rwp - standpoint

rwp@Info @ It has now been forty years since Dr. Marvin R. Vincent wrote his most useful series of volumes entitled _Word Studies in the New Testament_...Greek words from the standpoint of..._Koin_, the spoken language of the day, appears in the New Testament as in these scraps of Oxyrhynchus and Fayum papyri. There are specimens of the literary _Koin_ in the papyri as also in the writings of Luke, the Epistles of Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews. A new Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament will come in due time which will take note of the many startling discoveries from the Greek papyri and inscriptions first brought to notice in their bearing on the New Testament by Dr. Adolf Deissmann, then of Heidelberg, now of Berlin. His _Bible Studies_ (Translation by Alexander Grieve, 1901) and his _Light from the Ancient East_ (Revised Edition translated by L.R.M. Strachan, 1927) are accessible to students unfamiliar with the German originals.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:28 @{But and if thou marry} (\ean de kai gamsis\). Condition of the third class, undetermined with prospect of being determined, with the ingressive first aorist (late form) active subjunctive with \ean\: "But if thou also commit matrimony or get married," in spite of Paul's advice to the contrary. {Thou hast not sinned} (\ouch hmartes\). Second aorist active indicative of \hamartan\, to sin, to miss a mark. Here either Paul uses the timeless (gnomic)...transition he changes the standpoint... (proleptic) in the conclusion from the future (in the condition) to the past. Such mixed conditions are common (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1020, 1023). Precisely the same construction occurs with the case of the virgin (\parthenos\) except that the old form of the first aorist subjunctive (\gmi\) occurs in place of the late \gamsi\ above. The MSS. interchange both examples. There is no special point in the difference in the forms. {Shall have tribulation in the flesh} (\thlipsin ti sarki hexousin\). Emphatic position of \thlipsin\ (pressure). See strkjv@2Corinthians:12:7| \skolops ti sarki\ (thorn in the flesh). {And I would spare you} (\eg de humn pheidomai\). Possibly conative present middle indicative, I am trying to spare you like \agei\ in strkjv@Romans:2:4| and \dikaiousthe\ in strkjv@Galatians:5:4|.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:35 @{But some one will say} (\alla erei tis\)...master at putting the standpoint of...{How} (\ps\). This is still the great objection to the resurrection of our bodies. Granted that Jesus rose from the dead, for the sake of argument, these sceptics refuse to believe in the possibility of our resurrection. It is the attitude of Matthew Arnold who said, "Miracles do not happen." Scientifically we know the "how" of few things. Paul has an astounding answer to this objection. Death itself is the way of resurrection as in the death of the seed for the new plant (verses 36f.|). {With what manner of body} (\poii smati\). This is the second question which makes plainer the difficulty of the first. The first body perishes. Will that body be raised? Paul treats this problem more at length (verses 38-54|) and by analogy of nature (Cf. Butler's famous _Analogy_). It is a spiritual, not a natural, body that is raised. \Sma\ here is an organism. {Flesh} (\sarx\) is the \sma\ for the natural man, but there is spiritual (\pneumatikon\) \sma\ for the resurrection.

rwp@Info_1Peter @ THE READERS Peter writes "to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1Peter:1:1|)...naturally given from the standpoint of...(Galatians:21:7ff.|), though the distinction was not absolute, for Paul usually began his work in the Jewish synagogue. Probably the readers are mainly Jewish Christians. but not to the exclusion of Gentiles. Peter has clearly Paul's idea that Christianity is the true Judaism of God's promise (1Peter:2:4-10|)

rwp@2Corinthians:5:16 @{Henceforth} (\apo tou nun\). From the time that we gained this view of Christ's death for us. {After the flesh} (\kata sarka\). According to the flesh, the fleshy way of looking at men. He, of course, knows men "in the flesh (\en ti sarki\), but Paul is not speaking of that. Worldly standards and distinctions of race, class, cut no figure now with Paul (Galatians:3:28|)...at men from the standpoint of...{Even though we have known Christ after the flesh} (\ei kai egnkamen kata sarka Christon\). Concessive clause (\ei kai\, if even or also) with perfect active indicative. Paul admits that he had once looked at Christ \kata sarka\, but now no longer does it. Obviously he uses \kata sarka\ in precisely the same sense that he did in verse 15| about men. He had before his conversion known Christ \kata sarka\, according to the standards of the men of his time, the Sanhedrin and other Jewish leaders. He had led the persecution against Jesus till Jesus challenged and stopped him (Acts:9:4|). That event turned Paul clean round and he no longer knows Christ in the old way \kata sarka\. Paul may or may not have seen Jesus in the flesh before his death, but he says absolutely nothing on that point here.

