rwp - 64

rwp@Info_1Peter @ THE PERSECUTION PICTURED IN THE EPISTLE Peter himself knew what persecution was at the hands of the Sanhedrin and of Herod Agrippa I (both church and state)...in Rome in A.D. 64 to...60 to 70 to deny that the fiery trials and suffering as a Christian (1Peter:4:16|) can be true of this period. Songs:we locate the persecution at this time as an echo from Rome.

rwp@1Peter:4:16 @{But if as a Christian} (\ei de hs Christianos\). Supply the verb \paschei\ (condition of first class, "if one suffer as a Christian"). This word occurs only three times in the N.T. (Acts:11:26; strkjv@26:28; strkjv@1Peter:4:16|). It is word of Latin formation coined to distinguish followers of Christ from Jews and Gentiles (Acts:11:26|). Each instance bears that idea. It is not the usual term at first like \mathtai\ (disciples), saints (\hagioi\), believers (\pisteuontes\), etc. The Jews used \Nazraioi\ (Nazarenes) as a nickname for Christians (Acts:24:5|). By A.D. 64 the name Christian was in common use in Rome (Tacitus, Ann. XV. 44). Owing to itacism it was sometimes spelled \Chrstianoi\ (\i, ei\ and \\ pronounced alike). {Let him not be ashamed} (\m aischunesth\). Prohibition with \m\ and present passive imperative of \aischun\. Peter had once been ashamed to suffer reproach or even a sneer for being a disciple of Christ (Mark:14:68|). See the words of Jesus in strkjv@Mark:8:38| and Paul's in strkjv@2Timothy:1:12|. Peter is not ashamed now. In this name (\en ti onomati touti\). Of Christian as in strkjv@Mark:9:41|, "because ye are Christ's."

rwp@Info_2Peter @...who argue for A.D. 64 as...

rwp@Info_Epistles-Pastorial @ Objections on internal grounds are made on the lines laid down by Baur and followed by Renan. They are chiefly four. The "most decisive" as argued by McGiffert (_History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age_, p. 402) is that "the Christianity of the Pastoral Epistles is not the Christianity of Paul." He means as we know Paul in the other Epistles. But this charge is untrue. It is true that Paul here lists faith with the virtues, but he does that in strkjv@Galatians:5:22|. Nowhere does Paul give a loftier word about faith than in strkjv@1Timothy:1:12-17|. Another objection urged is that the ecclesiastical organization seen in the Pastoral Epistles belongs to the second century, not to the time of Paul's life. Now we have the Epistles of Ignatius in the early part of the second century in which "bishop" is placed over "elders" of which there is no trace in the New Testament (Lightfoot). A forger in the second century would certainly have reproduced the ecclesiastical organization of that century instead of the first as we have it in the Pastoral Epistles. There is only here the normal development of bishop (=elder)...Paul was executed A.D. 64, this...(_The Apostolic Age_) tries to make room for them in the period covered by the Acts. Duncan makes the same attempt for the Pauline scraps admitted by him as belonging to the hypothecated imprisonment in Ephesus. But, if we admit the release of Paul from the first Roman imprisonment, there is ample room before his execution in A.D. 68 for the events referred to in the Pastoral Epistles and the writing of the letters (his going east to Ephesus, Macedonia, to Crete, to Troas, to Corinth, to Miletus, to Nicopolis, to Rome), including the visit to Spain before Crete once planned for (Romans:15:24,28|) and mentioned by Clement of Rome as a fact ("the limit of the west"). The fourth objection is that of the language in the Pastoral Epistles. Probably more men are influenced by this argument than by any other. The ablest presentation of this difficulty is made by P. N. Harrison in _The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles_. Besides the arguments Dr. Harrison has printed the Greek text in a fashion to help the eye see the facts. Words not in the other Pauline Epistles are in red, Pauline phrases (from the other ten) are underlined, _hapax legomena_ are marked by an asterisk. At a superficial glance one can see that the words here not in the other Pauline Epistles and the common Pauline phrases are about equal. The data as to mere words are broadly as follows according to Harrison: Words in the Pastorals, not elsewhere in the N.T. (Pastoral _hapax legomena_) 175 (168 according to Rutherford); words in the other ten Pauline Epistles not elsewhere in the N.T. 470 (627 according to Rutherford). Variations in MSS. will account for some of the difficulty of counting. Clearly there is a larger proportion of new words in the Pastorals (about twice as many) than in the other Pauline Epistles. But Harrison's tables show remarkable differences in the other Epistles also. The average of such words per page in Romans is 4, but 5.6 in II Corinthians, 6.2 in Philippians, and only 4 in Philemon. Parry (_Comm._, p. CXVIII) notes that of the 845 words in the Pastorals as compared with each other 278 occur only in I Tim., 96 only in Titus, 185 only in II Tim. "If vocabulary alone is taken, this would point to separate authorship of each epistle." And yet the same style clearly runs through all three. After all vocabulary is not wholly a personal problem. It varies with age in the same person and with the subject matter also. Precisely such differences exist in the writings of Shakespeare and Milton as critics have long ago observed. The only problem that remains is whether the differences are so great in the Pastoral Epistles as to prohibit the Pauline authorship when "Paul the aged" writes on the problem of pastoral leadership to two of the young ministers trained by him who have to meet the same incipient Gnostic heresy already faced in Colossians and Ephesians. My judgment is that, all things considered, the contents and style of the Pastoral Epistles are genuinely Pauline, mellowed by age and wisdom and perhaps written in his own hand or at least by the same amanuensis in all three instances. Lock suggests Luke as the amanuensis for the Pastorals.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @...places it between A.D. 64 and...67. Harnack and Holtzmann prefer a date between 81 and 96. Marcus Dods argues strongly that the Epistle was written while the temple was still standing. If it was already destroyed, it is hard to understand how the author could have written strkjv@Hebrews:10:1f.|: "Else would they not have ceased to be offered?" And in strkjv@Hebrews:8:13| "nigh to vanishing away" (\eggus aphanismou\) is only intelligible with the temple service still going on. The author makes use of the tabernacle instead of the temple because the temple was patterned after the tabernacle. On the other hand, the mention of Timothy in strkjv@Hebrews:13:23| as being "set free" (\apolelumenon\) raises an inquiry concerning Paul's last plea to Timothy to come to him in Rome (2Timothy:4:11-13|). Apparently Timothy came and was put in prison. If so, since Paul was put to death before Nero's own death (June 8, A.D. 68), there is left only the years 67 to 69 A.D. as probable or even possible. It is thus the last of the New Testament books before the Johannine Writings all of which come towards the close of the century and after the destruction of Jerusalem.

