KJV: And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
YLT: And he said to them, 'Verily I say to you, That there are certain of those standing here, who may not taste of death till they see the reign of God having come in power.'
Darby: And he said to them, Verily I say unto you, There are some of those standing here that shall not taste death until they shall have seen the kingdom of God come in power.
ASV: And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand by , who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.
| ἔλεγεν | He was saying |
|
Parse: Verb, Imperfect Indicative Active, 3rd Person Singular Root: λέγω Sense: to speak, say. |
|
| αὐτοῖς | to them |
|
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Dative Masculine 3rd Person Plural Root: αὐτός Sense: himself, herself, themselves, itself. |
|
| Ἀμὴν | Truly |
|
Parse: Hebrew Word Root: ἀμήν Sense: firm. |
|
| λέγω | I say |
|
Parse: Verb, Present Indicative Active, 1st Person Singular Root: λέγω Sense: to say, to speak. |
|
| ὑμῖν | to you |
|
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Dative 2nd Person Plural Root: σύ Sense: you. |
|
| ὅτι | that |
|
Parse: Conjunction Root: ὅτι Sense: that, because, since. |
|
| εἰσίν | there are |
|
Parse: Verb, Present Indicative Active, 3rd Person Plural Root: εἰμί Sense: to be, to exist, to happen, to be present. |
|
| τινες | some |
|
Parse: Interrogative / Indefinite Pronoun, Nominative Masculine Plural Root: τὶς Sense: a certain, a certain one. |
|
| ὧδε | here |
|
Parse: Adverb Root: ὧδε Sense: here, to this place, etc. |
|
| τῶν | of those |
|
Parse: Article, Genitive Masculine Plural Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
| ἑστηκότων | standing |
|
Parse: Verb, Perfect Participle Active, Genitive Masculine Plural Root: ἵστημι Sense: to cause or make to stand, to place, put, set. |
|
| οὐ | no |
|
Parse: Adverb Root: οὐ Sense: no, not; in direct questions expecting an affirmative answer. |
|
| γεύσωνται | shall taste |
|
Parse: Verb, Aorist Subjunctive Middle, 3rd Person Plural Root: γεύομαι Sense: to taste, to try the flavour of. |
|
| θανάτου | of death |
|
Parse: Noun, Genitive Masculine Singular Root: θάνατος Sense: the death of the body. |
|
| ἕως | until |
|
Parse: Conjunction Root: ἕως Sense: till, until. |
|
| ἂν | - |
|
Parse: Particle Root: ἄν Sense: has no exact English equivalent, see definitions under AV. |
|
| ἴδωσιν | they see |
|
Parse: Verb, Aorist Subjunctive Active, 3rd Person Plural Root: εἶδον Sense: to see with the eyes. |
|
| βασιλείαν | kingdom |
|
Parse: Noun, Accusative Feminine Singular Root: βασιλεία Sense: royal power, kingship, dominion, rule. |
|
| τοῦ | - |
|
Parse: Article, Genitive Masculine Singular Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
| Θεοῦ | of God |
|
Parse: Noun, Genitive Masculine Singular Root: θεός Sense: a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities. |
|
| ἐληλυθυῖαν | having come |
|
Parse: Verb, Perfect Participle Active, Accusative Feminine Singular Root: ἔρχομαι Sense: to come. |
|
| δυνάμει | power |
|
Parse: Noun, Dative Feminine Singular Root: δύναμις Sense: strength power, ability. |
|
Greek Commentary for Mark 9:1
In Mark 8:38 Jesus clearly is speaking of the second coming. To what is he referring in Mark 9:1 ? One is reminded of Mark 13:32; Matthew 24:36 where Jesus expressly denies that anyone save the Father himself (not even the Son) knows the day or the hour. Does he contradict that here? It may be observed that Luke has only “see the kingdom of God,” while Matthew has “see the Son of man coming” Mark has “see the kingdom of God come” (εληλυτυιαν elēluthuian perfect active participle, already come) and adds “with power.” Certainly the second coming did not take place while some of those standing there still lived. Did Jesus mean that? The very next incident in the Synoptic Gospels is the Transfiguration on Mount Hermon. Does not Jesus have that in mind here? The language will apply also to the coming of the Holy Spirit on the great Day of Pentecost. Some see in it a reference to the destruction of the temple. It is at least open to question whether the Master is speaking of the same event in Mark 8:38; Mark 9:1. [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for Mark 9:1