rwp@Acts:2:38 @{Repent ye} (\metanosate\). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You _crucified_ this Jesus. Now _crown_ him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first. {And be baptized every one of you} (\kai baptistht hekastos hmn\). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (\en ti onomati Isou Christou\). In accordance with the command of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:28:19| (\eis to onoma\). No distinction is to be insisted on between \eis to onoma\ and \en ti onomati\ with \baptiz\ since \eis\ and \en\ are really the same word in origin. In strkjv@Acts:10:48| \en ti onomati Isou Christou\ occurs, but \eis\ to \onoma\ in strkjv@8:16; strkjv@19:5|. The use of \onoma\ means in the name or with the authority of one as \eis onoma prophtou\ (Matthew:10:41|) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in strkjv@Matthew:28:19|, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See on ¯Matthew:28:19| for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page). {Unto the remission of your sins} (\eis aphesin tn hamartin hmn\)...at it from the standpoint of...\eis\ does exist as in strkjv@1Corinthians:2:7| \eis doxan hmn\ (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of \eis\ for aim or purpose. It is seen in strkjv@Matthew:10:41| in three examples \eis onoma prophtou, dikaiou, mathtou\ where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in strkjv@Matthew:12:41| about the preaching of Jonah (\eis to krugma Ina\). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the _Koin_ generally (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. Songs:I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. {The gift of the Holy Ghost} (\tn drean tou hagiou pneumatos\). The gift consists (Acts:8:17|) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification).

rwp@Acts:10:34 @{Opened his mouth} (\anoixas to stoma\). Solemn formula for beginning his address (8:35; strkjv@18:14; strkjv@Matthew:5:2; strkjv@13:35|). But also good elocution for the speaker. {I perceive} (\katalambanomai\). Aoristic present middle of \katalamban\, to take hold of, the middle noting mental action, to lay hold with the mind (Acts:4:13; strkjv@10:34; strkjv@25:25; strkjv@Ephesians:3:18|). It had been a difficult thing for Peter to grasp, but now "of a truth" (\ep' altheias\)...the new environment and standpoint that...{Respecter of persons} (\prospolmpts\). This compound occurs only here and in Chrysostom. It is composed of \prospon\ face or person (\pros\ and \ops\, before the eye or face) and \lamban\. The abstract form \prospolmpsia\ occurs in strkjv@James:2:1| (also strkjv@Romans:2:11; strkjv@Ephesians:6:9; strkjv@Colossians:3:25|) and the verb \prospolempte\ in strkjv@James:2:9|. The separate phrase (\lambanein prospon\) occurs in strkjv@Luke:20:21; strkjv@Galatians:2:6|. The phrase was already in the LXX (Deuteronomy:10:17; strkjv@2Chronicles:19:7; strkjv@Psalms:82:6|). Luke has simply combined the two words into one compound one. The idea is to pay regard to one's looks or circumstances rather than to his intrinsic character. The Jews had come to feel that they were the favourites of God and actually sons of the kingdom of heaven because they were descendants of Abraham. John the Baptist rebuked them for this fallacy.

rwp@Acts:11:26 @{Even for a whole year} (\kai eniauton holon\). Accusative of extent of time, probably the year A.D. 44, the year preceding the visit to Jerusalem (11:30|), the year of the famine. The preceding years with Tarsus as headquarters covered A.D. 37 to 44. {They were gathered together with the church} (\sunachthnai en ti ekklsii\). First aorist passive infinitive of \sunag\, old verb, probably here to meet together as in strkjv@Matthew:28:12|. In strkjv@Acts:14:27| the verb is used of gathering together the church, but here \en ti ekklsii\ excludes that idea. Barnabas met together "in the church" (note first use of the word for the disciples at Antioch). This peculiar phrase accents the leadership and co-operation of Barnabas and Saul in teaching (\didaxai\, first aorist active infinitive) much people. Both infinitives are in the nominative case, the subject of \egeneto\ (it came to pass). {And that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch} (\chrmatisai te prts en Antiocheii tous mathtas Christianous\). This first active infinitive \chrmatisai\ is also a subject of \egeneto\ and is added as a separate item by the use of \te\ rather than \kai\. For the word itself in the sense of divine command see on ¯Matthew:2:12,22; strkjv@Luke:2:26; strkjv@Acts:10:22|. Here and in strkjv@Romans:7:3| it means to be called or named (assuming a name from one's business, \chrma\, from \chraomai\, to use or to do business). Polybius uses it in this sense as here. \Tous mathtas\ (the disciples) is in the accusative of general reference with the infinitive. \Christianous\ (Christians) is simply predicate accusative. This word is made after the pattern of \Herodianus\ (Matthew:22:16|, \Heridianoi\, followers of Herod), \Caesarianus\, a follower of Caesar (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 377, gives papyri examples of the genitive \Kaisaros\ meaning also "belonging to Caesar" like the common adjective \Caesarianus\). It is made thus like a Latin adjective, though it is a Greek word, and it refers to the Hebrew belief in a Messiah (Page). The name was evidently given to the followers of Christ by the Gentiles to distinguish them from the Jews since they were Greeks, not Grecian Jews. The Jews would not call them Christians because of their own use of \Christos\ the Messiah. The Jews termed them Galileans or Nazarenes. The followers of Christ called themselves disciples (learners)...are from the heathen standpoint... (here), strkjv@Acts:26:28| (a term of contempt in the mouth of Agrippa), and strkjv@1Peter:4:16| (persecution from the Roman government). It is a clear distinction from both Jews and Gentiles and it is not strange that it came into use first here in Antioch when the large Greek church gave occasion for it. Later Ignatius was bishop in Antioch and was given to the lions in Rome, and John Chrysostom preached here his wonderful sermons.

