rwp - subtle

rwp@Info_1John @ THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION RELATION TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL There are few scholars who deny that the Epistles of John and the Fourth Gospel are by the same writer. As a matter of fact "in the whole of the First Epistle there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel" (Schulze). H. J. Holtzmann (_Jahrbuch fur Protestantische Theologie_, 1882, P. 128) in a series of articles on the "Problem of the First Epistle of St. John in its Relation to the Gospel" thinks that the similarities are closer than those between Luke's Gospel and the Acts. Baur argued that this fact was explained by conscious imitation on the part of one or the other, probably by the author of the Epistle. The solution lies either in identity of authorship or in imitation. If there is identity of authorship, Holtzmann argues that the Epistle is earlier, as seems to me to be true, while Brooke holds that the Gospel is the earlier and that the First Epistle represents the more complete ideas of the author. Both Holtzmann and Brooke give a detailed comparison of likenesses between the First Epistle and the Fourth Gospel in vocabulary, syntax, style, ideas. The arguments are not conclusive as to the priority of Epistle or Gospel, but they are as to identity of authorship. One who accepts, as I do, the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel for the reasons given in Volume V of this series, does not feel called upon to prove the Johannine authorship of the three Epistles that pass under the Apostle's name. Westcott suggests that one compare strkjv@John:1:1-18| with strkjv@1John:1:1-4|...can reasonably explain the subtle coincidences...

rwp@Info_1John @...sympathy that constituted a subtle danger....(1John:2:18f.; strkjv@4:1-6|) in which the false teachers are specifically denounced, but "this unethical intellectualism" (Robert Law) with its dash of Greek culture and Oriental mysticism and licentiousness gave a curious attraction for many who did not know how to think clearly. John, like Paul in Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles, foresaw this dire peril to Christianity. In the second century it gave pure Christianity a gigantic struggle. "The great Gnostics were the first Christian philosophers" (Robert Law, _The Tests of Life_, p. 27) and threatened to undermine the Gospel message by "deifying the devil" (ib., p. 31) along with dethroning Christ. There were two kinds of Gnostics, both agreeing in the essential evil of matter. Both had trouble with the Person of Christ. The Docetic Gnostics denied the actual humanity of Christ, the Cerinthian Gnostics distinguished between the man Jesus and the \aeon\ Christ that came on him at his baptism and left him on the Cross. Some practised asceticism, some licentiousness. John opposes both classes in his Epistles. They claimed superior knowledge (\gnsis\) and so were called Gnostics (\Gnstikoi\). Nine times John gives tests for knowing the truth and uses the verb \ginsk\ (know) each time (1John:2:3,5; strkjv@3:16,19,24; strkjv@4:2,6,13; strkjv@5:2|). Some of the leaders he calls antichrists. There are stories about John's dread of Cerinthus and his unwillingness to be seen in the same public bath with him. The Apostle of love, as he is, is a real son of thunder when Gnosticism shows its head. Westcott thinks that the Fourth Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity. Certainly both ideas appear in both books.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:4 @{But even as we have been approved by God} (\alla kaths dedokimasmetha hupo tou theou\). Perfect passive indicative of \dokimaz\, old verb to put to the test, but here the tense for completed state means tested and proved and so approved by God. Paul here claims the call of God for his ministry and the seal of God's blessing on his work and also for that of Silas and Timothy. {To be entrusted with the gospel} (\pisteuthnai to euaggelion\). First aorist passive infinitive of \pisteu\, common verb for believing, from \pistis\ (faith), but here to entrust rather than to trust. The accusative of the thing is retained in the passive according to regular Greek idiom as in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:17; strkjv@Galatians:2:7; strkjv@Romans:3:2; strkjv@1Timothy:1:11; strkjv@Titus:1:3|, though the active had the dative of the person. {Songs:we speak} (\houts laloumen\). Simple, yet confident claim of loyalty to God's call and message. Surely this should be the ambition of every preacher of the gospel of God. {Not as pleasing men} (\ouch hs anthrpois areskontes\). Dative case with \aresk\ as in strkjv@Galatians:1:10|...It is all as subtle as...(the very verb \dokimaz\ used in the beginning of this verse) and he is the only one whose approval matters in the end of the day (1Corinthians:4:5|).

rwp@Acts:22:15 @{A witness for him} (\martus auti\). As in strkjv@1:8|. {Of what} (\hn\). Attraction of the accusative relative \ha\ to the genitive case of the unexpressed antecedent \toutn\. {Thou hast seen and heard} (\herakas\, present perfect active indicative \kai kousas\, first aorist active indicative). This subtle change of tense is not preserved in the English. Blass properly cites the perfect \heraka\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:1| as proof of Paul's enduring qualification for the apostleship.