This conjunction is common with the subjunctive for a future event as his Resurrection (εγερτηι egerthēi) was. Again (Mark 9:10) they were puzzled over his meaning. Jesus evidently hopes that this vision of Moses and Elijah and his own glory might stand them in good stead at his death. [source]
The particularizing of the scribes as the questioners, and Mark 9:15, Mark 9:16, are peculiar to Mark. [source]
See Mark 9:15, and Introduction. Rev., better, amazed. It was wonder rather than fright. [source]
A word peculiar to Mark. Compare Mark 9:15; Mark 16:5, Mark 16:6. [source]
He had done it before three times already (Mark 8:31; Mark 9:13; Mark 9:31). So Jesus tries once more. They had failed utterly heretofore. How is it now? Luke adds (Luke 18:34): “They understood none of these things.” But Mark and Matthew show how the minds of two of the disciples were wholly occupied with plans of their own selfish ambition while Jesus was giving details of his approaching death and resurrection. [source]
Only in Mark.When he cometh (hotan elthēi). Aorist active subjunctive with reference to the future second coming of Christ with the glory of the Father with his holy angels (cf. Matthew 16:27). This is a clear prediction of the final eschatological coming of Christ. This verse could not be separated from Mark 9:1 as the chapter division does. These two verses in Mark 8:38; Mark 9:1 form one paragraph and should go together. [source]
Aorist active subjunctive with reference to the future second coming of Christ with the glory of the Father with his holy angels (cf. Matthew 16:27). This is a clear prediction of the final eschatological coming of Christ. This verse could not be separated from Mark 9:1 as the chapter division does. These two verses in Mark 8:38; Mark 9:1 form one paragraph and should go together. [source]
Luke 9:42 has both errēxen (dashed down, like Mark 9:18, rēssei) and sunesparaxen (convulsed). This compound with suṅ (together with), strengthens the force of the verb as in sunpnigō (Mark 4:7) and suntēreō (Mark 6:20). The only other instance of this compound verb known is in Maximus Tyrius (second century b.c.). [source]
Matthew has “apart” from the crowds and that is what Mark also means. Note παραλαβων paralabōn taking to his side.And began to tell them the things that were to happen to him (ηρχατο αυτοις λεγειν τα μελλοντα αυτωι συμβαινειν ērxato autois legein ta mellonta autōi sumbainein). He had done it before three times already (Mark 8:31; Mark 9:13; Mark 9:31). So Jesus tries once more. They had failed utterly heretofore. How is it now? Luke adds (Luke 18:34): “They understood none of these things.” But Mark and Matthew show how the minds of two of the disciples were wholly occupied with plans of their own selfish ambition while Jesus was giving details of his approaching death and resurrection. [source]
Matthew 26:37 has “sorrowful and sore troubled.” See note on Matt. about αδημονειν adēmonein Mark alone uses εχταμβεισται exthambeisthai (here and in Mark 9:15). There is a papyrus example given by Moulton and Milligan‘s Vocabulary. The verb ταμβεω thambeō occurs in Mark 10:32 for the amazement of the disciples at the look of Jesus as he went toward Jerusalem. Now Jesus himself feels amazement as he directly faces the struggle in the Garden of Gethsemane. He wins the victory over himself in Gethsemane and then he can endure the loss, despising the shame. For the moment he is rather amazed and homesick for heaven. “Long as He had foreseen the Passion, when it came clearly into view its terror exceeded His anticipations” (Swete). “He learned from what he suffered,” (Hebrews 5:8) and this new experience enriched the human soul of Jesus. [source]