rwp@Acts:24:20 @{These men themselves} (\autoi houtoi\). Since the Asiatic Jews are not present and these men are. {Wrong doing} (\adikma\). Or misdeed. Old word from \adike\, to do wrong. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:18:14; strkjv@Revelation:18:5|. Paul uses "\adikma\" from the standpoint of his accusers. "To a less sensitive conscience his action before the Sanhedrin would have seemed venial enough" (Furneaux). {When I stood} (\stantos mou\). Genitive absolute, second aorist active participle of \histmi\ (intransitive), "when I took my stand." {Before the council} (\epi tou sunedriou\). Same use of \epi\ with genitive as in verse 19|.

rwp@Acts:27:27 @{As we were driven to and fro} (\diapheromenn hmn\). Genitive absolute with present passive participle of \diapher\, old verb to bear different ways (\dia=duo\, two), this way and that. Continued to be tossed to and fro in the rough seas. It would seem so to those on board. It does not necessarily mean that the wind had changed. The fourteenth night is reckoned from the time they left Fair Havens. {In the sea of Adria} (\en ti Hadrii\). Not the Adriatic Sea as we now call the sea between Italy and the mainland of Illyricum, but all the lower Mediterranean between Italy and Greece. Luke's usage is like that of Strabo. {Surmised} (\hupenooun\). Imperfect active indicative of \huponoe\, inchoative, began to suspect. {That they were drawing near to some country} (\prosagein tina autois chran\). Infinitive with accusative of general reference in indirect assertion. \Prosag\...writes from the sailor's standpoint that...(\autois\, dative). The sailors heard the sound of breakers and grew uneasy.

rwp@Galatians:4:9 @{Now that ye have come to know God} (\nun de gnontes\). Fine example of the ingressive second aorist active participle of \ginsk\, come to know by experience through faith in Christ. {Rather to be known of God} (\mallon de gnsthentes hupo theou\)...it round to the standpoint of...(verse 6|). {How} (\ps\). "A question full of wonder" (Bengel). See strkjv@1:6|. {Turn ye back again?} (\epistrephete palin?\). Present active indicative, "Are ye turning again?" See \metatithesthe\ in strkjv@1:6|. {The weak and beggarly rudiments} (\ta asthen kai ptcha stoicheia\). The same \stoicheia\ in verse 3| from which they had been delivered, "weak and beggarly," still in their utter impotence from the Pharisaic legalism and the philosophical and religious legalism and the philosophical and religious quests of the heathen as shown by Angus's _The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World_. These were eagerly pursued by many, but they were shadows when caught. It is pitiful today to see some men and women leave Christ for will o' the wisps of false philosophy. {Over again} (\palin anthen\). Old word, from above (\an\) as in strkjv@Matthew:27:51|, from the first (Luke:1:3|), then "over again" as here, back to where they were before (in slavery to rites and rules).

rwp@James:1:17 @{Gift} (\dosis\) {--boon} (\drma\). Both old substantives from the same original verb (\didmi\), to give. \Dosis\ is the act of giving (ending \-sis\), but sometimes by metonymy for the thing given like \ktisis\ for \ktisma\ (Colossians:1:15|). But \drma\ (from \dre\, from \dron\ a gift) only means a gift, a benefaction (Romans:5:16|). The contrast here argues for "giving" as the idea in \dosis\. Curiously enough there is a perfect hexameter line here: \psa do / sis aga / th kai / pn d / rma te / leion\. Such accidental rhythm occurs occasionally in many writers. Ropes (like Ewald and Mayor) argues for a quotation from an unknown source because of the poetical word \drma\, but that is not conclusive. {From above} (\anthen\). That is, from heaven. Cf. strkjv@John:3:31; strkjv@19:11|. {Coming down} (\katabainon\). Present active neuter singular participle of \katabain\ agreeing with \drma\, expanding and explaining \anthen\ (from above). {From the Father of lights} (\apo tou patros tn phtn\). "Of the lights" (the heavenly bodies). For this use of \patr\ see strkjv@Job:38:28| (Father of rain); strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3; strkjv@Ephesians:1:17|. God is the Author of light and lights. {With whom} (\par' hi\). For \para\ (beside)...with locative sense for standpoint of...\para ti thei\ (Mark:10:27; strkjv@Romans:2:11; strkjv@9:14; strkjv@Ephesians:6:9|. {Can be no} (\ouk eni\). This old idiom (also in strkjv@Galatians:3:28; strkjv@Colossians:3:11|) may be merely the original form of \en\ with recessive accent (Winer, Mayor) or a shortened form of \enesti\. The use of \eni en\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:6:5| argues for this view, as does the use of \eine\ (\einai\) in Modern Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 313). {Variation} (\parallag\). Old word from \parallass\, to make things alternate, here only in N.T. In Aristeas in sense of alternate stones in pavements. Dio Cassius has \parallaxis\ without reference to the modern astronomical parallax, though James here is comparing God (Father of the lights) to the sun (Malachi:4:2|), which does have periodic variations. {Shadow that is cast by turning} (\trops aposkiasma\). \Trop\ is an old word for "turning" (from \trep\ to turn), here only in N.T. \Aposkiasma\ is a late and rare word (\aposkiasmos\ in Plutarch) from \aposkiaz\ (\apo, skia\) a shade cast by one object on another. It is not clear what the precise metaphor is, whether the shadow thrown on the dial (\aposkiaz\ in Plato) or the borrowed light of the moon lost to us as it goes behind the earth. In fact, the text is by no means certain, for Aleph B papyrus of fourth century actually read \h trops aposkiasmatos\ (the variation of the turning of the shadow). Ropes argues strongly for this reading, and rather convincingly. At any rate there is no such periodic variation in God like that we see in the heavenly bodies.

