Some already know, but today I found out that I will need to be on medication to treat my liver–will see how it is a year or so from now. So, for those who wish to help me with my ever-growing medical expenses (liver; OCD; chronic migraines), you can do so via:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/d285a-medical-expenses
Alternatively:
Paypal or Venmo would work, too.
Thanks!
The final part of the narrative
in John 21:20-23 also portrays Jesus as a reliable interpreter of the future,
this time of the fate of the Beloved Disciple. Despite the latter having
featured briefly in the fishing story, he is reintroduced to readers in terms
of his first appearance in the narrative of the earlier Gospel (21:20; cf.
13:23-25), suggesting that at least 21:15-23 and possibly 21:20-23 themselves
had been separate traditions. In the midst of a dialogue between Peter and
Jesus about the Beloved Disciple, Peter is told, “If it is my will that he
remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me” (21:22). But the writer
depicts this saying, which was intended to instruct Peter to mind his own
business, as in fact being remembered as a prophecy that the Beloved Disciple
would not die before the return of Jesus. He then corrects that memory with a
reminder of Jesus’s practice words. As they stand, what are claimed as
Jesus’s precise words do not, of course, constitute a prediction. Its
conditional clause makes the saying vague and non-committal. Jesus is presented
as in effect saying that, depending on his will, the Beloved Disciple might or
might not die before his coming again. (Andrew T. Lincoln, “John 21,” in The
Reception of Jesus in the First Three Centuries, ed. Helen K. Bond [London:
T&T Clark, 2020], 1:219, emphasis in bold added)
Ver. 19.—God was in Christ. I.e.,
as the Son by oneness of Essence. So Ambrose and Primasius. Hence S. Ambrose (de Fide ad Gratian, lib. iii. c. 5) says
that God, i.e., everlasting Divinity,
was in Christ, and Christ reconciled the world because He was God. Secondly and
better: “God was in Christ,” i.e.,
through Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. Thirdly, Cajetan takes it:
God reconciled to Himself the world in Christ, or the world that believes in
Christ. But this seems forced and harsh.
Not imputing their
trespasses unto them. Not
imputing but freely forgiving their trespasses, not by imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, as the heretics think, but by a real infusion of it.
So Chrysostom and Anselm.
Observe the Hebraism. (1.) When the Scripture says that God imputes or
does not impute sin, it does not mean that He acts against the reality of
things, for so would God be false, but rather, since the judgment of God is
most pure, He regards things and sins as they truly are. (2.) The same appears
from the fact that the whole law, and consequently every sin against the law,
depends on the judgment of God, i.e.,
on the eternal law which is in the Mind of God. (3.) And the chief reason is
that all remission of sins depends on the forgiveness of God: but to forgive is
not to impute; for sin, belonging to the sphere of morals as an offence against
God, is removed by forgiveness, which equally belongs to the moral world. But
the generous goodness of God infuses, together with this forgiveness, grace,
charity, and all virtues, that we may be adorned with them as real gifts of
God, may be justified and become worthy of the friendship of God.
And hath committed unto us
the word of reconciliation.
He hath given us the duty of preaching the word of God, by which we are to
reconcile men to God, as was said at the last verse. By metonymy, word may be put for the reality as sign
for the thing signified. In this way the word of reconciliation would be
reconciliation itself, or the power and ministry of reconciling men to God.
Ver. 20.—We pray you in Christ’s
stead, be ye reconciled to God. As Christ’s ambassadors, even as if Christ
were entreating you by us, we implore you to give up your wills to be
reconciled to God. See what diligence, what energy, what zeal the Apostle
displays in his endeavours to convert the Corinthians.
Ver. 21.—Him who knew no sin.
Experimentally, says S. Thomas, Christ knew no sin, though by simple knowledge
He did, for He did no sin.
Hath made Him to be sin for
us. For us, says
Illyricus, who were sin; because, he says, sin is the substance and form of our
soul. But to say this of ourselves is folly, of Christ blasphemy. (1.) The
meaning is that God made Christ to be the victim offered for our sin, to prevent us from atoning for our
sins by eternal death and fire. The Apostle plays on the word sin, for when he says, “Him who knew no
sin,” he means sin strictly speaking; but when he says, “He made Him to be sin
for us,” he employs a metonymy. So Ambrose, Theophylact, and Anselm. In Ps.
40:12, Christ calls our sins His. (2.) Sin
here denotes, says S. Thomas, the likeness of sinful flesh which He took, that
He might be passible, just as sinners who are descended from Adam are liable to
suffering. (3.) Sin, in the sense of
being regarded by men as a noteworthy sinner, and being crucified as a
malefactor. So the Greek Fathers.
Of these three interpretations the first is the more full,
significant, and vigorous, and the one more consonant with the usage of
Scripture, which frequently speaks of an expiatory victim as sin. Cf. Hosea
4:8; Lev. 4:24 and 21; Ezek. 44:29. The reason of this metonymy is that all the
punishment and guilt of the sin were transferred to the expiatory victim, and
so the sin itself might seem to be also transferred to it. In token of this the
priest was accustomed to lay his hands on the victim, and call down on it the
sins of the people; for by the hands are signified sinful actions, which are
for the most part executed by the hands, as Theodoret says in his notes on
Leviticus 1. Therefore the laying of hands on the victim was both a symbol of
oblation and a testimony of the transference of guilt to the victim, showing
that it was expiatory, and that it bore the sin itself, with all its burden of
guilt and punishment. In this way the high-priest on the great Day of Atonement
turned a goat into the wilderness, having imprecated on it the sins of the
whole people. Cf. Lev. 16:20.
That we might be made the
righteousness of God in Him.
(1.) That we might be made righteous before God, with the righteousness infused
by God through the merits of Christ. So Chrysostom. He says righteousness and not righteous, says Theophylact, to signify
the excellency of the grace, which effects that in the righteous there is no
deformity, no stain of sin, but that there is complete grace and righteousness
throughout. (2.) The righteousness of God
was Christ made, in order that its effects, or the likeness of the uncreated
righteousness of God, might be communicated to us by His created and infused
righteousness. So Cyril (Thesaur.
lib. xii. c. 3). (3.) Christ is so called because God owes not to us, but to
Christ and His merits, the infusion of righteousness and the remission of our
sins. Cf. Augustine (Enchirid. c.
