1:2, Titus 1:3. Though the phrase, the Word of the Life, does not elsewhere occur in a personal sense, I incline to regard its primary reference as personal, from the obvious connection of the thought with John 1:1, John 1:4. “In the beginning was the Word, - in Him was life.” “As John does not purpose to say that he announces Christ as an abstract single idea, but that he declares his own concrete historical experiences concerning Christ, - so now he continues, not the Logos (Word), but concerning the Word, we make annunciation to you” (Ebrard). At the same time, I agree with Canon Westcott that it is most probable that the two interpretations are not to be sharply separated. “The revelation proclaims that which it includes; it has, announces, gives life. In Christ life as the subject, and life as the character of the revelation, were absolutely united.”-DIVIDER- [source]
Not ἐγένετο cameinto being. See on John 1:3; see on John 8:34; see on John 8:58. It was already existing when the succession of life began. [source]
The phrase occurs twice in the Gospel (John 8:44; John 15:27); nine times in the First Epistle, and twice in the Second. It is used both absolutely (John 3:8; John 2:13, John 2:14), and relatively (John 15:27; 1 John 2:24). It is here contrasted with “in the beginning” (John 1:1). The difference is that by the words “in the beginning,” the writer places himself at the initial point of creation, and, looking back into eternity, describes that which was already in existence when creation began. “The Word was in the beginning.” In the words “from the beginning,” the writer looks back to the initial point of time, and describes what has been in existence from that point onward. Thus, “in the beginning” characterizes the absolute divine Word as He was before the foundation of the world and at the foundation of the world. “From the beginning” characterizes His development in time. Note the absence of the article both here and in John 1:1. Not the beginning as a definite, concrete fact, but as apprehended by man; that to which we look as “beginning.” [source]
Both in the perfect tense, denoting the still abiding effects of the hearing and seeing. [source]
Emphasizing the direct, personal experience in a marvelous matter. [source]
Rev., correctly, beheld. The tense is the aorist; marking not the abiding effect of the vision upon the beholder, but the historical manifestation to special witnesses. On the difference between this verb and ἑωράκαμεν wehave seen, see on John 1:14, John 1:18. [source]
The aorist tense. Rev. handled. For the peculiar force of the verb see on Luke 24:39. The reference is, probably, to handle me (Luke 24:39), and to John 20:27. This is the more noticeable from the fact that John does not mention the fact of the Resurrection in the Epistles, and does not use the word in his own narrative of the Resurrection. The phrase therefore falls in with the numerous instances in which John assumes the knowledge of certain historic facts on the part of his readers. [source]
Better, as Rev., concerning the Word. [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for 1 John 1:1
Compare 1 John 1:1. The word occurs also Acts 17:27; Hebrews 12:18. “It never expresses the so handling an object as to exercise a moulding, modifying influence upon it, but at most a feeling of its surface; this, it may be, with the intention of learning its composition (Genesis 27:12, Genesis 27:21, Genesis 27:22); while, not seldom, it signifies no more than a feeling for or after an object, without any actual coming in contact with it at all” (Trench, “Synonyms”). Compare Acts 17:27. Used of groping in the dark, Job 5:14:; of the blind, Isaiah 59:10; Deuteronomy 28:29; Judges, Judges 16:26. See on Hebrews 12:18. [source]
This very word is used in 1 John 1:1 as proof of the actual human body of Jesus. It is an old verb for touching with the hand.Flesh and bones At least this proves that he is not just a ghost and that Jesus had a real human body against the Docetic Gnostics who denied it. But clearly we are not to understand that our resurrection bodies will have “flesh and bones.” Jesus was in a transition state and had not yet been glorified. The mystery remains unsolved, but it was proof to the disciples of the identity of the Risen Christ with Jesus of Nazareth.sa120 [source]
Emphatic, commencing the sentence. Compare John 17:6sqq.; 1 John 1:10; 1 John 2:14. [source]
Rev., rendering the perfect tense in both verbs, he that hath seen hath born witness. This can refer only to the writer of this Gospel. Compare 1 John 1:1. [source]
God is first in the Greek order, as emphatic: “God hath no man ever seen.” As to the substance of the statement, compare John 3:11; Exodus 33:20; 1 John 4:12. Manifestations of God to Old Testament saints were only partial and approximate (Exodus 33:23). The seeing intended here is seeing of the divine essence rather than of the divine person, which also is indicated by the absence of the article from Θεὸν , God. In this sense even Christ was not seen as God. The verb ὁράω , to see, denotes a physical act, but emphasizes the mental discernment accompanying it, and points to the result rather than to the act of vision. In 1 John 1:1; 1 John 4:12, 1 John 4:14, θεάομαι is used, denoting calm and deliberate contemplation (see on John 1:14). In John 12:45, we have θεωρέω , to behold (see on Mark 5:15; see on Luke 10:18). Both θεάομαι and θεωρέω imply deliberate contemplation, but the former is gazing with a view to satisfy the eye, while the latter is beholding more critically, with an inward spiritual or mental interest in the thing beheld, and with a view to acquire knowledge about it. “ Θεωρεῖν would be used of a general officially reviewing or inspecting an army; θεᾶσθαι of a lay spectator looking at the parade” (Thayer). [source]
Compare Luke 9:32; 2 Peter 2:16; 1 John 1:1; 1 John 4:14. See on Matthew 11:7; see on Matthew 23:5. The word denotes calm, continuous contemplation of an object which remains before the spectator. [source]
Literally, tabernacled, fixed, or had His tabernacle: from σκηνή , a tent or tabernacle. The verb is used only by John: in the Gospel only here, and in Revelation 7:15; Revelation 12:12; Revelation 13:6; Revelation 21:3. It occurs in classical writings, as in Xenophon, ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ ἐσκήνου , he pitched his tent in the plain (“Anabasis,” vii., 4,11). So Plato, arguing against the proposition that the unjust die by the inherent destructive power of evil, says that “injustice which murders others keeps the murderer alive - aye, and unsleeping too; οὕτω πόῤῥω του ὡς ἔοικεν ἐσκήνωται τοῦ θανάσιμος εἶναι , i.e., literally, so far has her tent been spread from being a house of death” (“Republic,” 610). The figure here is from the Old Testament (Leviticus 27:11; 2 Samuel 7:6; Psalm 78:67sqq.; Ezekiel 37:27). The tabernacle was the dwelling-place of Jehovah; the meeting-place of God and Israel. So the Word came to men in the person of Jesus. As Jehovah adopted for His habitation a dwelling like that of the people in the wilderness, so the Word assumed a community of nature with mankind, an embodiment like that of humanity at large, and became flesh. “That which was from the beginning, we heard, we saw, we beheld, we handled. Our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:1-3. Compare Philemon 2:7, Philemon 2:8). Some find in the word tabernacle, a temporary structure (see the contrast between σκῆνος , tabernacle, and οἰκοδομή , building, in 2 Corinthians 5:1), a suggestion of the transitoriness of our Lord's stay upon earth; which may well be, although the word does not necessarily imply this; for in Revelation 21:3, it is said of the heavenly Jerusalem “the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will set up His tabernacle ( σκηνώσει ) with them.”-DIVIDER- Dante alludes to the incarnation in the seventh canto of the “Paradiso:”- “the human species down belowLay sick for many centuries in great error, Till to descend it pleased the Word of God-DIVIDER- To where the nature, which from its own Maker-DIVIDER- Estranged itself, He joined to Him in personBy the sole act of His eternal love.” [source]
Logos. This expression is the keynote and theme of the entire gospel. Λόγος is from the root λεγ , appearing in λέγω , the primitive meaning of which is to lay: then, to pick out, gather, pick up: hence to gather or put words together, and so, to speak. Hence λόγος is, first of all, a collecting or collection both of things in the mind, and of words by which they are expressed. It therefore signifies both the outward form by which the inward thought is expressed, and the inward thought itself, the Latin oratio and ratio: compare the Italian ragionare, “to think” and “to speak.” As signifying the outward form it is never used in the merely grammatical sense, as simply the name of a thing or act ( ἔπος, ὄνομα, ῥῆμα ), but means a word as the thing referred to: the material, not the formal part: a word as embodying a conception or idea. See, for instance, Matthew 22:46; 1 Corinthians 14:9, 1 Corinthians 14:19. Hence it signifies a saying, of God, or of man (Matthew 19:21, Matthew 19:22; Mark 5:35, Mark 5:36): a decree, a precept (Romans 9:28; Mark 7:13). The ten commandments are called in the Septuagint, οἱ δέκα λόγοι , “the ten words ” (Exodus 34:28), and hence the familiar term decalogue. It is further used of discourse: either of the act of speaking (Acts 14:12), of skill and practice in speaking (Acts 18:15; 2 Timothy 4:15), specifically the doctrine of salvation through Christ (Matthew 13:20-23; Philemon 1:14); of narrative, both the relation and the thing related (Acts 1:1; John 21:23; Mark 1:45); of matter under discussion, an affair, a case in law (Acts 15:6; Acts 19:38). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- As signifying the inward thought, it denotes the faculty of thinking and reasoning (Hebrews 4:12); regard or consideration (Acts 20:24); reckoning, account (Philemon 4:15, Philemon 4:17; Hebrews 4:13); cause or reason (Acts 10:29). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- John uses the word in a peculiar sense, here, and in John 1:14; and, in this sense, in these two passages only. The nearest approach to it is in Revelation 19:13, where the conqueror is called the Word of God; and it is recalled in the phrases Word of Life, and the Life was manifested (1 John 1:1, 1 John 1:2). Compare Hebrews 4:12. It was a familiar and current theological term when John wrote, and therefore he uses it without explanation. Old Testament Usage of the TermThe word here points directly to Psalm href="/desk/?q=ps+33:6&sr=1">Psalm 33:6). The idea of God, who is in his own nature hidden, revealing himself in creation, is the root of the Logos-idea, in contrast with all materialistic or pantheistic conceptions of creation. This idea develops itself in the Old Testament on three lines. (1) The Word, as embodying the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry. Consequently divine attributes are predicated of it as being the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy (Psalm 3:4; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:105). The Word is a healer in Psalm 107:20; a messenger in Psalm 147:15; the agent of the divine decrees in Isaiah 55:11. (2) The personified wisdom (Job 28:12sq.; Job 28). Even Death, which unlocks so many secrets, and the underworld, know it only as a rumor (Job href="/desk/?q=job+28:22&sr=1">Job 28:22). It is only God who knows its way and its place (Job 28:23). He made the world, made the winds and the waters, made a decree for the rain and a way for the lightning of the thunder (Job 28:25, Job 28:26). He who possessed wisdom in the beginning of his way, before His works of old, before the earth with its depths and springs and mountains, with whom was wisdom as one brought up with Him (Proverbs 8:26-31), declared it. “It became, as it were, objective, so that He beheld it” (Job 28:27) and embodied it in His creative work. This personification, therefore, is based on the thought that wisdom is not shut up at rest in God, but is active and manifest in the world. “She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors” (Proverbs 8:2, Proverbs 8:3). She builds a palace and prepares a banquet, and issues a general invitation to the simple and to him that wanteth understanding (Proverbs 9:1-6). It is viewed as the one guide to salvation, comprehending all revelations of God, and as an attribute embracing and combining all His other attributes. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- (3) The Angel of Jehovah. The messenger of God who serves as His agent in the world of sense, and is sometimes distinguished from Jehovah and sometimes identical with him (Genesis 16:7-13; Genesis 32:24-28; Hosea 12:4, Hosea 12:5; Exodus 23:20, Exodus 23:21; Malachi 3:1). Apocryphal UsageIn the Apocryphal writings this mediative element is more distinctly apprehended, but with a tendency to pantheism. In the Wisdom of Solomon (at least 100 b.c.), where wisdom seems to be viewed as another name for the whole divine nature, while nowhere connected with the Messiah, it is described as a being of light, proceeding essentially from God; a true image of God, co-occupant of the divine throne; a real and independent principle, revealing God in the world and mediating between it and Him, after having created it as his organ - in association with a spirit which is called μονογενές , only begotten (7:22). “She is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty; therefore can no defiled thing fall into her. For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness” (see chapter 7, throughout). Again: “Wisdom reacheth from one end to another mightily, and sweetly doth she order all things. In that she is conversant with God, she magnifieth her nobility: yea, the Lord of all things Himself loved her. For she is privy to the mysteries of the knowledge of God, and a lover of His works. Moreover, by the means of her I shall obtain immortality, and leave behind me an everlasting memorial to them that come after me” (chapter 9). In 16:12, it is said, “Thy word, O Lord, healeth all things” (compare Psalm 107:20); and in 18:15,16, “Thine almighty word leaped from heaven out of thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war into the midst of a land of destruction, and brought thine unfeigned commandment as a sharp sword, and, standing up, filled all things with death; and it touched the heaven, but it stood upon the earth.” See also Wisdom of Sirach, chapters 1,24, and Genesis href="/desk/?q=ge+39:21&sr=1">Genesis 39:21, they paraphrase, “The Memra was with Joseph in prison.” In Psalm 110:1-7Jehovah addresses the first verse to the Memra. The Memra is the angel that destroyed the first-born of Egypt, and it was the Memra that led the Israelites in the cloudy pillar. Usage in the Judaeo-Alexandrine PhilosophyFrom the time of Ptolemy I: (323-285 b.c.), there were Jews in great numbers in Egypt. Philo (a.d. 50) estimates them at a million in his time. Alexandria was their headquarters. They had their own senate and magistrates, and possessed the same privileges as the Greeks. The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek (b.c. 280-150) was the beginning of a literary movement among them, the key-note of which was the reconciliation of Western culture and Judaism, the establishment of a connection between the Old Testament faith and the Greek philosophy. Hence they interpreted the facts of sacred history allegorically, and made them symbols of certain speculative principles, alleging that the Greek philosophers had borrowed their wisdom from Moses. Aristobulus (about 150 b.c.) asserted the existence of a previous and much older translation of the law, and dedicated to Ptolemy VI an allegorical exposition of the Pentateuch, in which he tried to show that the doctrines of the Peripatetic or Aristotelian school were derived from the Old Testament. Most of the schools of Greek philosophy were represented among the Alexandrian Jews, but the favorite one was the Platonic. The effort at reconciliation culminated in Philo, a contemporary of Christ. Philo was intimately acquainted with the Platonic philosophy, and made it the fundamental feature of his own doctrines, while availing himself likewise of ideas belonging to the Peripatetic and Stoic schools. Unable to discern the difference in the points of view from which these different doctrines severally proceeded, he jumbled together not merely discordant doctrines of the Greek schools, but also those of the East, regarding the wisdom of the Greeks as having originated in the legislation and writings of Moses. He gathered together from East and West every element that could help to shape his conception of a vicegerent of God, “a mediator between the eternal and the ephemeral. His Logos reflects light from countless facets.” According to Philo, God is the absolute Being. He calls God “that which is:” “the One and the All.” God alone exists for himself, without multiplicity and without mixture. No name can properly be ascribed to Him: He simply is. Hence, in His nature, He is unknowable. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Outside of God there exists eternal matter, without form and void, and essentially evil; but the perfect Being could not come into direct contact with the senseless and corruptible; so that the world could not have been created by His direct agency. Hence the doctrine of a mediating principle between God and matter - the divine Reason, the Logos in whom are comprised all the ideas of finite things, and who created the sensible world by causing these ideas to penetrate into matter. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The absolute God is surrounded by his powers ( δυνάμεις ) as a king by his servants. These powers are, in Platonic language, ideas; in Jewish, angels; but all are essentially one, and their unity, as they exist in God, as they emanate from him, as they are disseminated in the world, is expressed by Logos Hence the Logos appears under a twofold aspect: (1) As the immanent reason of God, containing within itself the world-ideal, which, while not outwardly existing, is like the immanent reason in man. This is styled Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος , i.e., the Logos conceived and residing in the mind. This was the aspect emphasized by the Alexandrians, and which tended to the recognition of a twofold personality in the divine essence. (2) As the outspoken word, proceeding from God and manifest in the world. This, when it has issued from God in creating the world, is the Λόγος προφορικός , i.e., the Logos uttered, even as in man the spoken word is the manifestation of thought. This aspect prevailed in Palestine, where the Word appears like the angel of the Pentateuch, as the medium of the outward communication of God with men, and tends toward the recognition of a divine person subordinate to God. Under the former aspect, the Logos is, really, one with God's hidden being: the latter comprehends all the workings and revelations of God in the world; affords from itself the ideas and energies by which the world was framed and is upheld; and, filling all things with divine light and life, rules them in wisdom, love, and righteousness. It is the beginning of creation, not inaugurated, like God, nor made, like the world; but the eldest son of the eternal Father (the world being the younger); God's image; the mediator between God and the world; the highest angel; the second God. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Philo's conception of the Logos, therefore, is: the sum-total and free exercise of the divine energies; so that God, so far as he reveals himself, is called Logos; while the Logos, so far as he reveals God, is called God. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- John's doctrine and terms are colored by these preceding influences. During his residence at Ephesus he must have become familiar with the forms and terms of the Alexandrian theology. Nor is it improbable that he used the term Logos with an intent to facilitate the passage from the current theories of his time to the pure gospel which he proclaimed. “To those Hellenists and Hellenistic Jews, on the one hand, who were vainly philosophizing on the relations of the finite and infinite; to those investigators of the letter of the Scriptures, on the other, who speculated about the theocratic revelations, John said, by giving this name Logos to Jesus: 'The unknown Mediator between God and the world, the knowledge of whom you are striving after, we have seen, heard, and touched. Your philosophical speculations and your scriptural subtleties will never raise you to Him. Believe as we do in Jesus, and you will possess in Him that divine Revealer who engages your thoughts'” (Godet). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- But John's doctrine is not Philo's, and does not depend upon it. The differences between the two are pronounced. Though both use the term Logos, they use it with utterly different meanings. In John it signifies word, as in Holy Scripture generally; in Philo, reason; and that so distinctly that when Philo wishes to give it the meaning of word, he adds to it by way of explanation, the term ῥῆμα , word. The nature of the being described by Logos is conceived by each in an entirely different spirit. John's Logos is a person, with a consciousness of personal distinction; Philo's is impersonal. His notion is indeterminate and fluctuating, shaped by the influence which happens to be operating at the time. Under the influence of Jewish documents he styles the Logos an “archangel;” under the influence of Plato, “the Idea of Ideas;” of the Stoics, “the impersonal Reason.” It is doubtful whether Philo ever meant to represent the Logos formally as a person. All the titles he gives it may be explained by supposing it to mean the ideal world on which the actual is modeled. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- In Philo, moreover, the function of the Logos is confined to the creation and preservation of the universe. He does not identify or connect him with the Messiah. His doctrine was, to a great degree, a philosophical substitute for Messianic hopes. He may have conceived of the Word as acting through the Messiah, but not as one with him. He is a universal principle. In John the Messiah is the Logos himself, uniting himself with humanity, and clothing himself with a body in order to save the world. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The two notions differ as to origin. The impersonal God of Philo cannot pass to the finite creation without contamination of his divine essence. Hence an inferior agent must be interposed. John's God, on the other hand, is personal, and a loving personality. He is a Father (John 1:18); His essence is love (John 3:16; 1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16). He is in direct relation with the world which He desires to save, and the Logos is He Himself, manifest in the flesh. According to Philo, the Logos is not coexistent with the eternal God. Eternal matter is before him in time. According to John, the Logos is essentially with the Father from all eternity (John 1:2), and it is He who creates all things, matter included (John 1:3). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Philo misses the moral energy of the Hebrew religion as expressed in its emphasis upon the holiness of Jehovah, and therefore fails to perceive the necessity of a divine teacher and Savior. He forgets the wide distinction between God and the world, and declares that, were the universe to end, God would die of loneliness and inactivity. The Meaning of Logos in JohnAs Logos has the double meaning of thought and speech, so Christ is related to God as the word to the idea, the word being not merely a name for the idea, but the idea itself expressed. The thought is the inward word (Dr. Schaff compares the Hebrew expression “I speak in my heart” for “I think”). The Logos of John is the real, personal God (John 1:1), the Word, who was originally before the creation with God. and was God, one in essence and nature, yet personally distinct (John 1:1, John 1:18); the revealer and interpreter of the hidden being of God; the reflection and visible image of God, and the organ of all His manifestations to the world. Compare Hebrews 1:3. He made all things, proceeding personally from God for the accomplishment of the act of creation (Hebrews 1:3), and became man in the person of Jesus Christ, accomplishing the redemption of the world. Compare Philemon 2:6. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The following is from William Austin, “Meditation for Christmas Day,” cited by Ford on John:-DIVIDER- “The name Word is most excellently given to our Savior; for it expresses His nature in one, more than in any others. Therefore St. John, when he names the Person in the Trinity (1 John 5:7), chooses rather to call Him Word than Son; for word is a phrase more communicable than son. Son hath only reference to the Father that begot Him; but word may refer to him that conceives it; to him that speaks it; to that which is spoken by it; to the voice that it is clad in; and to the effects it raises in him that hears it. So Christ, as He is the Word, not only refers to His Father that begot Him, and from whom He comes forth, but to all the creatures that were made by Him; to the flesh that He took to clothe Him; and to the doctrine He brought and taught, and, which lives yet in the hearts of all them that obediently do hear it. He it is that is this Word; and any other, prophet or preacher, he is but a voice (Luke 3:4). Word is an inward conception of the mind; and voice is but a sign of intention. St. John was but a sign, a voice; not worthy to untie the shoe-latchet of this Word. Christ is the inner conception 'in the bosom of His Father;' and that is properly the Word. And yet the Word is the intention uttered forth, as well as conceived within; for Christ was no less the Word in the womb of the Virgin, or in the cradle of the manger, or on the altar of the cross, than he was in the beginning, 'in the bosom of his Father.' For as the intention departs not from the mind when the word is uttered, so Christ, proceeding from the Father by eternal generation, and after here by birth and incarnation, remains still in Him and with Him in essence; as the intention, which is conceived and born in the mind, remains still with it and in it, though the word be spoken. He is therefore rightly called the Word, both by His coming from, and yet remaining still in, the Father.”And the WordA repetition of the great subject, with solemn emphasis.Was with God ( ἦν πὸς τὸν Θεὸν )Anglo-Saxon vers., mid Gode. Wyc., at God. With ( πρός ) does not convey the full meaning, that there is no single English word which will give it better. The preposition πρός , which, with the accusative case, denotes motion towards, or direction, is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse. Thus: “Are not his sisters here with us ” ( πρὸς ἡμᾶς ), i.e., in social relations with us (Mark 6:3; Matthew 13:56). “How long shall I be with you ” ( πρὸς ὑμᾶς , Mark 9:16). “I sat daily with you ” (Matthew 26:55). “To be present with the Lord ” ( πρὸς τὸν Κύριον , 2 Corinthians 5:8). “Abide and winter with you ” (1 Corinthians 16:6). “The eternal life which was with the Father ” ( πρὸς τὸν πατέρα , 1 John 1:2). Thus John's statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but was in the living, active relation of communion with Him.And the Word was God ( καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος )In the Greek order, and God was the Word, which is followed by Anglo-Saxon, Wyc., and Tynd. But θεὸς , God, is the predicate and not the subject of the proposition. The subject must be the Word; for John is not trying to show who is God, but who is the Word. Notice that Θεὸς is without the article, which could not have been omitted if he had meant to designate the word as God; because, in that event, Θεὸς would have been ambiguous; perhaps a God. Moreover, if he had said God was the Word, he would have contradicted his previous statement by which he had distinguished (hypostatically) God from the word, and λόγος (Logos) would, further, have signified only an attribute of God. The predicate is emphatically placed in the proposition before the subject, because of the progress of the thought; this being the third and highest statement respecting the Word - the climax of the two preceding propositions. The word God, used attributively, maintains the personal distinction between God and the Word, but makes the unity of essence and nature to follow the distinction of person, and ascribes to the Word all the attributes of the divine essence. “There is something majestic in the way in which the description of the Logos, in the three brief but great propositions of John 1:1, is unfolded with increasing fullness” (Meyer). [source]
With evident allusion to the first word of Genesis. But John elevates the phrase from its reference to a point of time, the beginning of creation, to the time of absolute pre-existence before any creation, which is not mentioned until John 1:3. This beginning had no beginning (compare John 1:3; John 17:5; 1 John 1:1; Ephesians 1:4; Proverbs 8:23; Psalm 90:2). This heightening of the conception, however, appears not so much in ἀρχή , beginning, which simply leaves room for it, as in the use of ἦν , was, denoting absolute existence (compare εἰμί , I am, John 8:58) instead of ἐγένετο , came into being, or began to be, which is used in John 1:3, John 1:14, of the coming into being of creation and of the Word becoming flesh. Note also the contrast between ἀρχή , in the beginning, and the expression ἀπ ' ἀρχῆς , from the beginning, which is common in John's writings (John 8:44; 1 John 2:7, 1 John 2:24; 1 John 3:8) and which leaves no room for the idea of eternal pre-existence. “In Genesis 1:1, the sacred historian starts from the beginning and comes downward, thus keeping us in the course of time. Here he starts from the same point, but goes upward, thus taking us into the eternity preceding time” (Milligan and Moulton). See on Colossians 1:15. This notion of “beginning” is still further heightened by the subsequent statement of the relation of the Logos to the eternal God. The ἀρχή must refer to the creation - the primal beginning of things; but if, in this beginning, the Logos already was, then he belonged to the order of eternity. “The Logos was not merely existent, however, in the beginning, but was also the efficient principle, the beginning of the beginning. The ἀρχή (beginning ), in itself and in its operation dark, chaotic, was, in its idea and its principle, comprised in one single luminous word, which was the Logos. And when it is said the Logos was in this beginning, His eternal existence is already expressed, and His eternal position in the Godhead already indicated thereby” (Lange). “Eight times in the narrative of creation (in Genesis) there occur, like the refrain of a hymn, the words, And God said. John gathers up all those sayings of God into a single saying, living and endowed with activity and intelligence, from which all divine orders emanate: he finds as the basis of all spoken words, the speaking Word ” (Godet). [source]
