everything that he hath given to me I should not (μý) lose [aught] from it but should raise it up”: (b) sometimes with negatives implying a negation of death or darkness, xi. 26 "everyone that liveth and believeth in me shall surely not (où μý) die,” xii. 46 "in order that everyone that believeth in me may not (un) abide in darkness'."

[2263] On the other hand, the Greek usage of où râs, "not everyone," is frequent in traditions that say, in different forms, what the Lord says in the Sermon on the Mount, "Not everyone (oỷ Tâs) that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." So in the Epistle to the Romans, "Not all that are from Israel" are really Israel, "nor yet (ovdé), because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children"; the Gospel was preached to them "but not all hearkened3"; so to the Corinthians, "Not in all [men] is knowledge," Not with the most of them (οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν avτov, Clem. Alex. πâσɩ avтoîs) was God well pleased." And in the Fourth Gospel Jesus says to the disciples (xiii. 10, 11, 18) "Ye are clean but not all," "Not all of you are clean," "Not about you all do I speak." Some uses of the phrase "not all" may be derived from Attic and colloquial Greek, as in the famous saying, familiar to us through Horace, but Greek in origin, "The voyage to Corinth is not every man's." How naturally it might occur to evangelists

99.66

1 [22626] In the Epistle, the negation is sometimes a negation of truth, life, light etc., ii. 21 66 ‘every lie is not of the truth," ii. 23 "everyone that denieth the Son hath also not the Father (ovdè тòv Tатéрa exeɩ)," iii. 6 "Everyone that sinneth hath not seen him" (antithetical to iii. 6 "Everyone that abideth in him sinneth not"), iii. 10 “Everyone that doeth not righteousness is not of God,” iii. 15 (lit.) "Every murderer hath not eternal life" (a sentence hardly English, and certainly not Greek, in form), iv. 3 "Every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God.” Ilâs is followed, as in the Gospel, by negation of death, darkness etc. in 1 Jn iii. 6, 9, v. 18. In 1 Jn ii. 16 “everything that is in the world" is separated from "is not from the Father" by an intervening appositional clause-"the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the vain glory of life." To the negations of good may be added 2 Jn 9 "Everyone that...abideth not in the teaching of Christ hath not God."

2 Mt. vii. 21.

3 [2263 a] Rom. ix. 6-7, x. 16, 1 Cor. viii. 7, x. 5. It is also used in Mt. xix. 11 "Not all are capable of receiving this saying,” 1 Cor. vi. 12 “not all things are profitable," x. 23 “not all things are profitable...not all things edify." In the two passages last quoted there is an antithesis to a previous "all,” in “all things are lawful." And such an antithesis is generally implied in the Greek idiom "[All may do that, but] not all can do this."

4 [22636] Lewis and Short quote Aul. Gell. i. 8. 4 où πavтòs ȧvôpòs eis Κόρινθόν ἐσθ ̓ ὁ πλοῦς, and see Steph. vi. 567 on παντός έστι.

failing to make converts, or finding converts relapse into unbelief and hostility, is shewn by St Paul's prayer "that we may be delivered from unreasonable and evil men; for the faith [of Christ] is not the portion of all (οὐ γὰρ πάντων ἡ πίστις).”

1 [2263] 2 Thess. iii. 2. This traditional use of où návтes to describe the falling away of Israel after the flesh, and the defection of converts, and the practical failure of mere professors, may have a bearing on the difficult and doubtful Johannine utterance about "antichrists" in 1 Jn ii. 19 "They went out [at first (but see 2110 a-b) as our soldiers] belonging to our camp (lit. from us, enu): but they were not [really] belonging to our camp; for, if they had been [really] belonging to our camp they would have remained on our side (μeμevýκeloav ây μeo' nuŵr): but [their not remaining was foreordained] in order that they might be manifested [shewing] that not all are (or, they are not all) belonging to us (ἀλλ ̓ ἵνα φανερωθῶσιν ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν).”