rwp@James:1:27 @{Pure religion and undefiled} (\thrskeia kathara kai amiantos\). Numerous examples in papyri and inscriptions of \thrskeia\ for ritual and reverential worship in the Roman Empire (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_; Deissmann, _St. Paul_, p. 251). As Hort shows, this is not a definition of religion or religious worship, but only a pertinent illustration of the right spirit of religion which leads to such acts. {Before our God and Father} (\para ti thei kai patri\). By the side of (\para\)...and so from God's standpoint... (Mark:10:27|). \Amiantos\ (compound verbal adjective, alpha privative, \miain\ to defile), puts in negative form (cf. strkjv@1:4,6|) the idea in \kathara\ (pure, clean). This (\haut\). Feminine demonstrative pronoun in the predicate agreeing with \thrskeia\. {To visit} (\episkeptesthai\). Epexegetic (explaining \haut\) present middle infinitive of \episkeptomai\, common verb to go to see, to inspect, present tense for habit of going to see. See strkjv@Matthew:25:36,43| for visiting the sick. {The fatherless and widows} (\orphanous kai chras\). "The natural objects of charity in the community" (Ropes). \Orphanos\ is old word for bereft of father or mother or both. In N.T. only here and strkjv@John:14:18|. Note order (orphans before widows). {Unspotted} (\aspilon\). Old adjective (alpha privative and \spilos\, spot), spotless. This the more important of the two illustrations and the hardest to execute. {To keep} (\trein\). Present active infinitive, "to keep on keeping oneself un-specked from the world" (a world, \kosmos\, full of dirt and slime that bespatters the best of men).

rwp@James:3:13 @{Who} (\Tis\). Rhetorical interrogative like strkjv@Luke:11:11|...here returns to the standpoint of...1| about many teachers. Speech and wisdom are both liable to abuse (1Corinthians:1:5,17; strkjv@2:1-3:20|). {Wise and understanding} (\sophos kai epistmn\). \Sophos\ is used for the practical teacher (verse 1|), \epistmn\ (old word from \epistamai\, here only in N.T.) for an expert, a skilled and scientific person with a tone of superiority. In strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:13,15; strkjv@4:6|, the two terms are practically synonyms. {Let him shew} (\deixat\). First aorist active imperative of \deiknumi\, old verb to show. As about faith in strkjv@2:18|. Emphatic position of this verb. {By his good life} (\ek ts kals anastrophs\). For this literary _Koin_ word from \anastrephomai\ (walk, conduct) see strkjv@Galatians:1:13|. Actions speak louder than words even in the case of the professional wise man. Cf. strkjv@1Peter:1:15|. {In meekness of wisdom} (\en prautti sophias\). As in strkjv@1:21| of the listener, so here of the teacher. Cf. strkjv@Matthew:5:5; strkjv@11:29| and Zac strkjv@9:9| of King Messiah quoted in strkjv@Matthew:21:5|. Startling combination.