“And yet” as in John 1:10 and John 5:40 below. His word abiding in you But God‘s word had come to them through the centuries by the prophets. For the phrase see John 10:35; John 15:3; John 17:6; 1 John 1:10; 1 John 2:14. Him ye believe not “This one” Jesus has given them God‘s word, but they reject both Jesus and God‘s word (John 14:9). [source]
Old word for the agent in a conscious falsehood See 1 John 1:10; Romans 3:4. Common word in John because of the emphasis on αλητεια alētheia (truth). And the father thereof (και ο πατηρ αυτου kai ho patēr autou). Either the father of the lie or of the liar, both of which are true as already shown by Jesus. Autou in the genitive can be either neuter or masculine. Westcott takes it thus, “because he is a liar and his father (the devil) is a liar,” making “one,” not the devil, the subject of “whenever he speaks,” a very doubtful expression. [source]
See John 1:3 for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than ην ēn of John 1:1. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive σαρχ sarx so that it cannot mean “the flesh became the Word.” The Pre-existence of the Logos has already been plainly stated and argued. John does not here say that the Logos entered into a man or dwelt in a man or filled a man. One is at liberty to see an allusion to the birth narratives in Matthew 1:16-25; Luke 1:28-38, if he wishes, since John clearly had the Synoptics before him and chiefly supplemented them in his narrative. In fact, one is also at liberty to ask what intelligent meaning can one give to John‘s language here apart from the Virgin Birth? What ordinary mother or father ever speaks of a child “becoming flesh”? For the Incarnation see also 2 Corinthians 8:9; Galatians 4:4; Romans 1:3; Romans 8:3; Philemon 2:7.; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 2:14. “To explain the exact significance of εγενετο egeneto in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter” (Bernard). Unless, indeed, as seems plain, John is referring to the Virgin Birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. “The Logos of philosophy is, John declares, the Jesus of history” (Bernard). Thus John asserts the deity and the real humanity of Christ. He answers the Docetic Gnostics who denied his humanity. Dwelt among us First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of σκηνοω skēnoō old verb, to pitch one‘s tent or tabernacle First aorist middle indicative of τεαομαι theaomai (from τεα thea spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory John employs τεαομαι theaomai again in John 1:32 (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and John 1:38 of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. So also John 4:35; John 11:45; 1 John 1:1.; 1 John 4:12, 1 John 4:14. By this word John insists that in the human Jesus he beheld the Shekinah glory of God who was and is the Logos who existed before with God. By this plural John speaks for himself and all those who saw in Jesus what he did. As of the only begotten from the Father Strictly, “as of an only born from a father,” since there is no article with μονογενους monogenous or with πατρος patros In John 3:16; 1 John 4:9 we have τον μονογενη ton monogenē referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of πατηρ patēr of God in relation to the Logos. Μονογενης Monogenēs (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in John 1:18) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children John clearly means to say that “the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son” (Bernard). Cf. John 8:54; John 14:9; John 17:5. Full Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with δοχαν doxan (or genitive with μονογενους monogenous) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, Grammar, p. 275). As nominative πληρης plērēs can agree with the subject of εσκηνωσεν eskēnōsen Of grace and truth Curiously this great word χαρις charis (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John‘s Gospel save in John 1:14, John 1:16, John 1:17, though αλητεια alētheia (truth) is one of the keywords in the Fourth Gospel and in 1John, occurring 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Johannine Epistles, 7 times in the Synoptics and not at all in Revelation (Bernard). In John 1:17 these two words picture the Gospel in Christ in contrast with the law of Moses. See Epistles of Paul for origin and use of both words. [source]
Jesus simply claims knowledge of what he has tried to make plain to the famous Rabbi without success. John uses λαλεω laleō some 60 times, half of them by Jesus, very little distinction existing between the use of λαλεω laleō and λεγω legō in John. Originally λαλεω laleō referred to the chatter of birds. Note John‘s frequent use of αμην αμην amēn amēn and λεγω legō (double emphasis). And bear witness of that we have seen The same use of neuter singular relative ο ho as before. Perfect active indicative of οραω horaō He is not a dreamer, guesser, or speculator. He is bearing witness from personal knowledge, strange as this may seem to Nicodemus. And ye receive not our witness This is the tragedy of the matter as John has shown (John 1:11, John 1:26) and as will continue to be true even today. Jesus probably associates here with himself (“we”) those who have personal experience of grace and so are qualified as witnesses. Note the plural in 1 John 1:1. Bernard thinks that John has here read into the words of Jesus the convictions of a later age, a serious charge to make. [source]
Failure to believe kills the life in the words of Jesus. Knew from the beginning In the N.T. we have εχ αρχης ex archēs only here and John 16:4, but απ αρχης ap' archēs in apparently the same sense as here in John 15:27; 1 John 2:7, 1 John 2:24; 1 John 3:11 and see Luke 1:2; 1 John 1:1. From the first Jesus distinguished between real trust in him and mere lip service (John 2:24; John 8:31), two senses of πιστευω pisteuō Were Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse. And who it was that should betray him Same use of εστιν estin and note article and future active participle of παραδιδωμι paradidōmi to hand over, to betray. John does not say here that Jesus knew that Judas would betray him when he chose him as one of the twelve, least of all that he chose him for that purpose. What he does say is that Jesus was not taken by surprise and soon saw signs of treason in Judas. The same verb is used of John‘s arrest in Matthew 4:12. Once Judas is termed traitor (προδοτης prodotēs) in Luke 6:16. Judas had gifts and was given his opportunity. He did not have to betray Jesus. [source]
Certainly they can “understand” It was like a bombshell in spite of the preliminary preparation. Your will to do Present active indicative of τελω thelō and present active infinitive, “Ye wish to go on doing.” This same idea Jesus presents in Matthew 13:38 (the sons of the evil one, the devil) and Matthew 23:15 (twofold more a son of Gehenna than you). See also 1 John 3:8 for “of the devil” He even called them “broods of vipers” as Jesus did later (Matthew 12:34). A murderer Old and rare word (Euripides) from αντρωπος anthrōpos man, and κτεινω kteinō to kill. In N.T. only here and 1 John 3:15. The Jews were seeking to kill Jesus and so like their father the devil. Stood not in the truth Since ουκ ouk not ουχ ouch is genuine, the form of the verb is εστεκεν esteken the imperfect of the late present stem στηκω stēkō (Mark 11:25) from the perfect active εστηκα hestēka (intransitive) of ιστημι histēmi to place. No truth in him Inside him or outside (environment). The devil and truth have no contact. When he speaketh a lie Indefinite temporal clause with οταν hotan and the present active subjunctive of λαλεω laleō But note the article το to “Whenever he speaks the lie,” as he is sure to do because it is his nature. Hence “he speaks out of his own” For he is a liar Old word for the agent in a conscious falsehood See 1 John 1:10; Romans 3:4. Common word in John because of the emphasis on αλητεια alētheia (truth). And the father thereof (και ο πατηρ αυτου kai ho patēr autou). Either the father of the lie or of the liar, both of which are true as already shown by Jesus. Autou in the genitive can be either neuter or masculine. Westcott takes it thus, “because he is a liar and his father (the devil) is a liar,” making “one,” not the devil, the subject of “whenever he speaks,” a very doubtful expression. [source]
Present active indicative of τελω thelō and present active infinitive, “Ye wish to go on doing.” This same idea Jesus presents in Matthew 13:38 (the sons of the evil one, the devil) and Matthew 23:15 (twofold more a son of Gehenna than you). See also 1 John 3:8 for “of the devil” He even called them “broods of vipers” as Jesus did later (Matthew 12:34). A murderer Old and rare word (Euripides) from αντρωπος anthrōpos man, and κτεινω kteinō to kill. In N.T. only here and 1 John 3:15. The Jews were seeking to kill Jesus and so like their father the devil. Stood not in the truth Since ουκ ouk not ουχ ouch is genuine, the form of the verb is εστεκεν esteken the imperfect of the late present stem στηκω stēkō (Mark 11:25) from the perfect active εστηκα hestēka (intransitive) of ιστημι histēmi to place. No truth in him Inside him or outside (environment). The devil and truth have no contact. When he speaketh a lie Indefinite temporal clause with οταν hotan and the present active subjunctive of λαλεω laleō But note the article το to “Whenever he speaks the lie,” as he is sure to do because it is his nature. Hence “he speaks out of his own” For he is a liar Old word for the agent in a conscious falsehood See 1 John 1:10; Romans 3:4. Common word in John because of the emphasis on αλητεια alētheia (truth). And the father thereof (και ο πατηρ αυτου kai ho patēr autou). Either the father of the lie or of the liar, both of which are true as already shown by Jesus. Autou in the genitive can be either neuter or masculine. Westcott takes it thus, “because he is a liar and his father (the devil) is a liar,” making “one,” not the devil, the subject of “whenever he speaks,” a very doubtful expression. [source]