41). Cf. also 1 Cor. 1:30. Heretics raise the objection that Christ was made
for us sin, in the sense that our sin was imputed to Him and was punished in
Him; therefore we are made the righteousness of God, because it is imputed to
us. I answer that the two things are not parallel; for Christ could not really
be a sinner as we can really be righteous, nor does the Apostle press the
analogy. He only says that Christ bore our sins, that we through Him might be
justified. Moreover, Christ actually was made sin, i.e., a victim for sin (this is the meaning of “sin” here), and
therefore we truly become the righteousness of God. So easily and completely
can we turn the tables on these Protestant objectors. (Cornelius à
Lapide, The Great Commentary of Cornelius À Lapide, 8 vols. [4th ed.;
trans. Thomas W. Mossman; Edinburgh: John Grant, 1908], 8:80-82)
3:8: As Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses.
1. The names of both men are, in the Talmud and sometimes in the
midrashic works, יוֹחָנִי
or יוֹחָנָא (= John) and מַמְרֵי
(= the rebellious); in the targumim, יַנֵּיס
and יַמְבְּרֵיס or יַמְרֵיס. — יַמְבְּרֵיס
= Ἰαμβρῆς arose from מַמְרֵי, because, under Hellenistic influence for
the purpose of easier pronunciation, the first מ
in ממרי was softened to י and then a ב
was inserted before ר.
The same insertion of β
between μ and ρ is found with Νέμβροδ in LXX Gen 10:8 and with Μάμβρη in LXX Gen 13:18; 14:13. — In later
midrashic works, we also encounter the name forms יוּנּוֹס and יוּמְבְּרוֹס
or יָנוֹס and יַמְבְּרִינוֹס. See the passages in the following citations.
2. Most of the time in the Jewish tradition, Jannes and Jambres are
considered to be sons of Balaam.a Together with their father they
occupy a privileged position in the court of the Egyptian king.b
They use their position to propose to pharaoh the plan to cast all Israelite
boys into the water.c When Moses remains alive, their father
counsels the king to have him eliminated immediately. Yet even this plan fails.d
Then they consider it advisable to leave Egypt; they go to Ethiopia. Later they
return to pharaoh’s courte and appear now as the sorcerers who with
their arts try to thwart the release of Israel.f When they
nevertheless cannot prevent the exodus, they ostensibly acknowledge Moses’
superiority and convert as proselytes to Judaism.g In reality, though,
they undertake this step only in order to be able to continue to harm Israel.
So it is they in the first place who cause the people to demand of Aaron to
make the golden calf.h As a punishment for this, they perish in the
slaughter of Exod 32:27ff.i There is another tradition alongside
this that claims that they perished with the Egyptians in the sea.j
These views stand in contradiction, though, with the interpretation of Num
22:22 that holds that they were the two “knaves” or “fellows” who accompanied
Balaam on his journey to king Balak.a Consequently, they would still
have been alive at the end of the forty years of wandering in the wilderness.
There was, accordingly, no unified tradition about Jannes and Jambres; all the
statements only agree that they oppose Moses at every turn and are filled with
a hostile attitude toward Israel.
3. Apart from the entirely incidental mention of Yuhna and Mamre in b.
Menaḥ. 85A—see, n. f—we hear nothing
about the legend of Jannes and Jambres in all of the older rabbinic literature.
The later Targum Yerušalmi I and the later midrash work Tanḥuma are the first
writings that know about the details of the legend. Nevertheless, in view of 2
Tim 3:8, it cannot be doubted that the kernel of the traditions about Jannes
and Jambres, namely their hostility toward Moses, was already generally known
in the oldest period. We have here a classic proof for the truth that
traditions can be old even if they are encountered literarily only in a later
period.
a. Targum Yerušalmi I Numbers 22:22:
“(Balaam) rode on his jenny and his two youths עולימוי
(boys, knaves) Jannes and Jamres with him.” — The tradition then made the two
knaves Balaam’s sons. Yalquṭ Reubeni (ed. Amsterdam 1700) 148A from a
“midrash”: Balaam the wicked had his strength from two letters מי; these were his two sons Mamre and Yohani (whose names begin
with מ or י);
this corresponds in holiness to Moses and Joshua (whose names also begin with מ and י).
— The following citations everywhere offer additional supporting texts.
b. Yalquṭ Simeoni on Exodus 2:23; 1 § 168
(55B) from the “Chronicle of Moses”: When pharaoh had become king over Egypt,
his heart became hard against all the inhabitants of his land, and even the
house of Jacob he did not spare, according to the counsel of Balaam, the
sorcerer, and his two sons; for they were the king’s counselors in those days.
‖ Yalquṭ Reubeni 146C from ציוני:
“His two knaves (youths) were with him” (Num 22:22). Who were they? Our
teachers of blessed memory said, “They were Junnos and Jumbros, scribes of
pharaoh.” Some say, “They were his (Balaam’s) sons.”
c. Targum Yerušalmi I Exodus 1:15: “When
pharaoh slept, he saw in his dream, and lo, the whole land of Egypt was in a
pan on a scale and a young lamb was in the other pan on the scale; and the
scale tilted to the side of the lamb. Immediately he sent for and called all
the sorcerers of Egypt and told them his dream. Immediately Jannes and Jambres,
the chiefs of the sorcerers, opened their mouth and said to pharaoh, ‘A son
will be born in the community of the Israelites, by whom the whole land of
Egypt will be destroyed.’ ” (As a result, the order in Exod 1:15f. is then
given.) — The dream is found in a more expansive form also in the Chronicle of
Moses (Beth ha-Midrash 2.1.2); yet
here the interpretation and advice are not given by Jannes and Jambres, but
rather by “one of the princes”; see the passage also in Yalquṭ Simeoni on
Exodus 1:15, 1 § 164 (53C); here, though, the advice comes from one of the
royal eunuchs.
d. Chronicle of Moses (Beth ha-Midrash 2.3.21): In the third year of the birth of Moses,
pharaoh sat at the table, and his wife sat at his right hand and his daughter
Bithiah at his left; yet before him sat his princes (chiefs) and his ministers.