[2263 d] Westcott paraphrases this, "that they may be made manifest that they are not, no not in any case, however fair their pretensions may be, of us." The words I have italicised indicate that he takes the negation as universal, “not any of them." He gives, as a reason, that "when the râs is separated by the verb from the où, the negation according to the usage of the New Testament is always universal." This is true; but does it apply when the verb is elva, and in such a writer as John, who nowhere else uses the Hebraic ou...mâs? If, for example, John had written in xiii. 11 οὐκ ἐστὲ πάντες καθαροί (instead of οὐχὶ T. K. éσTE) should we have translated this, "Ye are not any of you clean"? I am disposed to think that 1 Jn ii. 19 does not afford a unique instance of the Hebraic ou...âs, and that the words refer to the departure of "Israel after the flesh," and of other temporary converts, very much as the Epistle to the Romans mentions it. If so, there is a confusion between (1) pavepwłŵσiv öri ovк eloìv è uŵv, and (2) φανερωθῇ ὅτι οὐ πάντες [οἱ δοκοῦντες] εἰσὶν ἐξ ἡμῶν. One thought is “ they were not really ours"; another, "not all that seem to be ours are really ours." Origen illustrates the "going out" of Judas by the "going out" in the Epistle. Now concerning Judas it is said in the Gospel "not all of you are clean," and "not all" is repeated in this connexion. This seems to confirm the view that not all" in the Epistle is similarly used as meaning that "many are called but not all chosen."

[2263 ] In viii. 35 "the slave doth not abide in the house for ever (ò dè doûλos où μével év Tŷ oikią eis tòv alŵva)," if we are to adopt here the meaning of où (or μý, μŋkéri etc.)... eis Tòv aiŵva everywhere else in N.T. (Mk iii. 29, xi. 14, Mt. xxi. 19, Jn iv. 14, viii. 51, 52, x. 28, xi. 26, xiii. 8, 1 Cor. viii. 13) it should mean "never." Then the sentence would mean "The slave, e.g. Ishmael, shall never [be allowed to] abide permanently in the house," with allusion to the tradition quoted by St Paul (Gal. iv. 30, "cast out the handmaiden and her son"). The preceding words are "everyone that doeth sin is a slave [of sin]," but SS, D, b, and Clem. Alex. omit "of sin," which may be a gloss added to explain "slave." With this omission, the whole may be paraphrased, "Whosoever doeth sin is not a son but a slave. Now the slave, who is not under grace but under law and constraint, has no abiding-place, and never shall have, in the family of the Father."

[2263] The following words, "But the Son abideth for ever [in the house of the Father], if therefore the Son shall free you, ye shall be really free," may 14

A. VI.

209

(vii) Ou, v. r. oπW

[2264] In vii. 8 (R.V. txt and W.H. txt) "I go not up yet to this feast," the reading, "I go not up to this feast" is very strongly supported. W.H. and R. V. place it in their margin, and it is now confirmed by SS. Porphyry' attacked Christ for the change of purpose implied (by "go not up") in this passage, when contrasted with vii. 10-14 "then he also himself went up...now about the middle of the feast Jesus went up to the temple and began to teach." Chrysostom and Ammonius the Elder (Cramer) write apologetically on it without any apparent knowledge of such a reading as our”. It is almost incredible that ouro, if genuine-a reading that supplied so obvious an answer to all objections-should have been unknown to these commentators, and should have been supplanted in so many versions and мss. by the difficult reading ov

[2265] The explanation of "I go not up to this feast," and its reconciliation with what follows, must be sought perhaps in the

be paraphrased, “But the son and heir, like Isaac the child of promise and grace, abides for ever in the house: if therefore ye shall receive into your hearts the Son of God and the Spirit of Sonship, then shall ye be really free, being freed from all fear of being 'cast out,' and knowing that ye are the heirs and inheritors of the House." If the positive "abideth for ever" had preceded the negative "abideth not for ever," it might have been argued (though not cogently) that in this particular place "not...for ever" must be taken in an unusual sense because of antithesis. As it is, there is no basis for any rendering except "never" for où...els Tòv alŵra.

