NT-EPISTLES.filter - rwp disprove:

rwp@Info_2John @ SECOND JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There is little to add to what was said about the First Epistle except that here the author terms himself "the elder" (\ho presbuteros\) and writes to "the elect lady" (\eklekti kurii\). There is dispute about both of these titles. Some hold that it is the mythical "presbyter John" of whom Papias may speak, if so understood, but whose very existence is disproved by Dom Chapman in _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). Peter the apostle (1Peter:1:1|) calls himself "fellow-elder" (\sunpresbuteros\) with the other elders (1Peter:5:1|). The word referred originally to age (Luke:15:25|), then to rank or office as in the Sanhedrin (Matthew:16:21; strkjv@Acts:6:12|) and in the Christian churches (Acts:11:30; strkjv@20:17; strkjv@1Timothy:5:17,19|) as here also. A few even deny that the author is the same as in the First Epistle of John, but just an imitator. But the bulk of modern scholarly opinion agrees that the same man wrote all three Epistles and the Fourth Gospel (the Beloved Disciple, and many still say the Apostle John) whatever is true of the Apocalypse. There is no way of deciding whether "the elect lady" is a woman or a church. The obvious way of taking it is to a woman of distinction in one of the churches, as is true of "the co-elect lady in Babylon" (1Peter:5:13|), Peter's wife, who travelled with him (1Corinthians:9:5|). Some even take \kuria\ to be the name of the lady (Cyria). Some also take it to be "Eklecta the lady." Dr. Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 31) holds that Pergamum is the church to which the letter was sent. The same commentaries treat I, II, and III John as a rule, though Poggel has a book on II, III John (1896) and Bresky (1906) has _Das Verhaltnis des Zweiten Johannesbriefes zum dritten_. Dr. J. Rendel Harris has an interesting article in _The Expositor_ of London for March, 1901, on "The Problem of the Address to the Second Epistle of John," in which he argues from papyri examples that \kuria\ here means "my dear" or "my lady." But Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 26) argues that "the qualifying adjunct 'elect' lifts us into the region of Christian calling and dignity." It is not certain that II John was written after I John, though probable. Origen rejected it and the Peshitta Syriac does not have II and III John. strkjv@2John:1:1 @{And her children} (\kai tois teknois auts\). As with \eklekt kuria\, so here \tekna\ may be understood either literally as in strkjv@1Timothy:3:4|, or spiritually, as in strkjv@Galatians:4:19,25; strkjv@1Timothy:1:2|. For the spiritual sense in \teknia\ see strkjv@1John:2:1,12|. {Whom} (\hous\). Masculine accusative plural, though \teknois\ is neuter plural (dative), construction according to sense, not according to grammatical gender, "embracing the mother and the children of both sexes" (Vincent). See thus \hous\ in strkjv@Galatians:4:19|. {I} (\Eg\). Though \ho presbuteros\ is third person, he passes at once after the Greek idiom to the first and there is also special emphasis here in the use of \agap\ with the addition of \en altheii\ (in truth, in the highest sphere, as in strkjv@John:17:19; strkjv@3John:1:1|) and \ouk eg monos\ (not I only, "not I alone"). Brooke argues that this language is unsuitable if to a single family and not to a church. But Paul employs this very phrase in sending greetings to Prisca and Aquila (Romans:16:4|). {That know} (\hoi egnkotes\). Perfect active articular participle of \ginsk\, "those that have come to know and still know."