And the boy (Moses) sat with Bithiah, the king’s daughter; and the boy
stretched out his hand and took the crown from the king’s head and set it on
his own head. And the king was disquieted about this together with his princes,
and they marveled among themselves. Then Balaam, the sorcerer, one of the king’s
princes and counselors, answered and said, “Remember, my lord king, the dream
that you dreamed and that your servant interpreted for you! Do you not know
that this boy belongs to the children of the Hebrews and that the spirit of God
is in him and that he has acted from his wisdom? And he is the one who will
destroy Egypt; and now let the king decree immediately that his head be taken
off!” And the word was good in the king’s eyes and those of his friends. Then
God—blessed be He!—sent the angel Gabriel, and he resembled one of the king’s
princes and his friends (i.e., he had taken on his form and appearance). He
said to him, “My lord king, this word is not good to kill a person of innocent
blood; for the boy has no thought. And now command that a gem be set before him
and a glowing coal. If he stretches out his hand and takes the gem, it is
certain that he is a child of thought and of death, and we will carry out the
sentence; but if he stretches out his hand and takes the coal, it is certain
that there is no thought in him, and let him remain exempt from punishment.”
And all his wise men saw this and said, “This word is good!” Then a gem and a
coal were brought before him; and the boy stretched out his hand to take the
stone. Then the angel pushed his hand so that he took the coal, and he led it
to his face and touched it with his lips and the tip of his tongue, and (as a
result) he had a sluggish mouth and a sluggish tongue, and because of this he
was saved. — This legend is also found in Exod. Rab. 1 (67B), except that
instead of the angel Gabriel, Jethro is the saving counselor; see the passage
at § Luke 1:19 A, #4, n. g, first
third. See also Josephus, Ant. 2.9.7.
e. Chronicle of Moses (Beth ha-Midrash 2.5.22): When Balaam saw that his counsel was not
followed and that it did not come about that the children of Israel would be
destroyed according to the evil plan that he had thought of, he left Egypt and
went to king Niqanos together with his two sons Jannes and Mamres (ממריס); yet it was king Niqanos, king of Edom
(which in the wider course of the narrative is identified with Cush, i.e.,
Ethiopia). — It is then further reported that king Niqanos waged war in the
time with the sons of the east and that he entrusted Balaam with administering
his country during his absence. Yet the latter lures the Ethiopians to fall
away from Niqanos and makes himself king and proclaims his sons as princes of
the land. At his return Niqanos is refused entry into his capital city; so he
finds himself forced to besiege it. This has already lasted for nine years when
the king dies. In the meantime, Moses enlisted himself in his army. The great
popularity that he soon enjoyed with everyone in the company makes him appear
to be worthy to succeed Niqanos. So he is chosen as king. His wisdom soon
succeeds in conquering the besieged city. Then it says at the conclusion: When
Balaam, the son of Beor, saw that the city was taken, he fled from there in the
air by all kinds of magical arts, he and his sons, and they fled to Egypt to
pharaoh. — The text in Yalquṭ Simeoni 1 § 168 (55B) is taken from a different
recension; the king of Ethiopia is here called קוקנוס.
f. Yalquṭ Simeoni on Exodus 5:1, 1 § 176
(57D): “Then Moses and Aaron went” (Exod 5:1). It happened when they came to
the gate of the royal palace, behold, there were there two young lions with
iron chains put on them, and no one could go out or in before them, except when
the king commanded that the guards go out and remove the young lions by their
magic spells. Then he was brought in. And Moses quickly swung the staff over
the lions and let them loose, and so they came into the royal palace, and the
lions went with them with great joy, as a dog rejoices over its master when he
comes from the field. When pharaoh saw this, he was astounded and was very
afraid of the men, for their appearance was like the appearance of sons of God
(cf. Dan 3:25). Then the king said to them, “What do you want?” They answered
him, “Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, has sent us to you to say, ‘Let my people
go so that they may serve me’ ” (cf. Exod 5:1). And he was very afraid of
them and said to them, “Go for today and come tomorrow!” And they did according
to the king’s word. When they had gone away, the king called for Balaam, the
soothsayer, and his sons Janos and Jambrinos ינוס וימברינוס, the sorcerers. ‖ Targum Yerušalmi I Exodus 7:11: “Then pharaoh
called the wise men and the sorcerers. They too, Jannes and Jambres, the
sorcerers in Egypt, did the same by the magic spells of their sorcery.” ‖
Babylonian Talmud Menaḥot 85A: Yuhna and Mamre said to Moses (when they were
just about to turn their staffs into snakes; Exod 7:11f.), “You want to bring
straw to Hafaraim?” Moses answered them, “People say, ‘To a vegetable city,
bring vegetables’ ” (for in a place that is famous for cultivating vegetables,
most of the time people demand vegetables). — In the parallel passage Exod.
Rab. 9 (73C), the names of the sorcerers are Yuhani and Mamre. ‖ See further
Tanḥ. כי
תשא in, n. h.
g. Yalquṭ Reubeni on Exodus 7:11 (81B) from
Zohar: “When they (the Egyptian sorcerers) saw the signs and wonders that were
done by Moses in Egypt, they came later to Moses and wanted to become
proselytes. God said to Moses, ‘Do not take them!’ Yet Moses took them by
himself (i.e., unauthorized). (This is referred to by the words:) ‘And a large
mix went up with them’ (Exod 12:38): these were the scribes of the Egyptians,
at the head of whom were Junnos and Jumbros יונוס ויומברוס.” ‖ See further Yalquṭ Reubeni 106D in, n. h.
h. Tanḥuma כי תשא
115B: “When the people saw that Moses delayed in coming down from the mountain”
(Exod 32:1). The sixth hour (= 12 noon) had come, and then 4,000 men assembled
who had gone up with Israel (from Egypt; this refers to the masses that are
called “large mix” in Exod 12:38 and “mob” in Num 11:4); and among them there
were two scribes of Egypt named Junnos and Jumbros, who had performed all those
magical arts before pharaoh; as it says, “And they too, the scribes of Egypt,
did so by their secret arts” (Exod 7:11). They all gathered around Aaron and
said, “Arise, make us a god!” ‖ Yalquṭ Reubeni on Exodus 32:11 (106D) from
Tiqqunim: What reason did the godless have to make the calf? Yet in fact these
were only pharaoh’s sorcerers Junnos and Jumbros, of whom it says, “And they
did so too, the scribes, by their secret arts” (Exod 7:11). Yet when they saw
that there was nothing actual in them (their magical works), they turned to (?)
