NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp edifying:

rwp@1Corinthians:3:15 @{Shall be burned} (\katakasetai\). First-class condition again, assumed as true. Second future (late form) passive indicative of \katakai\, to burn down, old verb. Note perfective use of preposition \kata\, shall be burned down. We usually say "burned up," and that is true also, burned up in smoke. {He shall suffer loss} (\zmithsetai\). First future passive indicative of \zmi\, old verb from \zmia\ (damage, loss), to suffer loss. In strkjv@Matthew:16:26; strkjv@Mark:8:36; strkjv@Luke:9:25| the loss is stated to be the man's soul (\psuchn\) or eternal life. But here there is no such total loss as that. The man's work (\ergon\) is burned up (sermons, lectures, books, teaching, all dry as dust). {But he himself shall be saved} (\autos de sthsetai\). Eternal salvation, but not by purgatory. His work is burned up completely and hopelessly, but he himself escapes destruction because he is really a saved man a real believer in Christ. {Yet so as through fire} (\houts de hs dia puros\). Clearly Paul means with his work burned down (verse 15|). It is the tragedy of a fruitless life, of a minister who built so poorly on the true foundation that his work went up in smoke. His sermons were empty froth or windy words without edifying or building power. They left no mark in the lives of the hearers. It is the picture of a wasted life. The one who enters heaven by grace, as we all do who are saved, yet who brings no sheaves with him. There is no garnered grain the result of his labours in the harvest field. There are no souls in heaven as the result of his toil for Christ, no enrichment of character, no growth in grace.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ CLAIMS PETRINE AUTHORSHIP Not only so, but in fuller form than strkjv@1Peter:1:1|, for the writer terms himself "Simon (Symeon in some MSS.) Peter," a fact that has been used against the genuineness. If no claim had been made, that would have been considered decisive against him. Simon (Symeon was the Jewish form as used by James in strkjv@Acts:15:14|) is the real name (John:1:42|) and Peter merely the Greek for Cephas, the nickname given by Christ. There is no reason why both could not properly be employed here. But the claim to Petrine authorship, if not genuine, leaves the Epistle pseudonymous. That was a custom among some Jewish writers and even Christian writers, as the spurious Petrine literature testifies (Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.), works of a heretical or curious nature. Whatever the motive for such a pious fraud, the fact remains that II Peter, if not genuine, has to take its place with this pseudonymous literature and can hardly be deemed worthy of a place in the New Testament. And yet there is no heresy in this Epistle, no startling new ideas that would lead one to use the name of Simon Peter. It is the rather full of edifying and orthodox teaching.

rwp@Ephesians:4:29 @{Corrupt} (\sapros\). Rotten, putrid, like fruit (Matthew:7:17f.|), fish (Matthew:13:48|), here the opposite of \agathos\ (good). {For edifying as the need may be} (\pros oikodomn ts chreias\). "For the build-up of the need," "for supplying help when there is need." Let no other words come out. {That it may give} (\hina di\). For this elliptical use of \hina\ see on ¯5:33|.