rwp@Info_2Peter @ BOOKS ON II PETER BESIDES THOSE ON I PETER ALSO Abbott, E. A., _The Expositor_ (Jan. to March, 1822). Chase, F. H., _Hastings D B_ (Second Peter). Deuteronomy:Zwaan, _2 Peter en Judas_ (1909). Dietlein, W. O., _Der 2 Brief Petri_ (1851). Grosch, H., _Die Echtheit des zweiten Briefes Petri_ (1889). Henkel, K., _Der zweite Brief des Apostelfursten Petrus_ (1904). Hofmann, J. C., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda (1875) Hundhausen, _Das zweite Pontifkalschreiben des Apostels Petrus_ (1873). James, M. R., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Cambridge Greek Testament, 1912). Lumby, J. R., _2 Peter and Jude_ (in Bible Commentary). Mayor, J. B., _The Epistle of St. Jude:and the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1907). Plummer, A., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Vol. 3, N.T. Commentary for English Readers by Ellicott). Robson, E. I., _Studies in the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1915). Schott, Th., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda_ (1863). Schott, _Der 2 Br. Petri und der Br. Juda Erkl_. (1863). Schweenhorst, H., _Das Verhaltnis des Judasbriefes zum zweiten Petrusbriefe_ (1904). Snyman, D. R., _The Authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter_ (thesis in 1923 for Th.D. degree at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). Spitta, F, _Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1885). Strachan, R. D., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910), Ullman, C., _Der 2 Brief Petri Krit. untersuch._ (1821). Warfield, B. B., _A Defence of 2 Peter_ (Southern Presbyterian Review, January, 1882).,_Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the Genuineness of Second Peter (Southern Presbyterian Review_, 1883). Werdermann, _H., Die Irrlehrer des Judasbriefes und 2 Petrusbriefes_ (1913). Wiesinger, J. T. A., _Der zweite Brief des Apostels Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1862). strkjv@2Peter:1:1 @{Simon Peter} (\Simn Petros\). Aleph A K L P have \Symen\ as in strkjv@Acts:15:14|, while B has \Simn\. The two forms occur indifferently in I Macc. strkjv@2:3, 65 for the same man. {Servant and apostle} (\doulos kai apostolos\). Like strkjv@Romans:1:1; strkjv@Titus:1:1|. {To them that have obtained} (\tois lachousin\). Dative plural articular participle second aorist active of \lagchan\, old verb, to obtain by lot (Luke:1:9|), here with the accusative (\pistin\) as in strkjv@Acts:1:17|. {Like precious} (\isotimon\). Late compound adjective (\isos\, equal, \tim\, honor, price), here only in N.T. But this adjective (Field) is used in two ways, according to the two ideas in \tim\ (value, honor), either like in value or like in honor. This second idea is the usual one with \isotimos\ (inscriptions and papyri, Josephus, Lucian), while \polutimos\ has the notion of price like \tim\ in strkjv@1:7,19; strkjv@2:4,6f|. The faith which they have obtained is like in honor and privilege with that of Peter or any of the apostles. {With us} (\hmin\). Associative-instrumental case after \isotimon\. Equal to \ti hmn\ (the faith of us). {In the righteousness} (\en dikaiosuni\). Definite because of the preposition \en\ and the following genitive even though anarthrous. The O.T. sense of \dikaiosun\ applied to God (Romans:1:17|) and here to Christ. {Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ} (\tou theou hmn kai stros Isou Christou\). Songs:the one article (\tou\) with \theou\ and \stros\ requires precisely as with \tou kuriou hmn kai stros Isou Christou\ (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in strkjv@1:11| as in strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:2,18|. Songs:in strkjv@1Peter:1:3| we have \ho theos kai patr\ (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, _Grammatik_, p. 158) admits: "Grammar demands that one person be meant." Moulton (_Prol._, p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of \theos\ for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in strkjv@Titus:2:13|. The use of \theos\ by Peter as a predicate with Jesus Christ no more disproves the Petrine authorship of this Epistle than a like use in strkjv@John:1:1| disproves the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the same use in strkjv@Titus:2:13| disproves the genuineness of Titus. Peter had heard Thomas call Jesus God (John:20:28|) and he himself had called him the Son of God (Matthew:16:16|).

rwp@Info_Acts @ THE UNITY OF THE ACTS There are some scholars who are willing to admit the Lukan authorship of the "we" sections when the author uses "we" and "us" as in chapter strkjv@16:10-40; strkjv@20:6-28:31|. It has been argued that Luke wrote a travel-document or diary for these sections, but that this material was used by the editor or redactor of the whole book. But, unfortunately for that view, the very same style appears in the Acts as a whole and in the Gospel also as Harnack has proven. The man who said "we" and "us" in the "we" sections wrote "I" in strkjv@1:1| and refers to the Gospel as his work. The effort to disprove the unity of the Acts has failed. It stands as the work of the same author as a whole and the same author who wrote the Gospel.