the people of Moses and accepted the covenant of circumcision.… And when they
bore jealousy (hostility) in their heart, they said, “Arise, make us a god that
may come before us, as he came before you!”
i. Yalquṭ Reubeni on Exodus 32:28 (108C)
from Zohar: “The children of Levi acted according to the word of Moses, and on
that day ‘about’ 3,000 men fell” (Exod 32:28). How so? Is there in a
calculation a less (an approximation), as when someone says an “approximate”
number? (What is כְּ
= “about” or “like” before 3,000 supposed to mean?) This refers only to Junnos
and Jumbros, who were tantamount to 3,000 men.
j. Yalquṭ Simeoni on Exodus 14:27, 1 § 235
(73C) from midrash אבכיר:
The Egyptians conducted their sorcery and rose from the sea. Then the sea said,
“A deposit that God has entrusted to me, how can I let it go?” Immediately the
waters ran after every single Egyptian and cast them into the sea.… Yet there
were two sorcerers among the Egyptians, Yohani and Mamre. They had by sorcery
made themselves wings and flew in the air and hovered in the height of the
world. Then (the angel) Gabriel said (before God), “In the fullness of your
grandeur you tear down your adversaries” (Exod 15:7). Immediately God said to
Michael, “Arise, carry out the judgment against them!” Then Michael seized them
by the crest of their head and destroyed them over the water; this is what “You
split the sea by your might, you have shattered the heads of the dragons over
the water” (Ps 74:13) means. ‖ Yalquṭ Reubeni on Exodus 15:7 (89A) from חכם הרזים: “In the fullness of your grandeur you
tear down your adversaries; you send out your blaze, it consumes them like
stubble” (Exod 15:7). Yohani and Mamre were two brothers (as sons of Balaam)
and they were skilled in sorcery; and they performed magic for themselves and
flew in the air. Michael and Gabriel saw them, but they did not have power over
them. Immediately they called out and said, “Lord of the world, they are those
who have enslaved your children, in a sense you are obliged by what is said, ‘In
the fullness of your grandeur you tear down your adversaries’ (Exod 15:7), and
you do not carry out judgment against them!” Immediately God said to the prince
of the face (one of the throne angels), “Go down and exact revenge on them!”
Then he went down and brought them low; as it says, “You blew with your breath,
then the sea covered them” (Exod 15:10). ‖ Midrash Vajjoschaʿ on Exodus 15:10 (Beth ha-Midrash 1.52.26): “You blew with
your breath” (Exod 15:10). The scholars said, “When the Egyptians perished in
the sea, there were among them two sorcerers, whose names were Yohani and
Mamre. They said to pharaoh, ‘If this happens by the hand of God, we can do
nothing against it; but if it happens by the hand of an angel, we will be able
to pour them into it’ (cf. Exod 14:27). Immediately they performed their
sorcery and plunged them (the angels) into the sea. Then the angels said, ‘Help
us (so the text is cited), God, for the waters come to the soul!’ (Ps 69:2).
Yet you brought them low by your word in glorious waters. Therefore, it says,
‘You blew with your breath: then the sea covered them; they sank like lead in
the glorious waters’ (Exod 15:10).” (Hermann L. Strack and Paul
Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash,
ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino;
Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2021], 3:767-72)
As Christmas is only a few weeks away (how the year has gone by . . . )
For my birthday, many of my fans/followers were very kind and sent me some nice books (e.g., a new commentary on the Greek of John 1-6), so I thought I would share this. IF you want to (no obligation), you can do the same for me and for Christmas through a few ways:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
Thanks!
Instead of the KJV reading “the kingdom of God is within you,” the JST reads differently.
NT Mss 2,
p. 88:
The kingdom of God cometh not with observation; neither shall they
say[;]<,> lo, here! Or, Lo, there! For, behold, the kingdom of God has
already come unto you.
Most scholars and
translators reject the KJV reading. Compare the following:
idou gar hē basileia tou
theou entos humōn estin
‘for behold, the kingdom of God is among you’. idou contrasts emphatically with the preceding idou and introduces the clause which explains why the preceding
delimitations of the coming of the kingdom are to be rejected. The meaning of entos humōn (‡) is much discussed, cp.
commentaries, esp. Creed. The following renderings are possible: (1) ‘within
you’, i.e. ‘within your heart’, taking basileia
tou theou in a non-escatalogical sense; (2) ‘among you’, i.e. ‘in your
midst’, either now or in the future; (3) ‘within your reach’, cp. TBT, 4.7f 1953; 9.162f, 1958, and Leaney
ad loc. Of these (2) seems to be preferable. (J. Reiling and J. L.
Swellengrebel, A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke [UBS Handbook Series;
New York: United Bible Societies, 1993], 586)
And no, Adam
Clarke is not the source of this reading. This is from Clarke’s commentary on
Luke 17:21:
Verse 21. Lo here! or, lo there!]
Perhaps those Pharisees thought that the Messiah was kept secret, in some
private place, known only to some of their rulers; and that by and by he should
be proclaimed in a similar way to that in which Joash was by Jehoiada the priest. See the account, 2 Chron.
23:1–11. (Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical
Notes, 6 vols. [Bellingham, Wash.: Faithlife Corporation, 2014], 5:469)
For, upon the name (επ ‘ονοματος) of God, the Father and Lord of all, and of our Savior
Jesus Christ, and the holy Spirit, they then receive the washing in water. . .
. the name of God, the Father the Lord of all, is recited over the one opting
to be regenerated, who also repents of their sins; we invoke this name alone as
we lead the one who will be washed to the fount. . . . This washing is also
called an enlightenment, as those who learn these things have their mind
enlightened. And the one who is enlightened is washed also upon the name (επ ‘ονοματος) of Jesus Christ, who was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and
upon the name (επ ‘ονοματος) of the holy Spirit, who
announced beforehand through the prophets all things concerning Jesus.