In Mark 8:38 Jesus clearly is speaking of the second coming. To what is he referring in Mark 9:1 ? One is reminded of Mark 13:32; Matthew 24:36 where Jesus expressly denies that anyone save the Father himself (not even the Son) knows the day or the hour. Does he contradict that here? It may be observed that Luke has only “see the kingdom of God,” while Matthew has “see the Son of man coming” Mark has “see the kingdom of God come” (εληλυτυιαν elēluthuian perfect active participle, already come) and adds “with power.” Certainly the second coming did not take place while some of those standing there still lived. Did Jesus mean that? The very next incident in the Synoptic Gospels is the Transfiguration on Mount Hermon. Does not Jesus have that in mind here? The language will apply also to the coming of the Holy Spirit on the great Day of Pentecost. Some see in it a reference to the destruction of the temple. It is at least open to question whether the Master is speaking of the same event in Mark 8:38; Mark 9:1. [source]
Indoors the nine disciples seek an explanation for their colossal failure. They had cast out demons and wrought cures before. The Revisers are here puzzled over Mark‘s use of hoti as an interrogative particle meaning why where Matthew 17:19 has dia ti Some of the manuscripts have dia ti here in Mark 9:28 as all do in Matthew 17:19. See also Mark 2:16 and Mark 9:11. It is probable that in these examples hoti really means why. See Robertson, Grammar, p. 730. The use of hos as interrogative “is by no means rare in the late Greek” (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 126). [source]
An old word. Chiefly in Paul‘s Epistles in the N.T. Imperfect tense. They continued not to understand. They were agnostics on the subject of the death and resurrection even after the Transfiguration experience. As they came down from the mountain they were puzzled again over the Master‘s allusion to his resurrection (Mark 9:10). Matthew 17:23 notes that “they were exceeding sorry” to hear Jesus talk this way again, but Mark adds that they “were afraid to ask him” Continued to be afraid (imperfect tense), perhaps with a bitter memory of the term “Satan” hurled at Peter when he protested the other time when Jesus spoke of his death (Mark 8:33; Matthew 16:23). Luke 9:45 explains that “it was concealed from them,” probably partly by their own preconceived ideas and prejudices. [source]
See on teareth, Mark 9:18. [source]
Lit., as Rev., amazement came upon all. Θάμβος ,amazement, is used by Luke only. The kindred verb, θαμβέομαι ,to be amazed, occurs only once in Luke (Acts 9:6), and three times in Mark; while Mark alone has the strong compound ἐκθαμβέω ,to be greatly amazed (Mark 9:15). [source]
Second aorist active subjunctive with εως heōs and αν an referring to the future, an idiomatic construction. So in Mark 9:1; Matthew 16:28. In all three passages “shall not taste of death” Mark speaks of the kingdom of God as “come” Matthew as “coming” (ερχομενον erchomenon) referring to the Son of man, while Luke has neither form. See Matthew and Mark for discussion of the theories of interpretation of this difficult passage. The Transfiguration follows in a week and may be the first fulfilment in the mind of Jesus. It may also symbolically point to the second coming. [source]
Teacher as in Mark 9:17. [source]
Common verb for rubbing together, crushing together like chains (Mark 5:4) or as a vase (Mark 14:3). See notes on Matthew 17:15 and notes on Mark 9:17 for discussion of details here. [source]
Here the two questions of Mark 9:19 (only one in Matthew 17:17) are combined in one sentence. [source]
See Isaiah 40:1-11; Malachi 3:1-5. John will deny that he is actually Elijah in person, as they expected (John 1:21), but Jesus will call him Elijah in spirit (Mark 9:12; Matthew 17:12).Hearts of fathers (καρδιας πατερων kardias paterōn). Paternal love had died out. This is one of the first results of conversion, the revival of love in the home.Wisdom Not σοπια sophia but a word for practical intelligence.Prepared (κατεσκευασμενον kateskeuasmenon). Perfect passive participle, state of readiness for Christ. This John did. This is a marvellous forecast of the character and career of John the Baptist, one that should have caught the faith of Zacharias. [source]