rwp@Revelation:12:13 @{He persecuted} (\edixen\). First aorist active participle of \dik\, to pursue, to chase, hostile pursuit here as in strkjv@Matthew:5:10f.; strkjv@10:23|, etc. John now, after the "voice" in 10-13|, returns to the narrative in verse 9|. The child was caught away in verse 5|, and now the woman (the true Israel on earth)...Perhaps events since A.D. 64... (burning of Rome by Nero) amply illustrated this vision, and they still do so. {Which} (\htis\). "Which very one."

rwp@Revelation:18:24 @{In her} (\en auti\). In Rome. {Was found} (\heureth\). First aorist passive indicative of \heurisk\. See strkjv@16:6; strkjv@17:6| for the blood already shed by Rome. Rome "butchered to make a Roman holiday" (Dill, _Roman Society_, p. 242)...from Nero's massacre A.D. 64 to...{Of all that have been slain} (\pantn tn esphagmenn\). Perfect passive articular participle genitive plural of \sphaz\, the verb used of the Lamb slain (5:9,12; strkjv@13:8|). Cf. strkjv@Matthew:23:35| about Jerusalem.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ EMPEROR WORSHIP AS THE OCCASION FOR JOHN'S APOCALYPSE There is no doubt at all that the emperor cult (emperor worship) played a main part in the persecution of the Christians that was the occasion for this great Christian apocalypse. The book itself bears ample witness to this fact, if the two beasts refer to the Roman power as the agent of Satan. It is not possible to single out each individual emperor in the graphic picture. Most would take the dragon to be Satan and the first and the second beasts to be the imperial and provincial Roman power. The Roman emperors posed as gods and did the work of Satan. In particular there were two persecuting emperors (Nero and Domitian) who were responsible for many martyrs for Christ. But emperor worship began before Nero. Julius Caesar was worshipped in the provinces. Octavius was called Augustus (\Sebastos\, Reverend)...and blamed in A.D. 64 the..._Dominus ac Deus noster_ (Our Lord and God). The worship of the emperor did not disturb the worshippers of other gods save the Jews and the Christians, and in particular the Christians were persecuted after the burning of Rome when they were distinguished from the Jews. Up till then Christians were regarded (as by Gallio in Corinth) as a variety of Jews and so entitled to tolerance as a _religio licita_, but they had no standing in law by themselves and their refusal to worship the emperor early gave offence, as Paul indicates in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3|. It was \Kurios Isous\ or \Kurios Kaisar\. On this very issue Polycarp lost his life. The emperors as a rule were tolerant about it, save Nero and Domitian, who was called Nero _redivivus_, or Nero back again. Trajan in his famous letter to Pliny advised tolerance except in stubborn cases, when the Christians had to be put to death. After Nero it was a crime to be a Christian and all sorts of slanders about them were circulated. We have seen already in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3ff.|, the man of sin who sets himself above God as the object of worship. We have seen also in strkjv@1John:2:18,22; strkjv@4:3; strkjv@2John:1:7| the term antichrist applied apparently to Gnostic heretics. One may wonder if, as Beckwith argues, in the Apocalypse the man of sin and the antichrist are united in the beast.

CONCORD 64