--Justin,
1 Apol. 61.3, 10, 11-13
. . . Justin appeals to John 3:3 to explain the
significance and purpose of baptism; he also echoes Titus 3:5. (Rafael
Rodríguez, “Baptism,” in The Reception of Jesus in the First Three Centuries,
ed. Chris Keith [London: T&T Clark, 2020], 3:380)
In the June 11, 1877, issue of The Salt Lake Tribune, there were two reports of the death of Orrin Rockwell Porter. In the second, “Death of Porter Rockwell,” there is mention of the prophecy, attributed to Joseph Smith, that Rockwell would remain alive if he kept his hair uncut (cf. Joseph Smith's Prophetic Advice to Orrin Porter Rockwell):
AN EXTREMELY IGNORANT MAN
Porter Rockwell was an extremely ignorant, illiterate man, being
unable to write his own name, and was as superstitious as a savage. He was a
firm believer in ghosts, witches, evil spirits and spooks, as well as in the
revelations of Joe Smith and the divinity of the utterances of the Mormon high
priests and prophets. It was he who shot Governor Boggs in the early troubles
of the Mormon Church in Missouri, for which service to the cause Joe Smith
declared upon the Sampson of the Church, and promised him, in the name of the
Lord, that if he would never allow his hair and whiskers to be cut, the bullet
of his enemies should be turned aside, and wicked, designing men should never
prevail against him. Rockwell, therefore, always wore his hair long and a full
beard, both of which, however, were thin, as well as gray. He wore his hair in
two braids, tied up with two small ribbons across the back of his head or a
loop with his ears. (“Death of Porter
Rockwell,” The Salt Lake Tribune 15, no. 49 [June 11, 1877]: 2 [the
last clause if faint and partly uncertain])
The following is an image from the Improvement Era (May 1968): 16:
Here, we see that
the Church advertised Scriptures with images that depicted the crucifixion. I
thought this was interesting (randomly came across it while pursuing something
else)
An illustration of the application of some of these "auxiliary
sciences" to establish the validity of historical claims is found in the
famous case of the so-called "Forged Decretals" or
"Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals." This was a body of documents, beginning
with the Donation of Constantine, including supposed decrees from various
emperors and popes. These formed the basis on which the Roman Catholic papacy
was founded with its claim to leadership of the universal Christian church.
Lorenzo Valla in the fifteenth century exposed these forgeries. By applying the
method of chronology, he proved the Donation of Constantine was a fraud,
since it was dated with a numbering system not yet in use in the fourth
century, when it was supposed to have been written. By the use of epigraphy,
he proved that the form of the letters used betrayed some of the documents to
be of eighth century origin. Using philology, he proved that words and
expressions were used which had not been invented in the fourth century. Using hermeneutics,
he proved interpolations of a period subsequent to the supposed date of the
document. With diplomatique techniques, he showed that the material on
which they were written, the variety of ink used, and the form of the
documents, proved them to be forgeries from centuries later than their supposed.
(T. Edgar Lyon, “Latter-day
Saint Teachers and the Evaluation of Historical Sources,” Improvement
Era [February 1961]: 95)
For more on the
Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and the Donation of Constantine, see:
Papal Forgeries: A Road to
Schism (FULL)
The following is a letter from Udney Hay Jacob to Oliver Granger, dated March 3, 1840 (CHL Call Number: MS 7045). At the time, Jacob was a critic of the Church (he would later join). In this letter, Jacob assumes that Latter-day Saints (as with the Campbellites) affirm the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and then, based on the Bible (e.g., Acts 2:38), critiques such a theology. He is a “hostile witness” that early Latter-day Saints did teach baptismal regeneration (for more, see, for e.g., Baptism Does Cleanse Us from Our Sins):
Page 1:
Page 2:
Page 3:
Transcription
of the Letter:
Friend Granger March 3rd 1840
When I left your house you and some others seemed to express
dissatisfaction because I refused to communicate some important truths to you,
which I professed to be acquainted with. The fact is I offered to read the
evening before to you, but you would not hear, No, not so much as the Preface
to my book; it was therefore impossible to communicate any thing to men who had
no ears. Yet I am willing to do you good as far as possible. I therefore send
you an extract from my book on Baptism as follows. — There is a great deal said
in this generation respecting Baptism; and it has become a bone of contention,
I have thought it might be useful to devote a few paragraphs to this subject.
The Campbellites so called, and the Mormonites are remarkably tenacious of water
baptism, and they are constantly harping upon a particular text of scripture
pronounced by Peter. Acts. 2. 38-39, which they evidently misunderstand. It
reads thus. Then Peter said unto them repent and be baptized every one of you
in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive
the gift of the Holy Ghost for the promise is unto you, and to your children,
and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. They
seem to entertain an idea like this. That they are commanded to repent, and to
be baptized; and in consequence of so doing their sins shall be remitted. And
because of so doing they shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Now it is
evident that this text teaches no such idea. But the reverse.
The ideas inculcated are as follows, Peter had convinced them that
they had denied and crucified their Lord and Master, and Saviour. And now being
greatly alarmed they cried out to him and the rest of the brethren, what shall
we do? Peter answers repent, that is be sorry in your hearts for this, and be
baptized every one of you in his name. Because your sins are remitted. And you
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, or spirit, because God has promised
it to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off. The preposition,
for, in this text signifies the same idea as would the word, because. That is —
because of — for this is the first and most prominent meaning of this word,
written, For, and it is so defined in all English dictionaries. We are not
therefore to be baptized because on that account our sins will be remitted, or
on account of our repentance, or on account of any thing else that we can do.
For says the Lord I blot out your sins for my own sake, Isa. 43.25 and because
Christ was put to death for our sins, and raised again for our justification.
