OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp Heretical:

rwp@2John:1:10 @{If any one cometh and bringeth not} (\ei tis erchetai kai ou pherei\). Condition of first class with \ei\ and two present indicatives (\erchetai, pherei\). {This teaching} (\tautn tn didachn\). This teaching of Christ of verse 9|, which is the standard by which to test Gnostic deceivers (verse 7|). John does not refer to entertaining strangers (He strkjv@13:2; strkjv@1Timothy:5:10|), but to the deceiving propagandists who were carrying dissension and danger with them. {Receive him not} (\m lambanete auton\). Present active imperative with \m\. For \lamban\ in this sense see strkjv@John:1:12; strkjv@6:21; strkjv@13:20|. {Into your house} (\eis oikian\). Definite without the article like our at home, to town. {Give him no greeting} (\chairein auti m legete\). "Say not farewell to him." Apparently \chairein\ here (present active infinitive, object of \legete\ present active imperative with negative \m\) is used of farewell as in strkjv@2Corinthians:13:11|, though usually in the N.T. (Acts:15:23; strkjv@23:26; strkjv@James:1:1|) of the salutation. But here the point turns on the stranger bringing into the house (or trying to do so) his heretical and harmful teaching which seems to be after the salutation is over. The usual greeting to a house is given in strkjv@Luke:10:5|. On the other hand, if \chairein\ means greeting, not farewell, here, it can very well be understood of the peril of allowing these Gnostic propagandists to spread their pernicious teachings (cf. Mormons or Bolshevists) in home and church (usually meeting in the home). This is assuming that the men were known and not mere strangers.

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@Info_Epistles-General @ GENERAL EPISTLES BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION NOT A HAPPY TITLE There are various explanations of the term catholic (\katholikai epistolai\) as applied to this group of seven short letters by four writers (one by James, two by Peter, one by Jude, three by John). The Latin for \katholikos\ is _generalis_, though the Vulgate terms these letters _Catholicae_. The meaning is not orthodox as opposed to heretical or canonical, though they are sometimes termed \Epistolae canonicae\. As a matter of fact five of the seven (all but First Peter and First John) Eusebius placed among the "disputed" (\antilegomena\) books of the New Testament. "A canonical book is primarily one which has been measured and tested, and secondarily that which is itself a measure or standard" (Alfred Plummer). Canon is from \kann\ (cane) and is like a yardstick cut to the right measure and then used as a measure. Some see in the term \katholikos\ the idea that these Epistles are meant for both Jews and Gentiles, but the Epistle of James seems addressed to Jewish Christians. There were two other chief groups of New Testament writings in the old Greek manuscripts (the Gospels and Acts, then the Epistles of Paul). This group of seven Epistles and the Apocalypse constitute the remainder of the New Testament. The usual interpretation of the term \katholikos\ here is that these seven Epistles were not addressed to any particular church, but are general in their distribution. This is clearly true of I Peter, as is shown by the language in strkjv@1Peter:1:1|, where seven Roman provinces are mentioned. The language of strkjv@2Peter:3:1| bears the same idea. Apparently the Epistle of Jude:is general also as is I John. But II John is addressed to "an elect lady" (verse strkjv@2John:1:1|) and III John to Gaius (verse strkjv@3John:1:1|), both of them individuals, and therefore in no sense are these two brief letters general or catholic. The earliest instance of the word \katholikos\ is in an inscription (B.C. 6) with the meaning "general" (\ti katholiki mou prothesei\, my general purpose). It was common after that. The earliest example of it in Christian literature is in Ignatius' Epistle to the Church of Smyrna (VIII) where he has "the catholic church" (\h katholik ekklsia\), "the general church," not a local body. Clement of Alexandria (_Strom_. IV. xv) applies this adjective to the letter sent to the Gentile Christians "in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia" from the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:23|).

rwp@Titus:3:10 @{Heretical} (\hairetikon\). Old adjective from \hairesis\ (\haireomai\, to choose), a choosing of a party (sect, strkjv@Acts:5:17|) or of teaching (2Peter:2:1|). Possibly a schism had been started here in Crete. {Refuse} (\paraitou\). Present middle imperative of \paraite\, to ask from, to beg off from. See same form in strkjv@1Timothy:4:7; strkjv@5:11|. Possibly an allusion here to Christ's directions in strkjv@Matthew:18:15-17|.