[2263 g] Cyril (Cramer ad loc.) explains où μével els 7. aiŵva by adding "for he will hurry into the outer darkness (δραμεῖται γὰρ εἰς τὸ ἐξώτερον σκότος).” Ammonius says, ὁ μὴ μένων εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχων ἀεὶ δοῦλός ἐστι τῇ φύσει...πάντα γὰρ δοῦλα τοῦ κτίσαντος, μένει δὲ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ὡσαύτως ἔχων ὁ Υἱὸς ús púσel Beós, where the punctuation is doubtful but the phrase "all things are slaves of the Creator" suggests that he did not read "slave of sin." Chrysostom (Migne) thrice drops eis ròv alŵva after où μével and interprets the words "the slave doth not abide for ever," as implying a "gentle casting down (ǹpéμa kataBáλe)" of the things of the Law and the sacrifices prescribed by Moses (comp. Heb. iii. 5-6). Perhaps he took the words to mean, "The slave [even though he be faithful, as one of the prophets, or as Moses himself, is still below the son and heir, and] does not abide [as the son abides] in the house."

1 Dict. Christ. Biogr. "Porphyrius," p. 442 a, referring to Jerome, Dial. c. Pelag. ii. 17.

2 [2264 a] Migne prints a quotation from Chrys. ouk ȧvaßaivw ǎpri, and then (punctuating thus) Πῶς οὖν, φησὶν, ἀνέβη, εἰπὼν, Οὐκ ἀναβαίνω; Οὐκ εἶπεν καθάπαξ, Οὐκ ἀναβαίνω· ἀλλὰ, Νῦν, εἶπεν, τουτέστι, μεθ ̓ ὑμῶν, where apparently the writer does not mean that Jesus said vûv, but that He meant vov. In Cramer, this appears, with οὔπω, thus, Αὐτὸς δὲ πῶς ἀνέβη, φησὶν, εἰπὼν, “ ἐγὼ οὔπω ἀναβαίνω....” It is clear that neither ouπw nor vûv nor aprɩ was a part of the text thus commented on.

Johannine view of Christ's "going up" to Jerusalem as a whole. Two acts of this kind have been mentioned (ii. 13, v. 1), the first of which excites jealousy, the second hostility, and (v. 18) a desire to kill Him, in "the Jews." In view of this hostility, Jesus is regarded as now contemplating a time when He will "go up" to a feast and die, but this has not yet come: "I go not up to this feast, because my time is not yet fulfilled." Accordingly, though He goes up later, He does not "go up" to keep the feast as a whole, and does not enter the temple till the middle of the week. Ammonius the Elder says, fairly enough, "He has not contradicted His words by His actions, for He did not go up to keep the feast..." But something more is probably intended to be implied: "When my hour has arrived, then and not till then shall I really go up to the feast": and we are also probably intended to think of Christ's habitual language about "going up," meaning, to heaven, or to the Father. (viii) Ox

[2265 (i)] Ovxí presents nothing remarkable in ix. 9 ädλoi ëdeyov ἄλλοι Οὐχή, ἀλλὰ ὅμοιος αὐτῷ ἐστίν : for its use before a pause, and especially

1 [2265 a] Ammonius also adds that He went up "not with joy as is customary with feast-goers." Joy was particularly characteristic of this feast, the feast of Tabernacles. Some authorities have inserted "this" in Christ's words to His brethren "Go ye up to this feast," and have substituted "the" later on, "I go not up to the feast," or have inserted "this" in both clauses. The difference, though subtle, is important: "Go ye up to the feast, as usual; I shall not go up to this feast, but to another, before long, when the time will have arrived for what some call death, but what I call going up to the Father." On Christ's uses of avaßairw elsewhere, see i. 51, iii. 13, vi. 62, xx. 17 where it is used of "going up to heaven."

