NONE.filter - 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-sided view of Paul's teaching on marriage unless he keeps a proper perspective. One of the marks of certain heretics will be forbidding to marry (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 took it to mean baptized in the place of dead people (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.|). In I Peter he is concerned chiefly with the fiery persecutions that are upon them, but here with the heretics that threaten to lead them astray.

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|. As in Colossians, so here full knowledge is urged against the claims of the Gnostic heretics to special \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:1:6 @{Temperance} (\tn egkrateian\). Self-control. Old word (from \egkrats\, \en\ and \kratos\, one holding himself in as in strkjv@Titus:1:8|), in N.T. only here, strkjv@Acts:24:25; strkjv@Galatians:5:23|. The opposite of the \pleonexia\ of the heretics. {Patience} (\tn hupomonn\). For which see strkjv@James:1:3|. {Godliness} (\tn eusebeian\). For which see verse 3|.

rwp@2Peter:2:1 @{But there arose} (\egenonto de\). Second aorist middle indicative of \ginomai\ (cf. \ginetai\ in strkjv@1:20|). {False prophets also} (\kai pseudoprophtai\). In contrast with the true prophets just pictured in strkjv@1:20f|. Late compound in LXX and Philo, common in N.T. (Matthew:7:15|). Allusion to the O.T. times like Balaam and others (Jeremiah:6:13; strkjv@28:9; strkjv@Ezekiel:13:9|). {False teachers} (\pseudodidaskaloi\). Late and rare compound (\pseuds, didaskalos\) here alone in N.T. Peter pictures them as in the future here (\esontai\, shall be) and again as already present (\eisin\, are, verse 17|), or in the past (\eplanthsan\, they went astray, verse 15|). {Shall privily bring in} (\pareisaxousin\). Future active of \pareisag\, late double compound \pareisag\, to bring in (\eisag\), by the side (\para\), as if secretly, here alone in N.T., but see \pareisaktous\ in strkjv@Galatians:2:4| (verbal adjective of this same verb). {Destructive heresies} (\haireseis apleias\). Descriptive genitive, "heresies of destruction" (marked by destruction) as in strkjv@Luke:16:8|. \Hairesis\ (from \haire\) is simply a choosing, a school, a sect like that of the Sadducees (Acts:5:17|), of the Pharisees (Acts:15:5|), and of Christians as Paul admitted (Acts:24:5|). These "tenets" (Galatians:5:20|) led to destruction. {Denying} (\arnoumenoi\). Present middle participle of \arneomai\. This the Gnostics did, the very thing that Peter did, alas (Matthew:26:70|) even after Christ's words (Matthew:10:33|). {Even the Master} (\kai ton despotn\). Old word for absolute master, here of Christ as in strkjv@Jude:1:4|, and also of God (Acts:4:24|). Without the evil sense in our "despot." {That bought them} (\ton agorasanta autous\). First aorist active articular participle of \agoraz\, same idea with \lutro\ in strkjv@1Peter:1:18f|. These were professing Christians, at any rate, these heretics. {Swift destruction} (\tachinn apleian\). See strkjv@1:14| for \tachinn\ and note repetition of \apleian\. This is always the tragedy of such false prophets, the fate that they bring on (\epagontes\) themselves.

rwp@2Peter:2:10 @{Chiefly} (\malista\). Especially. He turns 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.|). The point of likeness of these heretics with Balaam is here explained. {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 ridicule the piety of the other Christians. {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|.

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). The crazy Emperor Caius Caligula not simply claimed to be divine, but actually demanded that his statue be set up for worship in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem. He was killed in January A.D. 41 before he could execute his dire purpose. But the madcap Nero likewise demanded worship and blamed in A.D. 64 the burning of Rome on the Christians, though guilty of it himself. He set the style for persecuting Christians, which slumbered on and burst into flames again under Domitian, who had himself commonly termed _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.