Literally, “It tears him with (accompanied with, μετα meta) foam” (old word, απρος aphros only here in the N.T.). From σπαρασσω sparassō to convulse, a common verb, but in the N.T. only here and Mark 1:26; Mark 9:26 (and συνσπαρασσω sunsparassō Mark 9:20). See Mark 9:17; and note on Matthew 17:15 for variations in the symptoms in each Gospel. The use of μετα απρου meta aphrou is a medical item.Hardly (μολις molis). Late word used in place of μογις mogis the old Greek term (in some MSS. here) and alone in Luke‘s writings in the N.T. save 1 Peter 4:18; Romans 5:7.Bruising him sorely Common verb for rubbing together, crushing together like chains (Mark 5:4) or as a vase (Mark 14:3). See notes on Matthew 17:15 and notes on Mark 9:17 for discussion of details here. [source]
Rev., better, that darkness overtake you not. On overtake see on taketh, Mark 9:18; and see on perceived, Acts 4:13. [source]
Rev., apprehended. Wyc., took not it. See on Mark 9:18; see on Acts 4:13. Comprehended, in the sense of the A.V., understood, is inadmissible. This meaning would require the middle voice of the verb (see Acts 4:13; Acts 10:34; Acts 25:25). The Rev., apprehended, i.e., grasped or seized, gives the correct idea, which appears in John 12:35, “lest darkness come upon you,” i.e., overtake and seize. The word is used in the sense of laying hold of so as to make one's own; hence, to take possession of. Used of obtaining the prize in the games (1 Corinthians 9:24); of attaining righteousness (Romans 9:30); of a demon taking possession of a man (Mark 9:18); of the day of the Lord overtaking one as a thief (1 Thessalonians 5:4). Applied to darkness, this idea includes that of eclipsing or overwhelming. Hence some render overcame (Westcott, Moulton). John's thought is, that in the struggle between light and darkness, light was victorious. The darkness did not appropriate the light and eclipse it. “The whole phrase is indeed a startling paradox. The light does not banish the darkness; the darkness does not overpower the light. Light and darkness coexist in the world side by side” (Westcott). [source]
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. [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]
Here the paratactic και kai is like the transitional ουν oun (then). What then? Argumentative ουν oun like Paul‘s τι ουν ti oun in Romans 6:15. Quid ergo? Art thou Elijah? The next inevitable question since Elijah had been understood to be the forerunner of the Messiah from Malachi 4:5. In Mark 9:11. Jesus will identify John with the Elijah of Malachi‘s prophecy. Why then does John here flatly deny it? Because the expectation was that Elijah would return in person. This John denies. Jesus only asserts that John was Elijah in spirit. Elijah in person they had just seen on the Mount of Transfiguration. He saith Vivid dramatic present. I am not Short and blunt denial. Art thou the prophet? “The prophet art thou?” This question followed naturally the previous denials. Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15) had spoken of a prophet like unto himself. Christians interpreted this prophet to be the Messiah (Acts 3:22; Acts 7:37), but the Jews thought him another forerunner of the Messiah (John 7:40). It is not clear in John 6:15 whether the people identified the expected prophet with the Messiah, though apparently so. Even the Baptist later became puzzled in prison whether Jesus himself was the true Messiah or just one of the forerunners (Luke 7:19). People wondered about Jesus himself whether he was the Messiah or just one of the looked for prophets (Mark 8:28; Matthew 16:14). And he answered First aorist passive (deponent passive, sense of voice gone) indicative of αποκρινομαι apokrinomai to give a decision from myself, to reply. No Shortest possible denial. [source]
John does not mention “scribes,” though this combination (note two articles) is common enough in the Synoptics (Luke 5:30; Luke 6:7, etc.). Bring Vivid dramatic present active indicative of αγω agō Dods calls this “in itself an unlawful thing to do” since they had a court for the trial of such a case. Their purpose is to entrap Jesus. Taken in adultery Perfect passive participle of καταλαμβανω katalambanō old compound to seize (Mark 9:18), to catch, to overtake (John 12:35), to overcome (or overtake) in John 1:5. Having let her in the midst First aorist active (transitive) participle of ιστημι histēmi Here all could see her and what Jesus did with such a case. They knew his proneness to forgive sinners. [source]