Old and rare word (Euripides) from αντρωπος anthrōpos man, and κτεινω kteinō to kill. In N.T. only here and 1 John 3:15. The Jews were seeking to kill Jesus and so like their father the devil. Stood not in the truth Since ουκ ouk not ουχ ouch is genuine, the form of the verb is εστεκεν esteken the imperfect of the late present stem στηκω stēkō (Mark 11:25) from the perfect active εστηκα hestēka (intransitive) of ιστημι histēmi to place. No truth in him Inside him or outside (environment). The devil and truth have no contact. When he speaketh a lie Indefinite temporal clause with οταν hotan and the present active subjunctive of λαλεω laleō But note the article το to “Whenever he speaks the lie,” as he is sure to do because it is his nature. Hence “he speaks out of his own” For he is a liar Old word for the agent in a conscious falsehood See 1 John 1:10; Romans 3:4. Common word in John because of the emphasis on αλητεια alētheia (truth). And the father thereof (και ο πατηρ αυτου kai ho patēr autou). Either the father of the lie or of the liar, both of which are true as already shown by Jesus. Autou in the genitive can be either neuter or masculine. Westcott takes it thus, “because he is a liar and his father (the devil) is a liar,” making “one,” not the devil, the subject of “whenever he speaks,” a very doubtful expression. [source]
Since ουκ ouk not ουχ ouch is genuine, the form of the verb is εστεκεν esteken the imperfect of the late present stem στηκω stēkō (Mark 11:25) from the perfect active εστηκα hestēka (intransitive) of ιστημι histēmi to place. No truth in him Inside him or outside (environment). The devil and truth have no contact. When he speaketh a lie Indefinite temporal clause with οταν hotan and the present active subjunctive of λαλεω laleō But note the article το to “Whenever he speaks the lie,” as he is sure to do because it is his nature. Hence “he speaks out of his own” For he is a liar Old word for the agent in a conscious falsehood See 1 John 1:10; Romans 3:4. Common word in John because of the emphasis on αλητεια alētheia (truth). And the father thereof (και ο πατηρ αυτου kai ho patēr autou). Either the father of the lie or of the liar, both of which are true as already shown by Jesus. Autou in the genitive can be either neuter or masculine. Westcott takes it thus, “because he is a liar and his father (the devil) is a liar,” making “one,” not the devil, the subject of “whenever he speaks,” a very doubtful expression. [source]
Inside him or outside (environment). The devil and truth have no contact. When he speaketh a lie Indefinite temporal clause with οταν hotan and the present active subjunctive of λαλεω laleō But note the article το to “Whenever he speaks the lie,” as he is sure to do because it is his nature. Hence “he speaks out of his own” For he is a liar Old word for the agent in a conscious falsehood See 1 John 1:10; Romans 3:4. Common word in John because of the emphasis on αλητεια alētheia (truth). And the father thereof (και ο πατηρ αυτου kai ho patēr autou). Either the father of the lie or of the liar, both of which are true as already shown by Jesus. Autou in the genitive can be either neuter or masculine. Westcott takes it thus, “because he is a liar and his father (the devil) is a liar,” making “one,” not the devil, the subject of “whenever he speaks,” a very doubtful expression. [source]
Indefinite temporal clause with οταν hotan and the present active subjunctive of λαλεω laleō But note the article το to “Whenever he speaks the lie,” as he is sure to do because it is his nature. Hence “he speaks out of his own” For he is a liar Old word for the agent in a conscious falsehood See 1 John 1:10; Romans 3:4. Common word in John because of the emphasis on αλητεια alētheia (truth). And the father thereof (και ο πατηρ αυτου kai ho patēr autou). Either the father of the lie or of the liar, both of which are true as already shown by Jesus. Autou in the genitive can be either neuter or masculine. Westcott takes it thus, “because he is a liar and his father (the devil) is a liar,” making “one,” not the devil, the subject of “whenever he speaks,” a very doubtful expression. [source]
First aorist active (Aeolic form) optative of πσηλαπαω psēlaphaō old verb from πσαω psaō to touch. So used by the Risen Jesus in his challenge to the disciples (Luke 24:39), by the Apostle John of his personal contact with Jesus (1 John 1:1), of the contact with Mount Sinai (Hebrews 12:18). Here it pictures the blind groping of the darkened heathen mind after God to “find him” Helen Keller, when told of God, said that she knew of him already, groping in the dark after him. The optative here with ει ei is due to the condition of the fourth class (undetermined, but with vague hope of being determined) with aim also present (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1021). Note also αρα γε ara geō the inferential particle αρα ara with the delicate intensive particle γε geō Though he is not far from each one of us (και γε ου μακραν απο ενος εκαστου ημων υπαρχοντα kai geō ou makran apo henos hekastou hēmōn huparchonta). More exactly with B L (και γε kai geō instead of καιτοι kaitoi or καιτοι γε kaitoi geō), “and yet being not far from each one of us,” a direct statement rather than a concessive one. The participle υπαρχοντα huparchonta agrees with αυτον auton and the negative ου ou rather than the usual με me with the participle makes an emphatic negative. Note also the intensive particle γε geō f0). [source]
This word is most important, since it is the key to the conception of Christ's atoning work. In the New Testament it occurs only here and Hebrews 9:5; and must be studied in connection with the following kindred words: ἱλάσκομαι which occurs in the New Testament only Luke 18:13, God be merciful, and Hebrews 2:17, to make reconciliation. Ἱλασμός twice, 1 John 2:2; Numbers 31:50-54; in both cases rendered propitiation. The compound ἐξιλάσκομαι , which is not found in the New Testament, but is frequent in the Septuagint and is rendered purge, cleanse, reconcile, make atonement. Septuagint usage. These words mostly represent the Hebrew verb kaphar to cover or conceal, and its derivatives. With only seven exceptions, out of about sixty or seventy passages in the Old Testament, where the Hebrew is translated by atone or atonement, the Septuagint employs some part or derivative of ἱλάσκομαι or ἐξιλάσκομαι or Ἱλασμός or ἐξιλασμός is the usual Septuagint translation for kippurim covering for sin, A.V., atonement. Thus sin-offerings of atonement; day of atonement; ram of the atonement. See Exodus 29:36; Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 23:27; Numbers 5:8, etc. They are also used for chattath sin-offering, Ezekiel 44:27; Ezekiel 45:19; and for selichah forgiveness. Psalm 129:4; Daniel 9:9. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- These words are always used absolutely, without anything to mark the offense or the person propitiated. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Ἱλάσκομαι , which is comparatively rare, occurs as a translation of kipher to cover sin, Psalm 65:3; Psalm 78:38; Psalm 79:9; A.V., purge away, forgive, pardon. Of salach to bear away as a burden, 2 Kings 5:18; Psalm 25:11: A.V., forgive, pardon. It is used with the accusative (direct objective) case, marking the sin, or with the dative (indirect objective), as be conciliated to our sins. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Ἑξιλάσκομαι mostly represents kipher to cover, and is more common than the simple verb. Thus, purge the altar, Ezekiel 43:26; cleanse the sanctuary, Ezekiel 45:20; reconcile the house, Daniel 9:24. It is found with the accusative case of that which is cleansed; with the preposition περί concerningas “for your sin,” Exodus 32:30; with the preposition ὑπέρ onbehalf of A.V., for, Ezekiel 45:17; absolutely, to make an atonement, Leviticus 16:17; with the preposition ἀπό fromas “cleansed from the blood,” Numbers 35:33. There are but two instances of the accusative of the person propitiated: appease him, Genesis 32:20; pray before (propitiate) the Lord, Zechariah 7:2. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Ἱλαστηριον , A.V., propitiation, is almost always used in the Old Testament of the mercy-seat or golden cover of the ark, and this is its meaning in Hebrews 9:5, the only other passage of the New Testament in which it is found. In Ezekiel 43:14, Ezekiel 43:17, Ezekiel 43:20, it means a ledge round a large altar, and is rendered settle in A.V.; Rev., ledge, in margin. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- This term has been unduly pressed into the sense of explanatory sacrifice. In the case of the kindred verbs, the dominant Old-Testament sense is not propitiation in the sense of something offered to placate or appease anger; but atonement or reconciliation, through the covering, and so getting rid of the sin which stands between God and man. The thrust of the idea is upon the sin or uncleanness, not upon the offended party. Hence the frequent interchange with ἀγιάζω tosanctify, and καθαρίζω tocleanse. See Ezekiel 43:26, where ἐξιλάσονται shallpurge, and καθαριοῦσιν shallpurify, are used coordinately. See also Exodus 30:10, of the altar of incense: “Aaron shall make an atonement ( ἐξιλάσεται ) upon the horns of it - with the blood of the sin-offering of atonement ” ( καθαρισμοῦ purification). Compare Leviticus 16:20. The Hebrew terms are also used coordinately. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Our translators frequently render the verb kaphar by reconcile, Leviticus 6:30; Leviticus 16:20; Ezekiel 45:20. In Leviticus 8:15, Moses put blood upon the horns of the altar and cleansed ( ἐκαθάρισε ) the altar, and sanctified ( ἡγίασεν ) it, to make reconciliation ( τοῦ ἐξιλάσασθαι ) upon it. Compare Ezekiel 45:15, Ezekiel 45:17; Daniel 9:24. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The verb and its derivatives occur where the ordinary idea of expiation is excluded. As applied to an altar or to the walls of a house (Leviticus 14:48-53), this idea could have no force, because these inanimate things, though ceremonially unclean, could have no sin to be expiated. Moses, when he went up to make atonement for the idolatry at Sinai, offered no sacrifice, but only intercession. See also the case of Korah, Numbers 16:46; the cleansing of leprosy and of mothers after childbirth, Leviticus href="/desk/?q=le+12:7&sr=1">Leviticus 12:7; Leviticus 15:30; the reformation of Josiah, Ezra href="/desk/?q=ezr+10:1-15&sr=1">Ezra 10:1-15; the offering of the Israelite army after the defeat of Midian. They brought bracelets, rings, etc., to make an atonement ( ἐξιλάσασθαι ) before the Lord; not expiatory, but a memorial, 1 John 4:10. The Passover was in no sense expiatory; but Paul says, “Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us; therefore purge out ( ἐκκαθάρατε ) the old leaven. Let us keep the feast with sincerity and truth;” 1 Corinthians 5:7, 1 Corinthians 5:8. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- In the Old Testament the idea of sacrifice as in itself a propitiation continually recedes before that of the personal character lying back of sacrifice, and which alone gives virtue to it. See 1 Samuel 15:22; Psalm 40:6-10; Psalm 50:8-14, Psalm 50:23; Psalm 51:16, Psalm 51:17; Isaiah 1:11-18; Jeremiah 7:21-23; Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8. This idea does not recede in the Old Testament to be reemphasized in the New. On the contrary, the New Testament emphasizes the recession, and lays the stress upon the cleansing and life-giving effect of the sacrifice of Christ. See John 1:29; Colossians 1:20-22; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:19-21; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:7; 1 John 4:10-13. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The true meaning of the offering of Christ concentrates, therefore, not upon divine justice, but upon human character; not upon the remission of penalty for a consideration, but upon the deliverance from penalty through moral transformation; not upon satisfying divine justice, but upon bringing estranged man into harmony with God. As Canon Westcott remarks: “The scripture conception of ἱλάσκεσθαι is not that of appeasing one who is angry with a personal feeling against the offender, but of altering the character of that which, from without, occasions a necessary alienation, and interposes an inevitable obstacle to fellowship” (Commentary on St. John's Epistles, p. 85). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- In the light of this conception we are brought back to that rendering of ἱλαστήριον which prevails in the Septuagint, and which it has in the only other New-Testament passage where it occurs (Hebrews 9:5) - mercy-seat; a rendering, maintained by a large number of the earlier expositors, and by some of the ablest of the moderns. That it is the sole instance of its occurrence in this sense is a fact which has its parallel in the terms Passover, Door, Rock, Amen, Day-spring, and others, applied to Christ. To say that the metaphor is awkward counts for nothing in the light of other metaphors of Paul. To say that the concealment of the ark is inconsistent with set forth is to adduce the strongest argument in favor of this rendering. The contrast with set forth falls in perfectly with the general conception. That mercy-seat which was veiled, and which the Jew could approach only once a fear, and then through the medium of the High-Priest, is now brought out where all can draw nigh and experience its reconciling power (Hebrews 10:19, Hebrews 10:22; compare Hebrews 9:8). “The word became flesh and dwelt among us. We beheld His glory. We saw and handled” (John 1:14; 1 John 1:1-3). The mercy-seat was the meetingplace of God and man (Exodus 25:17-22; Leviticus 16:2; Numbers 7:89); the place of mediation and manifestation. Through Christ, the antitype of the mercy-seat, the Mediator, man has access to the Father (Ephesians 2:18). As the golden surface covered the tables of the law, so Christ stands over the law, vindicating it as holy and just and good, and therewith vindicating the divine claim to obedience and holiness. As the blood was annually sprinkled on the golden cover by the High-Priest, so Christ is set forth “in His blood,” not shed to appease God's wrath, to satisfy God's justice, nor to compensate for man's disobedience, but as the highest expression of divine love for man, taking common part with humanity even unto death, that it might reconcile it through faith and self-surrender to God.Through faithConnect with propitiation (mercy-seat). The sacrifice of Christ becomes effective through the faith which appropriates it. Reconciliation implies two parties. “No propitiation reaches the mark that does not on its way, reconcile or bring into faith, the subject for whom it is made. There is no God-welcome prepared which does not open the guilty heart to welcome God” (Bushnell).In His bloodConstrue with set forth, and render as Rev., by His blood; i.e., in that He caused Him to shed His blood.To declare His righteousness ( εἱς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ )Lit., for a shewing, etc. Rev., to shew. For practical proof or demonstration. Not, as so often explained, to shew God's righteous indignation against sin by wreaking its penalty on the innocent Christ. The shewing of the cross is primarily the shewing of God's love and yearning to be at one with man (John 3:14-17). The righteousness of God here is not His “judicial” or “punitive” righteousness, but His righteous character, revealing its antagonism to sin in its effort to save man from his sin, and put forward as a ground of mercy, not as an obstacle to mercy.For the remission of sins that are past ( διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων )Rev., correctly, because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime. Passing over, praetermission, differs from remission ( ἄφεσις ). In remission guilt and punishment are sent away; in praetermission they are wholly or partially undealt with. Compare Acts 14:16; Acts 17:30. Ἁμάρτημα sinis the separate and particular deed of disobedience, while ἁμαρτία includes sin in the abstract - sin regarded as sinfulness. Sins done aforetime are the collective sins of the world before Christ.Through the forbearance of God ( ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ )Rev., in the forbearance. Construe with the passing by. The word ἀνοχή forbearancefrom ἀνέχω tohold up, occurs in the New Testament only here and Romans 2:4. It is not found in the Septuagint proper, and is not frequent in classical Greek, where it is used of a holding back or stopping of hostilities; a truce; in later Greek, a permission. The passage has given much trouble to expositors, largely, I think, through their insisting on the sense of forbearance with reference to sins - the toleration or refraining from punishment of sins done aforetime. But it is a fair construction of the term to apply it, in its primary sense of holding back, to the divine method of dealing with sin. It cannot be said that God passed over the sins of the world before Christ without penalty, for that is plainly contradicted by Romans 1:18-32; but He did pass them over in the sense that He did not apply, but held back the redeeming agency of God manifest in the flesh until the “fullness of time.” The sacrifices were a homage rendered to God's righteousness, but they did not touch sin with the power and depth which attached to Christ's sacrifice. No demonstration of God's righteousness and consequent hatred of sin, could be given equal to that of the life and death of Jesus. Hence Paul, as I take it, says: God set forth Christ as the world's mercy-seat, for the showing forth of His righteousness, because previously He had given no such manifestation of His righteousness, but had held it back, passing over, with the temporary institution of sacrifices, the sin at the roots of which He finally struck in the sacrifice of Christ. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- [source]
See on Revelation 13:14. For the Logos (Word) underlying the passage, see on John 1:1. Image is more than likeness which may be superficial and incidental. It implies a prototype, and embodies the essential verity of its prototype. Compare in the form of God, Philemon 2:6(note), and the effulgence of the Father's glory, Hebrews 1:3. Also 1 John 1:1. [source]
In bodily fashion or bodily-wise. The verse contains two distinct assertions: 1. That the fullness of the Godhead eternally dwells in Christ. The present tense κατοικεῖ dwellethis used like ἐστιν is(the image), Colossians 1:15, to denote an eternal and essential characteristic of Christ's being. The indwelling of the divine fullness in Him is characteristic of Him as Christ, from all ages and to all ages. Hence the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him before His incarnation, when He was “in the form of God” (Philemon 2:6). The Word in the beginning, was with God and was God (John 1:1). It dwelt in Him during His incarnation. It was the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth, and His glory which was beheld was the glory as of the Only begotten of the Father (John 1:14; compare 1 John 1:1-3). The fullness of the Godhead dwells in His glorified humanity in heaven. 2. The fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him in a bodily way, clothed the body. This means that it dwells in Him as one having a human body. This could not be true of His preincarnate state, when He was “in the form of God,” for the human body was taken on by Him in the fullness of time, when “He became in the likeness of men” (Philemon 2:7), when the Word became flesh. The fullness of the Godhead dwelt in His person from His birth to His ascension. He carried His human body with Him into heaven, and in His glorified body now and ever dwells the fullness of the Godhead.“O, for a sight, a blissful sightOf our Almighty Father's throne!There sits the Savior crowned with light,Clothed in a body like our own.“Adoring saints around Him stand,And thrones and powers before Him fall;The God shines gracious through the man,And sheds sweet glories on them all.”Watts“What a contrast to the human tradition and the rudiments of the world” (Meyer). What a contrast to the spiritual agencies conceived as intermediate between God and men, in each of which the divine fullness was abridged and the divine glory shaded, in proportion to the remoteness from God in successive emanation. [source]