rwp@Info_John @ A BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE (SINCE 1880) ABBOT, EZRA, _On the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_. ABBOT, PEABODY, and LIGHTFOOT, _The Fourth Gospel_. ABBOTT, E.A., _Johannine Vocabulary_.,_Johannine Grammar_. APPEL, _Die Echtheit des Johannesevangeliums_. ASKWITH, E.H., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_. BACON, B.W., _The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate_. BALDENSPERGER, W., _Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums_. BARTH, K., _The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels_. BAUER, W., _Das Johannes-Evangelium_. 2 Aufl.. BELZER, _Das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes_. BERNARD, J. H., _Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1929), in Int. Crit. Comm. BERT, _Das Evangelium des Johannes_. BLASS, F., _Evangelium secundum Johannem_. BROOKE, A. E., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (Cambridge Biblical Essays, pp. 289 to 328. 1909). BURCH, VACHER, _The Structure and Message of St. John's Gospel_. BURNEY, C. F., _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_. CALMES, _L'Evangile selon S. Jean_. CANDLER, W. A., _Practical Studies in the Gospel of John_ (3 vols,, 1912-15). CARPENTER, J. ESTLIN, _The Johannine Writings_. CHAPMAN, DOM JOHN, _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_. CHARNWOOD, LORD, _According to St. John_. CLEMEN, C., _Die Entstehung des Johannesevangeliums_. D'ALMA, _Lamentations:Controverse du quatrieme evangile_.,Philo et le quotrieme evangile_. DAUSCH' _Das Johannesevangelium_. DELFF, H., _Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt_.,Neue Beitrage zur Kritik und Erklarung des vierten Evangeliums. DODS, M., _Expositor's Bible_ (2 vols., 1891).,Expositor's Greek Testament_. DRUMMOND, JAMES, _An Inquiry into the Character and Author- ship of the Fourth Gospel_. EVANS, H. H., _St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel_. EWALD, P., _Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage und der Weg zu seiner Losung_. FOUARD, S., _Jean et la hn de l'age apostolique_. GARDNER, P., _The Ephesian Gospel_. GARVIE, A. E., _The Beloved Disciple_. GOBEL, _Die Reden des Herrn nach Johannes_ (2 vols., 1906, 1910). GODET, F., _Comm. on the Gospel of St. John_ (Tr., 2 vols., 1886--90). GOGUEL, M., _Les sources du recit Johannique de la Passion_.,Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_. GORDON, S. D., _Quiet Talks on St. John's Gospel_. GORE, C., _Exposition of the Gospel of John_. GREEN, A. V., _The Ephesian Canonical Writings_. GREGORY, C. R., _Wellhausen und Johannes_. GRILL, J., _Untersuchungen uber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums_. GUMBEL, _Das Johannesevangelium Eine Erganzung des Lukas ev_.. HARRIS, J. RENDEL, _The Origin of the Prologue to St. John's Gospel_. HAYES, D. A., _John and His Writings_. HOERNLE, E. S., _The Record of the Loved Disciple_ etc.. HOLLAND, H. S., _The Philosophy of Faith and the Fourth Gospel_.,_The Fourth Gospel_. HOLTZMANN, H. J., _Evangelium, Briefe, und Offenbarung des Johannes_. 3 Aufl.. HOLTZMANN, _Hand-Comm_. 3 Aufl. von Bauer. HOVEY, A. H., _In American Comm_.. HOWARD, W. F., _The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation_. IVERACH, JAMES, _Gospel of John_ (Int. Stand. Bible Encycl.). JACKSON, H. L., _The Fourth Gospel and Some Recent German Criticism_.,_The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_. JOHNSTON, J. S., _The Philosophy of the Fourth Gospel_. KEISKER, _The Inner Witness of the Fourth Gospel_. KREYENBUHL, _Neue Losung der Johanneischen Frage_. LARFIELD, _Die beide Johannes von Ephesus_. LEATHES, STANLEY, _The Witness of St. John to Christ_. LEPIN, _L'origine du quatrieme evangile_ (1907; 1927).,_Lamentations:valeur historique du quatrieme euangile_. LEWIS, F. G., _The Irenaeus Testimony to the Fourth Gospel_. LEWIS, F. G., _Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel_. LIGHTFOOT, J. B., _Biblical Essays_ (pages 1-198; I-III, 1893). LLOYD, J. P. D., _The Son of Thunder_. LOISY, A., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_. LOWRIE, _The Doctrine of John_. LYMAN, MARY ELY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Life of Today_. MANSON, W., _The Incarnate Glory_. MAURICE, F. D., _The Gospel of St. John_. McGREGoR, G. H., _The Moffatt Commentary_. MONTGOMERY, J. A., _The Origin of the Gospel According to St. John_. MOUSE, _Johannes und Paulus_. MUIRHEAD, L. A., _The Message of the Fourth Gospel_. NOLLOTH, C. F., _The Fourth Evangelist_. NUNN, H. P. V., _The Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel. ORR, JAMES, _The Authenticity of St. John's Gospel Deduced from Internal Evidence_. OVERBECK, _Das Johannesevangelium_. PLUMMER, A., _Cambridge Greek Testament_. REVILLE, J., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_. REYNOLDS, H. R., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D. B., 1899). RICHMOND, W., _The Gospel of the Rejection_. ROBERTSON, A. T., _The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John_. ROBINSON, A., _The Historical Character of St. John's Gospel_. ROBINSON, B. W., _The Gospel of John_. SANDAY, W., _Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_. SCHLATTER, _Die Sprache und Heimath des vierten Evangelisten_. SCHMIEDEL, P. W., _The Johannine Writings_. SCOTT, E. F., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology_. SCOTT, E. F., _The Historical and Religious Value of the Fourth Gospel_. SCOTT-MONCRIEFF, C. E., _St. John, Apostle, Evangelist and Prophet_. SELBIE, W. B., _Belief and Life: Studies in the Thought of the Fourth Gospel_. SMITH, J. R., _The Teaching of the Fourth Gospel_. SMITH, P. V., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Historical Importance_. SPEER, R. E., _The Greatest Book in the World_. SPITTA, F., _Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu_. STANGE, _Die Eigenart des Johanneischen Produktion_. STANTON, V. H., _The Fourth Gospel_ (Part III of Gospels as Hist. Documents, 1921). STEVENS, G. B., _The Johannine Theology_. STRACHAN, R. H., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D C G 1906).,The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environ- ment_.,The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian_. TILLMANN, FRITZ, _Das Johannesevangelium Uebersetzt und Erklart_. VEDDER, H. C., _The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problems_. WARSCHAUER, J., _The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_. WATKINS, W. H., _Modern Criticism Considered in its Rela- tion to the Fourth Gospel_. WATSON, H. A., _The Mysticism of St. John's Gospel_. WEARING, _The World View of the Fourth Gospel_. WEISS, B., _Meyer Komm_. 9 Aufl..,_Das Johannesevangelium als einheitliches Werk_. WELLHAUSEN, J., _Das Evangelium Johannis_. WENDT, H. H., _The Gospel according to St. John: An Inquiry into its Genesis and Historical Value_.,_Die Schichten im vierten Evangelium_. WESTCOTT, B. F., _The Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1908). WHITELAW, _The Gospel of John_. WINDISCH, H., _Johannes und die Synoptiker_. WORSLEY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists_. WREDE, W., _Charakter und Tendenz del Johannesevangelium_. ZAHN, TH., _Dal Evangelium Johannis. 6 Aufl.. strkjv@John:1:1 @{In the beginning} (\en archi\). \Arch\ is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew _be reshith_ in strkjv@Genesis:1:1|. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. {Was} (\n\). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of \eimi\ to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (\egeneto\, became) appears in verse 14| for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in strkjv@8:58| "before Abraham came (\genesthai\) I am" (\eimi\, timeless existence). {The Word} (\ho logos\). \Logos\ is from \leg\, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. \Logos\ is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (\anima mundi\) and Marcus Aurelius used \spermatikos logos\ for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew _memra_ was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in strkjv@Proverbs:8:23|. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (_The Origin of the _Prologue to St. John_, p. 43)...At any rate John's standpoint is...\Logos\, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term \Logos\ is applied to Christ only in strkjv@John:1:1,14; strkjv@Revelation:19:13; strkjv@1John:1:1| "concerning the Word of life" (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God" in strkjv@Hebrews:4:12|. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f.; strkjv@Colossians:1:17|) and in strkjv@Hebrews:1:2f.| and in strkjv@John:17:5|. This term suits John's purpose better than \sophia\ (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the \aeon\ Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh" (\sarx egeneto\, verse 14|) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. {With God} (\pros ton theon\). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. \Pros\ with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In strkjv@1John:2:1| we have a like use of \pros\: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (\paraklton echomen pros ton patera\). See \prospon pros prospon\ (face to face, strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|), a triple use of \pros\. There is a papyrus example of \pros\ in this sense \to gnston ts pros alllous suntheias\, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., _Vocabulary_) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, _Origin of Prologue_, p. 8) that the use of \pros\ here and in strkjv@Mark:6:3| is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is _Koin_, not old Attic. In strkjv@John:17:5| John has \para soi\ the more common idiom. {And the Word was God} (\kai theos n ho logos\). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying \ho theos n ho logos\. That would mean that all of God was expressed in \ho logos\ and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (\ho logos\) and the predicate without it (\theos\) just as in strkjv@John:4:24| \pneuma ho theos\ can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." Songs:in strkjv@1John:4:16| \ho theos agap estin\ can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 767f. Songs:in strkjv@John:1:14| \ho Logos sarx egeneto\, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