rwp@Info_Colossians @ THE OCCASION The Epistle itself gives it as being due to the arrival of Epaphras from Colossae (Colossians:1:7-9; strkjv@4:12f.|). He is probably one of Paul's converts while in Ephesus who in behalf of Paul (Colossians:1:7|) evangelized the Lycus Valley (Colossae, Hierapolis, Laodicea) where Paul had never been himself (Colossians:2:1; strkjv@4:13-16|). Since Paul's departure for Rome, the "grievous wolves" whom he foresaw in Miletus (Acts:20:29f.|) had descended upon these churches and were playing havoc with many and leading them astray much as new cults today mislead the unwary. These men were later called Gnostics (see Ignatius) and had a subtle appeal that was not easy to withstand. The air was full of the mystery cults like the Eleusinian mysteries, Mithraism, the vogue of Isis, what not. These new teachers professed new thought with a world-view that sought to explain everything on the assumption that matter was essentially evil and that the good God could only touch evil matter by means of a series of aeons or emanations so far removed from him as to prevent contamination by God and yet with enough power to create evil matter. This jejune theory satisfied many just as today some are content to deny the existence of sin, disease, death in spite of the evidence of the senses to the contrary. In his perplexity Epaphras journeyed all the way to Rome to obtain Paul's help.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @...Romans. The Gnostics in subtle fashion...\aeons\ (Colossians and Ephesians). But in Hebrews the author is battling to stop a stampede from Christ back to Judaism, a revolt (apostasy) in truth from the living God. These Jews argued that the prophets were superior to Jesus, the law came by the ministry of angels, Moses was greater than Jesus, and Aaron than Jesus. The author turns the argument on the Jews and boldly champions the Glory of Jesus as superior at every point to all that Judaism had, as God's Son and man's Saviour, the crown and glory of the Old Testament prophecy, the hope of mankind. It is the first great apologetic for Christianity and has never been surpassed. Moffatt terms it "a profound homily."

rwp@John:8:22 @{Will he kill himself?} (\mti apoktenei heauton;\)...these words is alike subtle and...(Vincent). It was a different group of Jews in strkjv@7:31| who cynically suggested that he was going to work among the Greeks in the Dispersion. Here they infer that Jesus refers to the next world. They suggest the depths of Gehenna for him as the abode of suicides (Josephus, _War_ III. viii. 5). Of course the rabbis could not join Jesus there! Edersheim argues against this view.

rwp@John:11:26 @{Shall never die} (\ou m apothani eis ton aina\). Strong double negative \ou m\ with second aorist active subjunctive of \apothnsk\ again (but spiritual death, this time), "shall not die for ever" (eternal death). {Believest thou this?} (\pisteueis touto;\)...faith with all the subtle turns...

rwp@Luke:4:7 @{Wilt worship before me} (\proskunsis enpion emou\). strkjv@Matthew:4:9| has it more bluntly "worship me." That is what it really comes to, though in Luke the matter is more delicately put. It is a condition of the third class (\ean\ and the subjunctive). Luke has it "thou therefore if" (\su oun ean\)...a very emphatic and subtle way....(\proskunsis\), just bow the knee once up here in my presence. The temptation was for Jesus to admit Satan's authority by this act of prostration (fall down and worship), a recognition of authority rather than of personal merit. {It shall all be thine} (\estai sou psa\). Satan offers to turn over all the keys of world power to Jesus. It was a tremendous grand-stand play, but Jesus saw at once that in that case he would be the agent of Satan in the rule of the world by bargain and graft instead of the Son of God by nature and world ruler by conquest over Satan. The heart of Satan's program is here laid bare. Jesus here rejected the Jewish idea of the Messiah as an earthly ruler merely. "He rejects Satan as an ally, and thereby has him as an implacable enemy" (Plummer.)

rwp@Matthew:4:3 @{If thou art the Son of God} (\ei huios ei tou theou\). More exactly, "If thou art Son of God," for there is no article with "Son." The devil is alluding to the words of the Father to Jesus at the baptism: "This is my Son the Beloved." He challenges this address by a condition of the first class which assumes the condition to be true and deftly calls on Jesus to exercise his power as Son of God to appease his hunger and thus prove to himself and all that he really is what the Father called him. {Become bread} (\artoi genntai\). Literally, "that these stones (round smooth stones which possibly the devil pointed to or even picked up and held) become loaves" (each stone a loaf). It was all so simple, obvious, easy. It would satisfy the hunger of Christ and was quite within his power. {It is written} (\gegraptai\)...Deuteronomy to repel the subtle temptation...8:3| from the Septuagint. Bread is a mere detail (Bruce) in man's dependence upon God.

rwp@Matthew:22:12 @{Not having a wedding-garment} (\m echn enduma gamou\). \M\ is in the _Koin_ the usual negative with participles unless special emphasis on the negative is desired as in \ouk endedumenon\. There is a subtle distinction between \m\ and \ou\ like our subjective and objective notions. Some hold that the wedding-garment here is a portion of a lost parable separate from that of the Wedding Feast, but there is no evidence for that idea. Wunsche does report a parable by a rabbi of a king who set no time for his feast and the guests arrived, some properly dressed waiting at the door; others in their working clothes did not wait, but went off to work and, when the summons suddenly came, they had no time to dress properly and were made to stand and watch while the others partook of the feast.

rwp@Matthew:26:41 @{Watch and pray} (\grgoreite kai proseuchesthe\). Jesus repeats the command of verse 38| with the addition of prayer and with the warning against the peril of temptation. He himself was feeling the worst of all temptations of his earthly life just then. He did not wish then to enter such temptation (\peirasmon\, here in this sense, not mere trial). Thus we are to understand the prayer in strkjv@Matthew:6:13| about leading (being led) into temptation. Their failure was due to weakness of the flesh as is often the case. {Spirit} (\pneuma\) here is the moral life (\intellect, will, emotions\) as opposed to the flesh (cf. strkjv@Isaiah:31:3; strkjv@Romans:7:25|). {Except I drink it} (\ean m auto pi\). Condition of the third class undetermined, but with likelihood of determination, whereas {if this cannot pass away} (\ei ou dunatai touto parelthein\) is first-...of Jesus towards this subtle temptation....

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\ is a hard word for Gentiles, but it is the Jewish standpoint that Paul gives. Each termed the other "dogs." {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|...with consummate skill and subtle irony....

CONCORD subtle