In this sentence, given as the reason The fulness of the God-head was in Christ before the Incarnation (John 1:1, John 1:18; Philemon 2:6), during the Incarnation (John 1:14, John 1:18; 1 John 1:1-3). It was the Son of God who came in the likeness of men (Philemon 2:7). Paul here disposes of the Docetic theory that Jesus had no human body as well as the Cerinthian separation between the man Jesus and the aeon Christ. He asserts plainly the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ in corporeal form. [source]
This Epistle begins like Genesis and the Fourth Gospel with God, who is the Author of the old revelation in the prophets and of the new in his Son. Hebrews 1:1-3 are a proemium (Delitzsch) or introduction to the whole Epistle. The periodic structure of the sentence (Hebrews 1:1-4) reminds one of Luke 1:1-4, Romans 1:1-7, 1 John 1:1-4. The sentence could have concluded with εν υιωι en huiōi in Hebrews 1:2, but by means of three relatives Of old time (λαλεω palai). “Long ago” as in Matthew 11:21. Having spoken (τοις πατρασιν lalēsas). First aorist active participle of εν τοις προπηταις laleō originally chattering of birds, then used of the highest form of speech as here. Unto the fathers (πολυμερως tois patrasin). Dative case. The Old Testament worthies in general without “our” or “your” as in John 6:58; John 7:22; Romans 9:5. In the prophets (πολυμερης en tois prophētais). As the quickening power of their life (Westcott). So Hebrews 4:7. By divers portions (πολυτροπως polumerōs). “In many portions.” Adverb from late adjective πολυτροπος polumerēs (in papyri), both in Vettius Valens, here only in N.T., but in Wisdom 7:22 and Josephus (Ant. VIII, 3, 9). The Old Testament revelation came at different times and in various stages, a progressive revelation of God to men. In divers manners (διαπορως polutropōs). “In many ways.” Adverb from old adjective polutropos in Philo, only here in N.T. The two adverbs together are “a sonorous hendiadys for ‹variously‘” (Moffatt) as Chrysostom (diaphorōs). God spoke by dream, by direct voice, by signs, in different ways to different men (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc.). [source]
See on John 20:17, the only other passage in John's writings where the verb occurs. Both this verb and θιγγάνω (Colossians 2:21; Hebrews 11:28; Hebrews 12:20) express a touch which exerts a modifying influence upon the object, though θιγγάνω indicates rather a superficial touch. On ψηλαφάω (Acts 27:27; Hebrews 12:18; 1 John 1:1), see on Luke 24:39. Compare Colossians 2:21. The idea here is layeth not hold of him. [source]
Have deliberately and steadfastly contemplated. Compare 1 John 1:1, and see on John 1:14. [source]
See on 1 John 1:1. [source]
See on 1 John 1:1. Notice the change in the order of the repeated sentence, that which ye heard from the beginning: ὃ ἠκούσατε ἀπ ' ἀρχῆς , that which ye heard; the emphasis being on their reception of the message: ὃ ἀπ ἀρχῆς ἠκούσατε , that which ye heard from the beginning; emphasizing the time of the reception as coincident with the origin of their faith. [source]
Third use of this form (1 John 1:1, 1 John 1:2, 1 John 1:3), this time resumption after the parenthesis in 1 John 1:2. [source]
Perfect active indicative with recitative οτι hoti like quotation marks just before it. This is one of the pious platitudes, cheap claptrap of the Gnostics, who would bob up in meetings with such explosions. John punctures such bubbles with the sharp addition “and keepeth not” “The one who keeps on saying: ‹I have come to know him,‘ and keeps on not keeping his commandments is a liar” (πσευστης pseustēs just like Satan, John 8:44 and like 1 John 1:8, 1 John 1:10), followed by the negative statement as in 1 John 1:8, 1 John 1:10. There is a whip-cracker effect in John‘s words. [source]
Sin is defined by John as ἀνομία, lawlessnessCompare Romans 6:19. A.V., transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). It may be regarded either as condition or as act; either with reference to the normal, divine ideal of manhood, or to an external law imposed upon man by God. Any departure from the normal ideal of man as created in God's image puts man out of true relation and harmony with his true self, and therefore with God and with his fellowman. He thus comes into false, abnormal relation with right, love, truth, and light. He walks in darkness and forfeits fellowship with God. Lawlessness is darkness, lovelessness, selfishness. This false principle takes shape in act. He doeth ( ποιεῖ ) or committeth sin. He doeth lawlessness ( τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ ; 1 John 3:4, 1 John 3:8). He transgresses the words ( ῥήματα , John 17:8) of God, and His commandments ( ἐντολαί , 1 John 2:3) as included and expressed in His one word or message ( λόγος , 1 John 2:7, 1 John 2:14). Similarly the verb ἁμαρτάνειν , to sin, may signify either to be sinful (1 John 3:6), or to commit sin (1 John 1:10). Sin, regarded both as principle and act, is designated by John by the term ἁμαρτία . The principle expressed in the specific acts is ἡ ἁμαρτία (John 1:29), which occurs in this sense in Paul, but not in the Synoptists, nor in Acts. Many of the terms used for sin by other New Testament writers are wanting in John; as ἀσέβεια ungodliness(see on Judges 1:14); ἀσεβεῖν tobe ungodly (2 Peter 2:6); παραβαίνειν totransgress; παράβασις transgression παραβάτης transgressor(see on Matthew 6:14; see on James 2:11); παρανομεῖν toact contrary to the law; παρανομία breachof law (see on Acts 23:3; see on 2 Peter 2:16); παράπτωμα trespass(see on Matthew 6:14). [source]
First aorist passive indicative of πανεροω phaneroō to make known what already exists, whether invisible (B. Weiss) or visible, “intellectual or sensible” (Brooke). In Colossians 3:4 Paul employs it of the second coming of Christ. 1 John 1:2 here is an important parenthesis, a mark of John‘s style as in John 1:15. By the parenthesis John heaps reassurance upon his previous statement of the reality of the Incarnation by the use of εωρακαμεν heōrakamen (as in 1 John 1:1) with the assertion of the validity of his “witness” (μαρτυρουμεν marturoumen) and “message” (απαγγελλομεν apaggellomen), both present active indicatives (literary plurals), απαγγελλω apaggellō being the public proclamation of the great news (John 16:25). [source]
Taking up ζωη zōē of 1 John 1:1, John defines the term by the adjective αιωνιος aiōnios used 71 times in the N.T., 44 times with ζωη zōē and 23 in John‘s Gospel and Epistles (only so used in these books by John). Here lt means the divine life which the Logos was and is (John 1:4; 1 John 1:1).Which (ητις hētis). Qualitative relative, “which very life.”Was with the Father Not εγενετο egeneto but ην ēn and προς pros with the accusative of intimate fellowship, precisely as in John 1:1 ην προς τον τεον ēn pros ton theon (was with God). Then John closes the parenthesis by repeating επανερωτη ephanerōthē f0). [source]
Second (1 John 1:1 for first) use of this form, a third in 1 John 1:5. Emphasis by repetition is a thoroughly Johannine trait.Declare we (απαγγελλομεν apaggellomen). Second use of this word (1 John 1:2 for first), but αγγελια aggelia (message) and αναγγελλομεν anaggellomen (announce) in 1 John 1:5.That ye also may have Purpose clause with ινα hina and present active subjunctive of εχω echō (may keep on having). “Ye also” who have not seen Jesus in the flesh as well as those like John who have seen him. Like και υμιν kai humin (to you also) just before.Fellowship with us (κοινωνιαν μετ ημων koinōnian meth' hēmōn). Common word in this Epistle, from κοινωνος koinōnos partner (Luke 5:10), and κοινωνεω koinōneō to share, in (1 Peter 4:13), with μετα meta emphasising mutual relationship (Acts 2:42). This Epistle often uses εχω echō with a substantive rather than a verb.Yea, and our fellowship Careful explanation of his meaning in the word “fellowship” (partnership), involving fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ and only possible in Christ. [source]
See 1 John 1:1 as explaining this crisp description of the Word of life (cf. John 1:1-18).Young men (νεανισκοι neaniskoi). The younger element in contrast to the fathers, full of vigor and conflict and victory.Ye have overcome the evil one Perfect active indicative of νικαω nikaō a permanent victory after conflict. The masculine article τον ton shows that the prince of darkness is the one defeated in this struggle, the devil plain in 1 John 3:8, 1 John 3:10 (John 8:44; John 13:2). [source]
The liar (with the article) par excellence. Rhetorical question to sharpen the point made already about lying in 1 John 1:6, 1 John 1:10; 1 John 2:4, 1 John 2:21. See 1 John 5:5 for a like rhetorical question. [source]
Emphatic proleptic position before the relative ο ho and subject of ηκουσατε ēkousate a familiar idiom in John 8:45; John 10:29, etc. Here for emphatic contrast with the antichrists. See 1 John 1:1 for απ αρχης ap' archēs (from the beginning). [source]
See 1 John 1:1 for this phrase and 1 John 2:7 for the idea. They had the message of love for the brotherhood from the beginning of the gospel and it goes back to the time of Cain and Abel (1 John 3:12).That we should love one another (ινα αγαπωμεν αλληλους hina agapōmen allēlous). Sub-final clause (content of the αγγελια aggelia) with ινα hina and present active subjunctive. John repeats the message of 1 John 2:7. [source]
Perfect middle of τεαομαι theaomai as in 1 John 4:12, though the aorist in 1 John 1:1; John 1:14 John is qualified to bear witness (μαρτυρουμεν marturoumen as in 1 John 1:2) as Jesus had charged the disciples to do (Acts 1:8). [source]
Continuation of the same condition with εαν ean and the present active subjunctive, “and keep on hating.” See 1 John 2:9; 1 John 3:15 for use of μισεω miseō (hate) with αδελπος adelphos (brother). A liar Blunt and to the point as in 1 John 1:10; 1 John 2:4. [source]
Quoting an imaginary disputant as in 1 John 2:4.And hateth (και μισει kai misei). Continuation of the same condition with εαν ean and the present active subjunctive, “and keep on hating.” See 1 John 2:9; 1 John 3:15 for use of μισεω miseō (hate) with αδελπος adelphos (brother). A liar (πσευστης pseustēs). Blunt and to the point as in 1 John 1:10; 1 John 2:4.That loveth not “The one who does not keep on loving” (present active negative articular participle).Hath seen (εωρακεν heōraken). Perfect active indicative of οραω horaō the form in John 1:18 used of seeing God.Cannot love “Is not able to go on loving,” with which compare 1 John 2:9, ου δυναται αμαρτανειν ou dunatai hamartanein (is not able to go on sinning). The best MSS. do not have πως pōs (how) here. [source]