rwp@John:2:4 @{Woman} (\gunai\). Vocative case of \gun\, and with no idea of censure as is plain from its use by Jesus in strkjv@19:26|. But the use of \gunai\ instead of \mter\ (Mother) does show her she can no longer exercise maternal authority and not at all in his Messianic work. That is always a difficult lesson for mothers and fathers to learn, when to let go. {What have I to do with thee?} (\Ti emoi kai soi;\). There are a number of examples of this ethical dative in the LXX (Judges:11:12; strkjv@2Samuel:16:10; strkjv@1Kings:17:18; strkjv@2Kings:3:13; strkjv@2Chronicles:35:21|) and in the N.T. (Mark:1:24; strkjv@5:7; strkjv@Matthew:8:29; strkjv@27:19; strkjv@Luke:8:28|). Some divergence of thought is usually indicated. Literally the phrase means, "What is it to me and to thee?" In this instance F.C. Burkitt (_Journal of Theol. Studies_, July, 1912) interprets it to mean, "What is it to us?" That is certainly possible and suits the next clause also. {Mine hour is not yet come} (\oup hkei h hra mou\). This phrase marks a crisis whenever it occurs, especially of his death (7:30; strkjv@8:20; strkjv@12:23; strkjv@13:1; strkjv@17:1|). Here apparently it means the hour for public manifestation of the Messiahship, though a narrower sense would be for Christ's intervention about the failure of the wine. The Fourth Gospel is written on the plane of eternity (W. M. Ramsay) and that standpoint exists here in this first sign of the Messiah.