[22656] The remaining instance of avaßaive in Christ's words is x. "He that entereth not through the door into the fold of the sheep but goeth up from some other quarter (åvaßaivwv åλλaxó@ev)--that [man] is a thief and a robber." Beside the literal meaning we are intended to think of the two kinds of "going up” mentioned in the Bible. Rezin and Pekah (Is. vii. 1) “go up to Jerusalem" as enemies. When our Lord said (Mk x. 33, Mt. xx. 18, Lk. xviii. 31) "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem,” He added, in effect, that He was to "go up" as a sacrifice. John is probably alluding to these two kinds of "going up." Jews would contrast Hezekiah, who (Is. xxxvii. 14) “went up unto the house of the Lord" to supplicate as a mediator, with the Roman Emperors, who exalted themselves and sat in the temple of God, setting themselves forth as God (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 4) and who said (Is. xiv. 13) "I will go up into heaven."

[2265 c] The "door" is probably the door of service (not, as Chrys., the door of the Scriptures). The Shepherd goes in by the same door as that "of the sheep," making himself one with them not as a mere act of "voluntary humility,' but to guide them and protect them; the "robber" prefers to "go up" by the path of what men call "glory," to make himself "a mighty hunter" of men.

before a pause followed by ảλλá, is frequent in Greek and in N.T. But neither N.T. nor the Thesaurus affords a parallel to the following, xiii. 10-11, "ye (emph.) are clean but not all (åλλ' ovxì távteS)..... for this cause said he (lit.) that 'Ye are not all clean,' orɩ, Ovɣì távtes καθαροί έστε.” Οὐχί is so frequently interrogative that, if the last tradition were found as a detached Logion of the Lord, we should certainly render it (as in Heb. i. 14 οὐχὶ πάντες εἰσὶν λειτουργικά TVEúμaтa) "Are ye not all clean?" But in Numbers ("I shall see

him but not now") LXX has κaì ovxí, as John has in xiv. 22 nîv... καὶ οὐχὶ τῷ κόσμῳ. Greek writers seem to have differed among themselves and John seems to have differed from most-in the use of oixí and its equivalents3.

NUMBER

(i) Plural referring to preceding Singular

[2266] This occurs when the speaker passes from considering a multitude as a whole to considering them as units, vii. 49 "This multitude that knoweth not the Law—[they] are accursed,” xv. 6 “If anyone abide not in me he is at once cast out as the branch [from the vine] (Tò κλnμa)...and they gather them (ie. such branches, aurá),” xvii. 2 "In order that all (sing.) that thou hast given to him—to [all of them (avrois) he may give eternal life" (see 1919 foll. and 2417-20).

(ii) Plural Neuter with Plural Verb

[2267] This construction, which is rare in classical Greek, is also rare in John. 'Erepíoσevσav is supported by BD against NAL (-σev) in vi. 13 "[the fragments] that (a) superabounded," where the previous mention of "twelve baskets," and the desire to emphasize

1 [2265 (i) α] In 1 Cor. x. 29 συνείδησιν δὲ λέγω οὐχὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ..., ἀλλά folloτες, as also in Lk. i. 6ο οὐχί, ἀλλὰ κληθήσεται, xii. 51 οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ ̓ ἡ διαμερισμόν, Rom. iii. 27 οὐχί, ἀλλὰ διὰ νόμου πίστεως, The anomaly here is that ảλλá precedes. Lk. xvii. 7-8 τίς...ἐρεῖ...ἀλλ ̓ οὐχὶ ἐρεῖ...is interrogative.

2 [2265 (i) b] Numb. xxiv. 17, LXX dei¿w avtŵ kal ovɣì vûv, representing the Heb. vaw by kal. I have not found ouxí in the Egypt. Pap. Indices.

3 [2265 (i) c] Steph. (v. 2351) shews that Xenophon regularly says Ovк, ¿λá whereas Epictetus says Οὐ, αλλά. It has been shewn above (2231 a) that where Mt. has ouxi interrog. the parall. Lk. sometimes differs. On the other hand where Lk. xii. 51 has the negative οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ ̓ ἢ διαμερισμόν, the parall. Mt. x. 34 has ovκ.....ά\λά. Mt. never uses ovxí otherwise than interrogatively. Mk does not use it at all. Steph. quotes Porphyr. for a freq. and peculiar use of ovxì dé.