“In himself,” though the evidence is not decisive between αυτωι hautōi and αυτωι autōi made Perfect active indicative of ποιεω poieō like μεμαρτυρηκεν memarturēken and πεπιστευκεν pepisteuken permanent state.A liar (πσευστην pseustēn). As in 1 John 1:10, which see.Because he hath not believed Actual negative reason with negative ου ou not the subjective reason as in John 3:18, where we have οτι μη πεπιστευκεν hoti mē pepisteuken). The subjective negative is regular with ο μη πιστευων ho mē pisteuōn Relative clause here repeats close of 1 John 5:9. [source]
As in 1 John 1:10, which see. [source]
For walk, with κατά afteraccording to, see Mark 7:5; Romans 8:4; Romans 14:15; 1 Corinthians 3:3; 2 Corinthians 10:2. Very often with ἐν inSee John 8:12; John 11:9, John 11:10; 2 Corinthians 4:2; 1 John 1:7, 1 John 1:10. Both constructions are found 2 Corinthians 10:2, 2 Corinthians 10:3. [source]
Aorist tense. There is no need of rendering it as a pluperfect. Rev., rightly, I heard and saw. The appeal to hearing and seeing is common to all John's writings. See John 1:14; John 19:35; John 21:14; 1 John 1:1, 1 John 1:2; 1 John 4:14. [source]
This name for our Lord is found in the New Testament only in the writings of John. It is one of the links which connects Revelation with John's other writings. Compare John 1:1-14; 1 John 1:1. Some object to this on the ground that, in the Gospel of John, the term is used absolutely, the Word, whereas here it is qualified, the Word of God, which the Evangelist nowhere employs, and in 1 John 1:1, the Word of life. But, as Alford observes: “It may be left to any fair-judging reader to decide whether it be not a far greater argument for identity that the remarkable designation ὁ Λόγος theWord is used, than for diversity, that, on the solemn occasion described in the Apocalypse, the hitherto unheard adjunct of God is added.” The idea of God which is represented here, underlies the absolute term the Word in John 1:1. It is further urged that in the Gospel ὁ Λόγος is applied to the prehistoric Christ, while in this passage it is applied to the historic Christ. But the name of the historic Christ is that referred to in Revelation 19:12, not in Revelation 19:13. It is the name “which no one knoweth but He Himself,” expressing the character of His whole redeeming work. The name in Revelation 19:13is that which belongs originally and essentially to Him. [source]
Present middle indicative of πσευδομαι pseudomai explanatory positive, addition here to και ουκ εισιν kai ouk eisin of Revelation 2:9, in contrast also with ο αλητινος ho alēthinos of Revelation 3:7 and in Johannine style (John 8:44; 1 John 1:10; 1 John 2:4). [source]
Accusative case after the passive participle περιβεβλημενος peribeblēmenos Perfect passive participle of ραντιζω rantizō in the predicate accusative case agreeing with ιματιον himation A Q here read βεβαμμενον bebammenon (perfect passive participle of βαπτω baptō to dip). Probably ρεραντισμενον rerantismenon (sprinkled) is correct, because the picture comes from Isaiah 63:3, where Aquila and Symmachus use ραντιζω rantizō The use of βεβαμμενον bebammenon (dipped) is a bolder figure and Charles considers it correct. In either case it is the blood of Christ‘s enemies with which his raiment Some scholars hold this addition inconsistent with Revelation 19:12, but it may be merely the explanation of the secret name or still another name besides that known only to himself. The personal use of the Logos applied to Christ occurs only in the Johannine writings unless that is the idea in Hebrews 4:12. In John 1:1, John 1:14 it is merely ο Λογος ho Logos (the Word), in 1 John 1:1 ο Λογος της ζωης ho Logos tēs zōēs (the Word of Life), while here it is ο Λογος του τεου ho Logos tou theou (the Word of God), one of the strongest arguments for identity of authorship. The idiom here is one common in Luke and Paul for the teaching of Christ (Luke 5:1; Luke 8:11, etc.; 1 Corinthians 14:36; 2 Corinthians 2:17, etc.). Jesus is himself the final and perfect revelation of God to men (Hebrews 1:1.). [source]
Some scholars hold this addition inconsistent with Revelation 19:12, but it may be merely the explanation of the secret name or still another name besides that known only to himself. The personal use of the Logos applied to Christ occurs only in the Johannine writings unless that is the idea in Hebrews 4:12. In John 1:1, John 1:14 it is merely ο Λογος ho Logos (the Word), in 1 John 1:1 ο Λογος της ζωης ho Logos tēs zōēs (the Word of Life), while here it is ο Λογος του τεου ho Logos tou theou (the Word of God), one of the strongest arguments for identity of authorship. The idiom here is one common in Luke and Paul for the teaching of Christ (Luke 5:1; Luke 8:11, etc.; 1 Corinthians 14:36; 2 Corinthians 2:17, etc.). Jesus is himself the final and perfect revelation of God to men (Hebrews 1:1.). [source]
Inclusive of all “the rest.”This teaching (την διδαχην ταυτην tēn didachēn tautēn). That of Jezebel.Which “Which very ones,” generic of the class, explanatory definition as in Revelation 1:7.Know not (ουκ εγνωσαν ouk egnōsan). Second aorist (ingressive) active of γινωσκω ginōskō “did not come to know by experience.”The deep things of Satan The Ophites (worshippers of the serpent) and other later Gnostics (Cainites, Carpocratians, Naassenes) boasted of their knowledge of “the deep things,” some claiming this very language about Satan (the serpent) as Paul did of God (1 Corinthians 2:10). It is not clear whether the words here quoted are a boast of the Nicolaitans or a reproach on the other Christians for not knowing the depths of sin. Some even claimed that they could indulge in immorality without sinning (1 John 1:10; 1 John 3:10). Perhaps both ideas are involved.As they say (ως λεγουσιν hōs legousin). Probably referring to the heretics who ridicule the piety of the other Christians.None other burden πορτιον Baros refers to weight (Matthew 20:12), περω phortion from ογκος pherō to bear, refers to load (Galatians 6:5), βαρος ogkos to bulk (Hebrews 12:1). Apparently a reference to the decision of the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:28) where the very word baros is used and mention is made about the two items in Revelation 2:20 (fornication and idolatry) without mentioning the others about things strangled, etc. See the Pharisaic narrowness in Matthew 23:4. [source]
“Which very ones,” generic of the class, explanatory definition as in Revelation 1:7.Know not (ουκ εγνωσαν ouk egnōsan). Second aorist (ingressive) active of γινωσκω ginōskō “did not come to know by experience.”The deep things of Satan The Ophites (worshippers of the serpent) and other later Gnostics (Cainites, Carpocratians, Naassenes) boasted of their knowledge of “the deep things,” some claiming this very language about Satan (the serpent) as Paul did of God (1 Corinthians 2:10). It is not clear whether the words here quoted are a boast of the Nicolaitans or a reproach on the other Christians for not knowing the depths of sin. Some even claimed that they could indulge in immorality without sinning (1 John 1:10; 1 John 3:10). Perhaps both ideas are involved.As they say (ως λεγουσιν hōs legousin). Probably referring to the heretics who ridicule the piety of the other Christians.None other burden πορτιον Baros refers to weight (Matthew 20:12), περω phortion from ογκος pherō to bear, refers to load (Galatians 6:5), βαρος ogkos to bulk (Hebrews 12:1). Apparently a reference to the decision of the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:28) where the very word baros is used and mention is made about the two items in Revelation 2:20 (fornication and idolatry) without mentioning the others about things strangled, etc. See the Pharisaic narrowness in Matthew 23:4. [source]
The Ophites (worshippers of the serpent) and other later Gnostics (Cainites, Carpocratians, Naassenes) boasted of their knowledge of “the deep things,” some claiming this very language about Satan (the serpent) as Paul did of God (1 Corinthians 2:10). It is not clear whether the words here quoted are a boast of the Nicolaitans or a reproach on the other Christians for not knowing the depths of sin. Some even claimed that they could indulge in immorality without sinning (1 John 1:10; 1 John 3:10). Perhaps both ideas are involved.As they say (ως λεγουσιν hōs legousin). Probably referring to the heretics who ridicule the piety of the other Christians.None other burden πορτιον Baros refers to weight (Matthew 20:12), περω phortion from ογκος pherō to bear, refers to load (Galatians 6:5), βαρος ogkos to bulk (Hebrews 12:1). Apparently a reference to the decision of the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:28) where the very word baros is used and mention is made about the two items in Revelation 2:20 (fornication and idolatry) without mentioning the others about things strangled, etc. See the Pharisaic narrowness in Matthew 23:4. [source]
Ablative plural in apposition with συναγωγης sunagōgēs On the construction of εαυτους Ιουδαιους ειναι heautous Ioudaious einai see note on Revelation 2:9 Present middle indicative of πσευδομαι pseudomai explanatory positive, addition here to και ουκ εισιν kai ouk eisin of Revelation 2:9, in contrast also with ο αλητινος ho alēthinos of Revelation 3:7 and in Johannine style (John 8:44; 1 John 1:10; 1 John 2:4).I will make them Future active indicative of ποιεω poieō resuming the prophecy after the parenthesis “That they come and worship” (final clause, like facio ut in Latin, with ηκω hina and the future active of προσκυνεω hēkō and και γνωσιν proskuneō). The language is based on Isaiah 45:14; Isaiah 60:14. The Jews expected homage (not worship in the strict sense) from the Gentiles, but it will come to the Christians at last (1 Corinthians 14:24). Later Ignatius (Philad. 6) warns this church against Judaizing Christians, perhaps one result of an influx of Jews.And to know Continuation of the purpose clause with ινα hina but with the second aorist active subjunctive rather than the less usual future indicative. See both constructions also with εγω ηγαπησα σε hina in Revelation 22:14. Probably a reminiscence of Isaiah 43:4 in egō ēgapēsa se (I loved thee), first aorist active indicative. [source]