These are the reasons, and the only ones, why our sins are remitted. Any person
who supposes any other reasons why our sins are remitted, either of faith, or
practice, does thereby deny the Lord that bought him, and if he lives and dies
in this false Idea, he can never enter in through the gates into the glorious
city. But eternally remains without, with dogs and sorcerers and whoremongers
and murderers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie, for their doctrine is a
lie, and they love it. The reason here assigned by Peter why God will give us
his holy spirit is because he has promised it to all that are afar off, even as
many as the Lord our God shall call, which is all mankind. hence all mankind
must recieve finally his Holy Spirit — tho not an entrance into the celestial
city; for this plain reason, because he has promised it to all, for whom the
Savior was crucified. And the sins of all men must be remitted wether they are
baptized or not; because Christ has redeemed us all from the curse of the law
(the transgression of which is sin) being made a curse for us except such as
blaspheme against the holy Ghost, who were before. Here take notice that Peter
says the Holy spirit is a gift; now a gift, is not an account of our good
works. For we must first receive that gift, before we can do one single good
work. Our works are all filthy rags, before we recieve that gift and then work
from it and by it. First make the tree good, and then will the fruit absolutly
be good also. but not before. Therefore we do not recieve remission of sins
because we are baptized. but we are baptized for, or because our sins are
remitted through Jesus Christ our Lord. Now do not these people themselves
teach that baptism should not be administered upon any but true believers? most
certainly they do teach this. And they also teach that the sins of true
believers are remitted. Then by their own teaching it follows that we are not
baptized that our sins may be remitted, but because they are already remitted.
And we are not baptized that we may recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost, but
because we have already received it through faith in Christ Jesus. But this
same apostle Peter, has further illustrated this subject 1. Peter 3.21 in words
following. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth now save us; that is
baptism is a figure leading unto an idea of this salvation. Not the putting
away the filth of the flesh this does not save us for it is a figure, but the
answering a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ; By
which resurrection we learn, as is more fully illustrated elsewhere in this
book, that we are freed from all guilt in God’s sight. This resurrection
therefore washes our consciences from all guilt through faith in Christ Jesus,
and a knowledge of the virtue of that resurrection, for, or because he was
raised for our justification. And of this washing baptism is a figure. And I
know that the Son of god is come, and hath given me an understanding that I may
know him that is true; and I am in him that is true, even in his son Jesus
Christ. This is the true god, and eternal life. Little children keep yourselves
from Idols. But the carnal mind is always making to itself idols. These people
who teach that we must be baptized that we may thereby recieve remission of
sins, or that we are to recieve any spiritual blessing whatever in consequence
of our haveing been baptizing, do thereby make an idol of their own works; as
much as if they had made a graven image and worshipped it. For they being
ignorant of god’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own
righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of god. For
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. For
Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law; that the man which
doeth those things shall live by them. Thus doth this people teach, that we
must be baptized, and we must then and so and we then shall receive the gift of
the Holy Ghost. But such is not the righteousness of god. For it is by faith
and not of our doings. see Romans. 10.
What e’r is done by man’s free will
In works, most certain good or ill.
And what we ere by works we get,
Is not of favor but of debt.
Brethren my hearts desire, and prayer to god is that you might be
saved from the bitterness, and false wrath created in you by sorcery. For I
bear you record that you have a Zeal of god, but not according to Knowledge. As
baptism is now made an idol. It is not meat that the saints should bow to it.
Altho in Peter’s days it might be necessary yet now that it is made an idol,
and neither baptism nor unbaptism availeth any thing in Christ Jesus, but a new
creature. These people who teach that we must be baptized in order to recieve
the Holy spirit might as well teach, that we must first love god in order to
make him love us. It is precisely the same idea in a different form. But we
know better being taught of the spirit. We love god, because he first loved us.
If we were baptized it would be, because our sins were remitted, and because we
had received the Holy spirit, and being dead with used this is the three acts
to the world. This is an extract from my book, and I desire you to shew it to
the young man who sat by the table that evening, and to your Printer, & to
Joseph Smith, and to Sidney Rigdon, and let them refute it if they can. But it
is the truth, and he that denies it as long as he lives in this world, can
never have a right to the tree of life, neither can he enter in through the
gates into the City. Remember you are acting for Eternity, which is now just
before you. — So farewell,
Mr. Granger U. H. Jacob
Verse 6. The deeds of the
Nicolaitanes] These were, as is commonly supposed, a sect of the Gnostics, who taught the most impure
doctrines, and followed the most impure practices. They are also supposed to
have derived their origin from Nicolas, one of the seven deacons mentioned Acts
6:5, where see the note. The Nicolaitanes
taught the community of wives, that adultery and fornication were things
indifferent, that eating meats offered to idols was quite lawful; and mixed
several pagan rites with the Christian ceremonies. Augustine, Irenæus, Clemens
Alexandrinus, and Tertullian, have spoken largely concerning them. See more in
my preface to 2d Peter, where are several particulars concerning these
heretics. (Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with a Commentary and
Critical Notes, 6 vols. [Bellingham, Wash.: Faithlife Corporation, 2014],
6:976-77)
6. But this thou hast. This
thou hast that I approve of, or that I can commend.
That thou hatest the deeds
of the Nicolaitanes. Gr.,
works (τὰ ἔργα). The word Nicolaitanes occurs only in this place, and in the 15th verse of
this chapter. From the reference in the latter place it is clear that the
doctrines which they held prevailed at Pergamos as well as at Ephesus; but from
neither place can anything now be inferred in regard to the nature of their
doctrines or their practices, unless it be supposed that they held the same
doctrine that was taught by Balaam. See Notes on ver. 15. From the two
passages, compared with each other, it would seem that they were alike corrupt
in doctrine and in practice, for in the passage before us their deeds are mentioned, and in ver. 15
their doctrine. Various conjectures,
however, have been formed respecting this class of people, and the reasons why
the name was given to them. I. In regard to the origin of the name, there have been three opinions.
(1) That mentioned by Irenæus, and by some of the other fathers, that the name
was derived from Nicolas, one of the deacons ordained at Antioch, Ac. 6:5. Of
those who have held this opinion, some have supposed that it was given to them
because he became apostate and was the founder of the sect, and others because
they assumed his name, in order to
give the greater credit to their doctrine. But neither of these suppositions
rests on any certain evidence, and both are destitute of probability. There is
no proof whatever that Nicolas the deacon ever apostatized from the faith, and
became the founder of a sect; and if a name had been assumed, in order to give credit to a sect and extend its
influence, it is much more probable that the name of an apostle would have been
chosen, or of some other prominent man, than the name of an obscure deacon of
Antioch. (2) Vitringa, and most commentators since his time, have supposed that
the name Nicolaitanes was intended to be symbolical, and was not designed to
designate any sect of people, but to denote those who resembled Balaam, and
that this word is used in the same manner as the word Jezebel in ch. 2:20, which is supposed to be symbolical there.