rwp@Luke:1:5 @{There was} (\egeneto\). Not the usual \en\ for "was," but there arose or came into notice. With this verse the literary _Koin_ of verses 1 to 4 disappears. To the end of chapter 2 we have the most Hebraistic (Aramaic) passage in Luke's writings, due evidently to the use of documents or notes of oral tradition. Plummer notes a series of such documents ending with strkjv@1:80, strkjv@2:40, strkjv@2:52|...gives his from the standpoint of...(Plummer). {Herod, King of Judea} (\Hridou basiles ts Ioudaias\). This note of time locates the events before the death of Herod the Great (as he was called later), appointed King of Judea by the Roman Senate B.C. 40 at the suggestion of Octavius and Antony. He died B.C. 4. {Of the course of Abijah} (\ex ephmerias Abia\). Not in old Greek, but in LXX and modern Greek. Papyri have a verb derived from it, \ephmere\. Daily service (Nehemiah:13:30; strkjv@1Chronicles:25:8|) and then a course of priests who were on duty for a week (1Chronicles:23:6; strkjv@28:13|). There were 24 such courses and that of Abijah was the eighth (1Chronicles:24:10; strkjv@2Chronicles:8:14|). Only four of these courses (Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, Harim) returned from Babylon, but these four were divided into twenty-four with the old names. Each of these courses did duty for eight days, sabbath to sabbath, twice a year. On sabbaths the whole course did duty. At the feast of tabernacles all twenty-four courses were present. {Of the daughters of Aaron} (\ek tn thugatern Aarn\). "To be a priest and married to a priest's daughter was a double distinction" (Plummer). Like a preacher married to a preacher's daughter.

rwp@Luke:7:39 @{This man} (\houtos\). Contemptuous, this fellow. {If he were a (the) prophet} (\ei n [ho] prophts\). Condition of the second class, determined as unfulfilled. The Pharisee assumes that Jesus is not a prophet (or the prophet, reading of B, that he claims to be)...the thing from the standpoint of...{Would have perceived} (\eginsken an\). Wrong translation, would now perceive or know (which he assumes that Jesus does not do). The protasis is false and the conclusion also. He is wrong in both. The conclusion (apodosis), like the condition, deals here with the present situation and so both use the imperfect indicative (\an\ in the conclusion, a mere device for making it plain that it is not a condition of the first class). {Who and what manner of woman} (\tis kai potap h gun\). She was notorious in person and character.

rwp@Luke:10:36 @{Proved neighbour to him that fell} (\plsion gegonenai tou empesontos\). Second perfect infinitive of \ginomai\ and second aorist active participle of \empipt\...has changed the lawyer's standpoint and...(\toutn tn trin\, priest, Levite, Samaritan) acted like a neighbour to the wounded man.

rwp@Luke:12:36 @{When he shall return from the marriage feast} (\pote analusi ek tn gamn\). The interrogative conjunction \pote\ and the deliberative aorist subjunctive retained in the indirect question. The verb \analu\, very common Greek verb, but only twice in the N.T. (here and strkjv@Phillipians:1:23|)...figure is from the standpoint of...(plural as used of a single wedding feast in strkjv@Luke:14:8|), departing from there. See on ¯Matthew:22:2|. {When he cometh and knocketh} (\elthontos kai krousantos\). Genitive absolute of the aorist active participle without \autou\ and in spite of \autoi\ (dative) being used after \anoixsin\ (first aorist active subjunctive of \anoig\).

rwp@Luke:15:2 @{Both... and} (\te... kai\). United in the complaint. {Murmured} (\diegogguzon\). Imperfect active of \diagogguz\, late Greek compound in the LXX and Byzantine writers. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:19:7|. The force of \dia\ here is probably between or among themselves. It spread (imperfect tense) whenever these two classes came in contact with Jesus. As the publicans and the sinners were drawing near to Jesus just in that proportion the Pharisees and the scribes increased their murmurings. The social breach is here an open yawning chasm. {This man} (\houtos\). A contemptuous sneer in the use of the pronoun. They spoke out openly and probably pointed at Jesus. {Receiveth} (\prosdechetai\). Present middle indicative of the common verb \prosdechomai\. In strkjv@12:36| we had it for expecting, here it is to give access to oneself, to welcome like \hupedexato\ of Martha's welcome to Jesus (Luke:10:38|). The charge here is that this is the habit of Jesus. He shows no sense of social superiority to these outcasts (like the Hindu "untouchables" in India). {And eateth with them} (\kai sunesthiei autois\). Associative instrumental case (\autois\) after \sun-\ in composition. This is an old charge (Luke:5:30|)...serious breach from the standpoint of...(the Pharisees and the scribes) because he is like them in character and tastes, even with the harlots. There was a sting in the charge that he was the "friend" (\philos\) of publicans and sinners (Luke:7:34|).

