rwp - heretics

rwp@1Corinthians:7:1 @{Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote} (\peri de hn egrapsate\). An ellipsis of \peri toutn\, the antecedent of \peri hn\, is easily supplied as in papyri. The church had written Paul a letter in which a number of specific problems about marriage were raised. He answers them _seriatim_. The questions must be clearly before one in order intelligently to interpret Paul's replies. The first is whether a single life is wrong. Paul pointedly says that it is not wrong, but good (\kalon\). One will get a one-...the marks of certain heretics will...(1Timothy:4:3|). Paul uses marriage as a metaphor of our relation to Christ (2Corinthians:11:2; strkjv@Romans:7:4; strkjv@Ephesians:5:28-33|). Paul is not here opposing marriage. He is only arguing that celibacy may be good in certain limitations. The genitive case with \haptesthai\ (touch) is the usual construction.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:29 @{Else} (\epei\). Otherwise, if not true. On this use of \epei\ with ellipsis see on ¯5:10; strkjv@7:14|. {Which are baptized for the dead} (\hoi baptizomenoi huper tn nekrn\). This passage remains a puzzle. Stanley gives thirteen interpretations, no one of which may be correct. Over thirty have been suggested. The Greek expositors took it to be about the dead (\huper\ in sense of \peri\ as often as in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:6|) since baptism is a burial and a resurrection (Romans:6:2-6|)...Tertullian tells of some heretics who...(unsaved) in order to save them. Some take it to be baptism over the dead. Others take it to mean that Paul and others were in peril of death as shown by baptism (see verse 30|). {At all} (\hols\). See on ¯5:1|.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ THE PURPOSE Certainly Peter is here concerned chiefly with the heresies of that general region in Asia Minor that so disturbed Paul (Colossians, Ephesians, Pastoral Epistles) and John (Gospel, Epistles, Apocalypse). Paul early foresaw at Miletus these wolves that would ravish the sheep (Acts:20:29f.|)...but here with the heretics that...

rwp@2Peter:1:2 @{Be multiplied} (\plthunthei\). First aorist passive optative of \plthun\ in a wish for the future (volitive use) as in strkjv@1Peter:1:2; strkjv@Jude:1:2|. {In the knowledge} (\en epignsei\). Full (additional, \epi\) knowledge as in strkjv@1:8| (only \gnsis\ in strkjv@1:5,6; strkjv@3:18|), but \epignsin\ again in strkjv@1:3,8; strkjv@2:20|...claims of the Gnostic heretics to...\gnsis\. {Of God and of Jesus our Lord} (\tou theou kai Isou tou kuriou hmn\). At first sight the idiom here seems to require one person as in strkjv@1:1|, though there is a second article (\tou\) before \kuriou\, and \Isou\ is a proper name. But the text here is very uncertain. Bengel, Spitta, Zahn, Nestle accept the short reading of P and some Vulgate MSS. and some minuscles with only \tou kuriou hmn\ (our Lord) from which the three other readings may have come. Elsewhere in II Peter \gnsis\ and \epignsis\ are used of Christ alone. The text of II Peter is not in a good state of preservation.

rwp@2Peter:2:10 @{Chiefly} (\malista\)...now to the libertine heretics... (verses 2,7|). {After the flesh} (\opis sarkos\). Hebraistic use of \opis\ as with \hamartin\ (sins) in strkjv@Isaiah:65:2|. Cf. strkjv@Matthew:4:19; strkjv@1Timothy:5:15|. {Of defilement} (\miasmou\). Old word (from \miain\ strkjv@Titus:1:15|), here only in N.T. {Despise dominion} (\kuriottos kataphronountas\). \Kuriots\ is late word for lordship (perhaps God or Christ) (from \Kurios\), in strkjv@Colossians:1:16; strkjv@Ephesians:1:21; strkjv@Jude:1:8|. Genitive case after \kataphrountas\ (thinking down on, strkjv@Matthew:6:24|). {Daring} (\tolmtai\). Old substantive (from \tolma\, to dare), daring men, here only in N.T. {Self-willed} (\authadeis\). Old adjective (from \autos\ and \hdomai\), self-pleasing, arrogant, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:1:7|. {They tremble not to rail at dignities} (\doxas ou tremousin blasphmountes\). "They tremble not blaspheming dignities." \Trem\ is old verb (Mark:5:33|), used only in present as here and imperfect. Here with the complementary participle \blasphmountes\ rather than the infinitive \blasphmein\. See strkjv@Jude:1:8|. Perhaps these dignities (\doxas\) are angels (\evil\).