rwp@James:3:14 @{Bitter jealousy} (\zlon pikron\). \Zlos\ occurs in N.T. in good sense (John:2:17|) and bad sense (Acts:5:17|). Pride of knowledge is evil (1Corinthians:8:1|) and leaves a bitter taste. See "root of bitterness" in strkjv@Hebrews:12:14| (cf. strkjv@Ephesians:4:31|). This is a condition of the first class. {Faction} (\erithian\). Late word, from \erithos\ (hireling, from \eritheu\ to spin wool), a pushing forward for personal ends, partisanship, as in strkjv@Phillipians:1:16|. {In your heart} (\en ti kardii humn\). The real fountain (\pg\, verse 11|). {Glory not} (\m katakauchsthe\). Present middle imperative of \katakauchaomai\, for which see strkjv@2:13|. Wisdom is essential for the teacher. Boasting arrogance disproves the possession of wisdom. {Lie not against the truth} (\pseudesthe kata ts altheias\). Present middle imperative of \pseudomai\, old verb, to play false, with \m\ carried over. Lying against the truth is futile. By your conduct do not belie the truth which you teach; a solemn and needed lesson. Cf. strkjv@Romans:1:18f., strkjv@2:18,20|.

rwp@James:3:15 @{This wisdom} (\haut h sophia\). All talk and disproved by the life, counterfeit wisdom, not real wisdom (1:5; strkjv@3:17|). {Coming down from above} (\katerchomen anthen\). As in strkjv@1:5,17|. All true wisdom comes from God. {Earthly} (\epigeios\). Old adjective, on earth (\epi, g\), as in strkjv@John:3:12|, then with earthly limitations (Phillipians:3:19|), as here. {Sensual} (\psuchik\). Old adjective, belonging to the \psuch\, the sensuous or animal life (1Corinthians:2:14| and here). {Devilish} (\daimonids\). Late adjective from \daimonion\ (demon) and so demoniacal or demon-like, here only in N.T.

rwp@John:19:35 @{He that hath seen} (\ho heraks\). Perfect active articular participle of \hora\. John the Apostle was there and saw this fact (still sees it, in fact). This personal witness disproves the theory of the Docetic Gnostics that Jesus did not have a real human body. {He knoweth} (\ekeinos oiden\). That is John does like strkjv@9:37|. It is possible that \ekeinos\ may be a solemn appeal to God as in strkjv@1:33| or Christ as in strkjv@1John:3:5|. Bernard argues that the final editor is distinguishing the Beloved Disciple from himself and is endorsing him. But the example of Josephus (_War_. III. 7, 16) is against this use of \ekeinos\. John is rather referring to himself as still alive.

rwp@Info_Jude:@ THE USE OF APOCRYPHAL BOOKS Jude:(verse strkjv@Jude:1:14|) quotes from "Enoch" by name and says that he "prophesied." What he quotes is a combination of various passages in the Book of Enoch as we have it now. It used to be held that part of Enoch was later than Jude, but Charles seems to have disproved that, though the book as we have it has many interpolations. Tertullian wanted to canonise Enoch because of what Jude:says, whereas Chrysostom says that the authenticity of Jude:was doubted because of the use of Enoch. In verse strkjv@Jude:1:9| there seems to be an allusion to the _Assumption of Moses_, another apocryphal book, but it is the use of "prophesied" in verse strkjv@Jude:1:14| about Enoch that gave most offence. It is possible, of course, that Jude:did not attach the full sense to that term.

rwp@Romans:8:19 @{The earnest expectation of creation} (\h apokaradokia ts ktises\). This substantive has so far been found nowhere save here and strkjv@Phillipians:1:20|, though the verb \apokaradoke\ is common in Polybius and Plutarch. Milligan (_Vocabulary_) thinks that Paul may have made the substantive from the verb. It is a double compound (\apo\, off from, \kara\, head, \doke\, Ionic verb, to watch), hence to watch eagerly with outstretched head. {Waiteth for} (\apekdechetai\). See on ¯1Corinthians:1:7; strkjv@Galatians:5:5| for this rare word (possibly formed by Paul, Milligan). "To wait it out" (Thayer). {The revealing of the sons of God} (\tn apokalupsin tn huin tou theou\). Cf. strkjv@1John:3:2; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:8; strkjv@Colossians:3:4|. This mystical sympathy of physical nature with the work of grace is beyond the comprehension of most of us. But who can disprove it?