rwp@Mark:2:16 @{The scribes of the Pharisees} (\hoi grammateis tn Pharisain\). This is the correct text. Cf. "their scribes" in strkjv@Luke:5:30|. Matthew gave a great reception (\dochn\, strkjv@Luke:5:29|) in his house (Mark:2:15|). These publicans and sinners not simply accepted Levi's invitation, but they imitated his example "and were following Jesus" (\kai kolouthoun auti\)...motly crew from the standpoint of...(Acts:11:3|) and publicans and sinners were regarded like Gentiles (1Corinthians:5:11|).

rwp@Info_Matthew @...wonderful story from the standpoint of...

rwp@Matthew:1:18 @{Of the Holy Ghost} (\ek pneumatos hagiou\). The discovery that Mary was pregnant was inevitable and it is plain that she had not told Joseph. She "was found with child" (\heureth en gastri echousa\). This way of putting it, the usual Greek idiom, plainly shows that it was the discovery that shocked Joseph. He did not as yet know what Matthew plainly asserts that the Holy Ghost, not Joseph and not any man, was responsible for the pregnancy of Mary. The problem of the Virgin Birth of Jesus has been a disturbing fact to some through all the ages and is today to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the Son of God, before his Incarnation on earth. This is the primal fact about the Birth of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ is clearly stated by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|; and involved in strkjv@Colossians:1:15-19|) and by John (John:1:14; strkjv@17:5|). If one frankly admits the actual pre-existence of Christ and the real Incarnation, he has taken the longest and most difficult step in the matter of the supernatural Birth of Christ. That being true, no merely human birth without the supernatural element can possibly explain the facts. Incarnation is far more than the Indwelling of God by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. To admit real incarnation and also full human birth, both father and mother, creates a greater difficulty than to admit the Virgin Birth of Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew here says, and born of the Virgin Mary. It is true that only Matthew and Luke tell the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus, though strkjv@John:1:14|...gives it from the standpoint of...3:16| is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us.

rwp@Matthew:22:13 @{Was speechless} (\epsimth\). Was muzzled, dumb from confusion and embarrassment. It is used of the ox (1Timothy:5:18|). {The outer darkness} (\to skotos to exteron\). See strkjv@Matthew:8:12|...the blacker from the standpoint of...{There shall be} (\ekei estai\). Out there in the outer darkness.

rwp@Philemon:1:13 @{I would fain have kept} (\eboulomn katechein\)...back." Again from the standpoint of...{In thy behalf} (\huper sou\). Songs:"in thy stead," "in place of thee." {He might minister} (\diakoni\). Present active subjunctive (retained after \eboulomn\) with \hina\, purpose continued, "that he might keep on ministering."

rwp@Revelation:22:17 @{The Spirit and the bride} (\to pneuma kai h numph\). The Holy Spirit, speaking through the prophets or the Spirit of prophecy (2:7; strkjv@16:4; strkjv@18:24|), joins with the bride (21:2|), the people of God, in a response to the voice of Jesus just heard. After the picture of heaven in strkjv@22:1-5| there is intense longing (19:7|) of God's people for the consummation of the marriage of the Lamb and the Bride. Songs:now "the prophets and the saints" (Swete) make a common plea to the Lord Jesus to "come" (\Erchou\, present middle imperative of \erchomai\, Come on) as he has just said twice that he would do (22:1,12|). The call for Christ is to be repeated by every hearer (\ho akoun\) as in strkjv@1:3|. {Let him come} (\erchesth\). Change of person and this verb applied not to Christ as just before, but to the one who wishes to greet Christ. The thirsty man is bidden to come himself before it is too late. See strkjv@5:6| for \dipsa\, used for spiritual thirst, and in particular strkjv@John:6:35; strkjv@7:37| for one thirsting for the water of life (21:6; strkjv@22:1|). Cf. strkjv@Isaiah:55:1|. {He that will} (\ho theln\). Even if not yet eagerly thirsting. This one is welcome also. For this use of \thel\ see strkjv@Phillipians:2:13|. {Let him take} (\labet\). Second ingressive aorist active imperative of \lamban\. In accordance with the free promise in strkjv@21:6|, "freely" (\drean\)...drop back to the standpoint before...17| we hear the voice of the Spirit of God inviting all who hear and see to heed and to come and drink of the water of life freely offered by the Lamb of God.

rwp@Romans:2:20 @{A corrector of the foolish} (\paideutn aphronn\). Old word (from \paideu\) for instructor, in Plato, and probably so here, though corrector or chastiser in strkjv@Hebrews:12:9| (the only N.T. instances). See strkjv@Luke:23:16|. Late inscriptions give it as instructor (Preisigke). \Aphronn\...it is the Jewish standpoint that...{Of babes} (\npin\). Novitiates or proselytes to Judaism just as in strkjv@Galatians:4:1|. Paul used it of those not of legal age. {The form} (\tn morphsin\). Rare word only in Theophrastus and Paul (here and strkjv@2Timothy:3:5|). Pallis regards it as a Stoical term for education. Lightfoot considers the \morphsis\ as "the rough-sketch, the pencilling of the \morph\," the outline or framework, and in strkjv@2Timothy:3:5| "the outline without the substance." This is Paul's picture of the Jew as he sees himself drawn with consummate skill and subtle irony.

CONCORD standpoint