Vitringa supposes that the word is derived from νίκος, victory,
and λαός, people, and that thus it corresponds
with the name Balaam, as meaning either בַּעל עָם, lord of the people,
or בִּלַע
עָם, he destroyed the people; and that, as the same effect was produced
by their doctrines as by those of Balaam, that the people were led to commit
fornication and to join in idolatrous worship, they might be called Balaamites or Nicolaitanes, that is, corrupters of the people. But to this it may
be replied, (a) that it is
far-fetched, and is adopted only to remove a difficulty; (b) that there is every reason to suppose that the word here used
refers to a class of people who bore that name, and who were well known in the
two churches specified; (c) that in
ch. 2:15 they are expressly distinguished from those who held the doctrine of
Balaam, ver. 14, “So hast thou also (καὶ) those that hold the doctrine of the
Nicolaitanes.” (3) It has been supposed that some person now unknown, probably
of the name Nicolas, or Nicolaus, was their leader, and laid the
foundation of the sect. This is by far the most probable opinion, and to this
there can be no objection. It is in accordance with what usually occurs in
regard to sects, orthodox or heretical, that they derive their origin from some
person whose name they continue to bear; and as there is no evidence that this
sect prevailed extensively, or was indeed known beyond the limits of these
churches, and as it soon disappeared, it is easily accounted for that the
character and history of the founder were so soon forgotten. II. In regard to
the opinions which they held, there
is as little certainty. Irenæus (Adv.
Hæres. i. 26) says that their characteristic tenets were the lawfulness of
promiscuous intercourse with women, and of eating things offered to idols.
Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 29) states
substantially the same thing, and refers to a tradition respecting Nicolaus,
that he had a beautiful wife, and was jealous of her, and being reproached with
this, renounced all intercourse with her, and made use of an expression which
was misunderstood, as implying that illicit pleasure was proper. Tertullian
speaks of the Nicolaitanes as a branch of the Gnostic family, and as, in his
time, extinct. Mosheim (De Rebus
Christian Ante. Con. § 69) says that “the questions about the Nicolaitanes
have difficulties which cannot be solved.” Neander (History of the Christian Religion, as translated by Torrey, i. pp.
452, 453) numbers them with Antinomians; though he expresses some doubt whether
the actual existence of such a sect can be proved, and rather inclines to an
opinion noticed above, that the name is symbolical, and that it is used in a
mystical sense, according to the usual style of the book of Revelation, to
denote corrupters or seducers of the people, like Balaam. He supposes that the
passage relates simply to a class of persons who were in the practice of
seducing Christians to participate in the sacrificial feasts of the heathens,
and in the excesses which attended them—just as the Jews were led astray of old
by the Moabites, Nu. 25. What was the origin of the name, however, Neander does
not profess to be able to determine, but suggests that it was the custom of
such sects to attach themselves to some celebrated name of antiquity, in the
choice of which they were often determined by circumstances quite accidental.
He supposes also that the sect may have possessed a life of Nicolas of Antioch,
drawn up by themselves or others from fabulous accounts and traditions, in
which what had been imputed to Nicolas was embodied. Everything, however, in
regard to the origin of this sect, and the reason of the name given to it, and
the opinions which they held, is involved in great obscurity, and there is no
hope of throwing light on the subject. It is generally agreed, among the
writers of antiquity who have mentioned them, that they were distinguished for
holding opinions which countenanced gross social indulgences. This is all that
is really necessary to be known in regard to the passage before us, for this
will explain the strong language of aversion and condemnation used by the
Saviour respecting the sect in the epistles to the churches of Ephesus and
Pergamos.
Which I also hate. If the view above taken of the opinions
and practices of this people is correct, the reasons why he hated them are
obvious. Nothing can be more opposed to the personal character of the Saviour,
or to his religion, than such doctrines and deeds. (Albert Barnes, Notes
on the New Testament: Revelation [London: Blackie & Son, 1884-1885],
66-68)
The Nicolaites were an infamous sect, who disturbed the rising Church
by the superstitions and all the impurities of paganism. See S. Aug. de
hæresib.—To him, to every one that overcometh, I will give to eat of the
tree of life, (that is, eternal happiness, differently expressed in these
letters) which is in the paradise of my
God. It is spoke in the person of Christ, as man. Wi. (George
Leo Haydock, Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary [New York: Edward
Dunigan and Brother, 1859], Logos Bible Software edition)
The prevailing opinion among the fathers was, that they were a sect
founded by Nicolaus the proselyte of Antioch, one of the seven deacons. So
Irenæus (Hær. i. 26. 3(27), p. 105, “Nicolaitæ autem magistrum quidem habent
Nicolaum, unum ex vii., qui primi ad diaconium ab apostolis ordinati sunt: qui
indiscrete vivunt”), Tertullian (Præscr. Hær. 46, vol. ii. p. 63, “alter
hæreticus Nicolaus emersit. Hic de septem diaconis qui in Actis App. allecti
sunt, fuit.” He then describes his execrable impurities), Clem.-Alex. (in two
passages, which are worth citing, as I shall presently have to comment on them:
1) Strom, ii.20 (118), p. 490 P.,—τοιοῦτοι δὲ καὶ οἱ φάσκοντες ἐαυτοὺς Νικολάῳ ἓπεσθαι ἀπομνημόνευμά τι τἀνδρὸς φέροντες ἐκ παρατροπῆς τὸ δεῖν παραχρήσασθαι τῇ σαρκί. ἀλλʼ
ὁ μὲν γενναῖος κολούειν δεῖν ἐδήλου τάς τε ἡδονὰς τάς τε ἐπιθυμίας, καὶ τῇ ἀσκήσει ταύτῃ καταμαραίνειν τὰς τῆς σαρκὸς ὁρμάς τε καὶ ἐπιθέσεις. οἱ δὲ εἰς ἡδονὴν τράγων δίκην ἐκχυθέντες οἷον ἐφυβρίζοντες τῷ σώματι καθηδυπαθοῦσιν: 2) ib. iii. 4 (25), p. 522 P.: περὶ τῆς Νικολάου ῥήσεως διαλεχθέντες ἐκεῖνο παρελείπομεν· ὡραίαν, φησί, γυναῖκα ἔχων οὗτος μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος πρὸς τῶν ἀποστόλων ὀνειδισθεὶς ζηλοτυπίαν εἰς μέσον ἀγαγὼν τὴν γυναῖκα γῆμαι τῷ βουλομένῳ ἐπέτρεψεν· ἀκόλουθον γὰρ εἶναί φασι τὴν πρᾶξιν ταύτην ἐκείνῃ τῇ φωνῇ τῇ ὅτι παραχρήσασθαι τῇ σαρκὶ δεῖ), Euseb. (H. E. iii. 29, citing
Clem.-Alex., as above), Epiphanius (Hær. xxv. pp. 76 ff., where he gives a long
account of Nicolaus and his depravation and his followers): so also Jerome
(dial. adv. Lucif. 23, vol. ii. p. 197) and Aug. (de hæres. 5, vol. viii. p.