Perfect active indicative of γινωσκω ginōskō state of completion, “Now since such talk we have come to certain knowledge that thou hast a demon” (John 8:48). Is dead Second aorist active indicative of αποτνησκω apothnēskō “Abraham died.” And thou sayest Adversative use of και kai “and yet.” Emphatic position of συ su (thou). Same condition quoted as in John 8:51. He shall never taste of death Same emphatic negative with subjunctive as in John 8:51, but γευσηται geusētai (first aorist middle subjunctive of γευω geuō with genitive case τανατου thanatou (death). Another Hebraism for dying like τεωρησηι theōrēsēi (see) in John 8:51. Used in Hebrews 2:9 of the death of Jesus and in Synoptics (Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27). It occurs in the Talmud, but not in the O.T. The Pharisees thus did not misquote Jesus, though they misunderstood him. [source]
The word, meaning originally to seize upon or lay hold of, occurs frequently in the New Testament in different phases of this original sense. Thus, to apprehend or grasp, Ephesians 3:18; Philemon 3:12, Philemon 3:13; Romans 9:30: of seizure by a demon, Mark 9:18: of something coming upon or overtaking, John 12:35; 1 Thessalonians 5:4: of comprehending, grasping mentally, as here, Acts 10:34; Acts 25:25. [source]
Double compound (απο κατα ιστημι apoαποκατιστημι kataπαλινγενεσια histēmi), here only in the N.T., though common in late writers. In papyri and inscriptions for repairs to temples and this phrase occurs in Jewish apocalyptic writings, something like the new heaven and the new earth of Revelation 21:1. Paul has a mystical allusion also to the agony of nature in Romans 8:20-22. The verb apokathistēmi is used by Jesus of the spiritual and moral restoration wrought by the Baptist as Elijah (Matthew 17:11; Mark 9:12) and by the disciples to Jesus in Acts 1:6. Josephus uses the word of the return from captivity and Philo of the restitution of inheritances in the year of jubilee. As a technical medical term it means complete restoration to health. See a like idea in palingenesia (renewal, new birth) in Matthew 19:28; Titus 3:5. This universalism of Peter will be clearer to him after Joppa and Caesarea. [source]
See on perceived, Acts 4:13, and see on taketh, Mark 9:18; see on John 1:5. Compare attained ( ἔφθασεν , Romans 9:31). Rev., arrive at. See on Matthew 12:28. The meaning is substantially the same, only the imagery in the two words differs; the former being that of laying hold of a prize, and the latter of arriving at a goal. The latter is appropriate to following after, and is carried out in stumbling (Romans 9:32). [source]
Πρὸς combines with the sense of direction that of active relation with. Comp. Matthew 13:56; Mark 9:16; John 1:1; Acts 3:25; Acts 28:25; 1 Thessalonians 4:12; Hebrews 9:20. Frequently in Class. of all kinds of personal intercourse. See Hom. Od. xiv. 331; xix. 288; Thucyd. ii. 59; iv. 15; vii. 82; Hdt. i. 61. Ὁικεῖοι ofthe household, rare in N.T. See Ephesians 2:19; 1 Timothy 5:8. Quite often in lxx of kinsmen. It is unnecessary to introduce the idea of a household here, as A.V., since the word acquired the general sense of pertaining or belonging to. Thus οἰκεῖοι φιλοσοφίας or γεωγραφίας belongingto philosophy or geography, philosophers, geographers. So here, belonging to the faith, believers. [source]
The preposition combines with the sense of direction that of relation and intercourse. Comp. Matthew 13:56; Mark 9:16; John 1:1; Acts 3:25; Colossians 4:5; Hebrews 9:20. [source]
We do not know to what word of the Lord Jesus Paul refers, probably Paul meaning only the point in the teaching of Christ rather than a quotation. He may be claiming a direct revelation on this important matter as about the Lord‘s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23. Jesus may have spoken on this subject though it has not been preserved to us (cf. Mark 9:1). [source]