rwp@Acts:15:2 @{When Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them} (\Genomens stases kai ztses ouk oligs ti Pauli kai Barnabi pros autous\). Genitive absolute of second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\, genitive singular agreeing with first substantive \stases\. Literally, "No little (litotes for much) strife and questioning coming to Paul and Barnabas (dative case) with them " (\pros autous\, face to face with them). Paul and Barnabas were not willing to see this Gentile church brow-beaten and treated as heretics by these self-appointed regulators of Christian orthodoxy from Jerusalem. The work had developed under the leadership of Paul and Barnabas and they accepted full responsibility for it and stoutly resisted these Judaizers to the point of sedition (riot, outbreak in strkjv@Luke:23:25; strkjv@Acts:19:40|) as in strkjv@23:7|. There is no evidence that the Judaizers had any supporters in the Antioch church so that they failed utterly to make any impression. Probably these Judaizers compelled Paul to think through afresh his whole gospel of grace and so they did Paul and the world a real service. If the Jews like Paul had to believe, it was plain that there was no virtue in circumcision (Galatians:2:15-21|). It is not true that the early Christians had no disagreements. They had selfish avarice with Ananias and Sapphira, murmuring over the gifts to the widows, simony in the case of Simon Magus, violent objection to work in Caesarea, and now open strife over a great doctrine (grace vs. legalism). {The brethren appointed} (\etaxan\). "The brethren" can be supplied from verse 1| and means the church in Antioch. The church clearly saw that the way to remove this deadlock between the Judaizers and Paul and Barnabas was to consult the church in Jerusalem to which the Judaizers belonged. Paul and Barnabas had won in Antioch. If they can win in Jerusalem, that will settle the matter. The Judaizers will be answered in their own church for which they are presuming to speak. The verb \etaxan\ (\tass\, to arrange) suggests a formal appointment by the church in regular assembly. Paul (Galatians:2:2|) says that he went up by revelation (\kat' apokalupsin\), but surely that is not contradictory to the action of the church. {Certain others of them} (\tinas allous\). Certainly Titus (Galatians:2:1,3|), a Greek and probably a brother of Luke who is not mentioned in Acts. Rackham thinks that Luke was in the number. {The apostles and elders} (\tous apostolous kai presbuterous\). Note one article for both (cf. "the apostles and the brethren" in strkjv@11:1|). "Elders" now (11:30|) in full force. The apostles have evidently returned now to the city after the death of Herod Agrippa I stopped the persecution.

rwp@Revelation:2:14 @{There} (\ekei\). That is \par' humin\ (among you). A party in the church that resisted emperor-worship, to the death in the case of Antipas, yet were caught in the insidious wiles of the Nicolaitans which the church in Ephesus withstood. {Some that hold} (\kratountas\). "Men holding" (present active participle of \krate\). {The teaching of Balaam} (\tn didachn Balaam\). Indeclinable substantive Balaam (Numbers:25:1-9; strkjv@31:15f.|)...of likeness of these heretics with...{Taught Balak} (\edidasken ti Balak\). Imperfect indicative of \didask\, Balaam's habit, "as the prototype of all corrupt teachers" (Charles). These early Gnostics practised licentiousness as a principle since they were not under law, but under grace (Romans:6:15|). The use of the dative with \didask\ is a colloquialism rather than a Hebraism. Two accusatives often occur with \didask\. {To cast a stumbling-block} (\balein skandalon\). Second aorist active infinitive (accusative case after \edidasken\) of \ball\, regular use with \skandalon\ (trap) like \tithmi skandalon\ in strkjv@Romans:14:13|. Balaam, as Josephus and Philo also say, showed Balak how to set a trap for the Israelites by beguiling them into the double sin of idolatry and fornication, which often went together (and do so still). {To eat things sacrificed to idols} (\phagein eidlothuta\). Second aorist active infinitive of \esthi\ and the verbal adjective (from \eidlon\ and \thu\), quoted here from strkjv@Numbers:25:1f.|, but in inverse order, repeated in other order in verse 20|. See strkjv@Acts:15:29; strkjv@21:25; strkjv@1Corinthians:8:1ff.| for the controversy over the temptation to Gentile Christians to do what in itself was harmless, but which led to evil if it led to participation in the pagan feasts. Perhaps both ideas are involved here. Balaam taught Balak how to lead the Israelites into sin in both ways.

rwp@Revelation:2:24 @{To you the rest} (\humin tois loipois\). Dative case. Those who hold out against Jezebel, not necessarily a minority (9:20; strkjv@19:21; strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:13|). {As many as} (\hosoi\). Inclusive of all "the rest." {This teaching} (\tn didachn tautn\). That of Jezebel. {Which} (\hoitines\). "Which very ones," generic of the class, explanatory definition as in strkjv@1:7|. {Know not} (\ouk egnsan\). Second aorist (ingressive) active of \ginsk\, "did not come to know by experience." {The deep things of Satan} (\ta bathea tou Satan\). The Ophites (worshippers of the serpent) and other later Gnostics (Cainites, Carpocratians, Naassenes) boasted of their knowledge of "the deep things," some claiming this very language about Satan (the serpent) as Paul did of God (1Corinthians:2:10|). It is not clear whether the words here quoted are a boast of the Nicolaitans or a reproach on the other Christians for not knowing the depths of sin. Some even claimed that they could indulge in immorality without sinning (1John:1:10; strkjv@3:10|). Perhaps both ideas are involved. {As they say} (\hs legousin\)...Probably referring to the heretics who...{None other burden} (\ou--allo baros\). \Baros\ refers to weight (Matthew:20:12|), \phortion\, from \pher\, to bear, refers to load (Galatians:6:5|), \ogkos\ to bulk (Hebrews:12:1|). Apparently a reference to the decision of the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:28|) where the very word \baros\ is used and mention is made about the two items in verse 20| (fornication and idolatry) without mentioning the others about things strangled, etc. See the Pharisaic narrowness in strkjv@Matthew:23:4|.

CONCORD heretics