26), and many other fathers, citations from whom may be seen in Stern’s notes,
h. 1.: also Areth. in Catena, referring to Epiph.
We have already seen, in Clem.-Alex., symptoms of a desire to
vindicate Nicolaus the deacon from the opprobrium of having been the founder of
such a sect; and we find accordingly in the apostolical constitutions, οἱ νῦν ψευδώνυμοι Νικολαΐται are spoken of: and Victorinus of Pettau,
in our earliest extant commentary on the Apocalypse, says, “Nicolaitæ autem
erant illo tempore ficti homines et pestiferi, qui sub nomine Nicolai ministri
fecerunt sibi hæresin,” &c. Thence we advance a step farther, and find
another Nicolaus substituted for the deacon of that name. So in Dorotheus
(cited in Stern) we find him described as a bishop of Samaria (ὃς ἐπίσκοπος Σαμαρείας γενόμενος ἑτεροδόξησεν ἅμα τῷ Σίμωνι). And an apocryphal Acts of the Apostles
in Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. i. p. 498 (Stern), speaks of a Corinthian of
this name, infamous for licentious practices. We come now to the second
principal view with regard to this sect, which supposes their name to be
symbolic, and Nicolaus to be the Greek rendering of Balaam, בָּלַע עָם, or, Chald., בְּלַע עָם, ‘perdidit vel absorpsit populum.’ Consequently the name
Nicolaitans = Balaamites, as is also inferred from ver. 14. This view seems
first to have been broached by Chr. A. Heumann in the Acta Eruditorum for 1712,
and since then has been the prevailing one. (There is a trace in ancient times
of a mystical interpretation, e. g. in Haymo, gloss. ord., who says, “Nicolaus,
stultus populus, id est, Gentiles
Deum ignorantes:” and Ambrose Ansbert, “si a proprietate ad figuram, ut solet,
sermo recurrit, omnes hæretici Nicolaitæ esse probantur: Nicolaus enim
interpretatur stultus populus.” What
this means, I am as unable to say as was Vitringa: it perhaps arises from thus
understanding בַּל
עָם, ‘non-populus:’ cf. Deut.
32:21.) But this is very forced, and is properly repudiated by some of the best
modern Commentators: e. g. by De Wette, Ebrard, and Stern. (See also Winer,
Realw. sub voce: Neander, Kirchengesch. i. 2. 774 ff.: Gieseler, Kirchengesch.
i. 1. 113 note.) In the first place, the names are by no means parallel, even
were we to make Balaam, as some have done, into בַּעַל עָם, lord of the people (Ἀρχέλαος): and next, the view derives no support from ver. 14 f., where the
followers of Balaam are distinct from the Nicolaitans: see note there. And
besides, there is no sort of reason for interpreting the name otherwise than
historically. It occurs in a passage indicating simple matters of historical
fact, just as the name Antipas does in ver. 13. If we do not gain trustworthy
accounts of the sect from elsewhere, why not allow for the gulf which separates
the history of the apostolic from that of the post-apostolic period, and be
content with what we know of them from these two passages? There is nothing
repugnant to verisimilitude in what Clem.-Alex. relates of the error of
Nicolaus; nor need all of those, who were chosen to aid the Apostles in
distributing alms, have been, even to the end of their lives, spotless and
infallible. At least it may be enough for us to believe that possible of one of
them, which the post-apostolic Fathers did not hesitate to receive), which I also hate (this strong
expression in the mouth of our Lord unquestionably points at deeds of
abomination and impurity: cf. Isa. 59:8; Jer. 44:4; Amos 5:21; Zech. 8:17).
(Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical
Commentary, 4 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Guardian Press, 1976], 4:563-65)
Ch. 2:6: “But thou hast this,
that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.”—I find
no evidence of the derivation of the word Nicolaitans from a man called
Nicolas. Various biblical writers have said truly that Νικολας, or Νικολαος, is = בעלעם,
or בלעם, the conqueror, idol, or fascinator of the
people. Fürst, Simon, Leusden, and Gesenius explain the word variously:
“Antiquity of the people; not of the people; mighty one of the people; lord of
the people; prevailer with or conqueror of the people.” Balaamites are
mentioned in ver. 14, and the connecting of the two is called a conjecture; but
it is met only by a conjecture. The Balaamites of old, the Nicolaitans of the
apostolic age, the Mohammedans, Mormonites, Socialists, and other men-pleasers
of modern times, have so much in common, or similar, that it is most natural to
group them together. The name, as significant and allegorical, is applicable to
them all. (James Glasgow, The Apocalypse: Translated and
Expounded [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1872], 148)
Ver. 6. Nicolaitanes.—A
branch of the Gnostics who held it to be lawful to eat meats offered to idols,
and who practised fornication. They traced their origin to Nicolas, one of the
seven deacons, but there is no clue to the assumed connection between them.
They were the antinomians of the Asiatic Church. Some think the word is but a
Greek form of the name Balaam, or as symbolical of Balaam, and so Nicolaitanes
was equivalent to Balaamites. (Robert Tuck, I & II Peter, I,
II & III John, Jude, Revelation [The Preacher’s Complete Homiletic
Commentary; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1892], 443)
Ver. 6. The message ends with a tardy echo of 2 b. The prophet admits that one redeeming feature in the church is
the detestation of the N. Not all the spirit of animosity at Ephesus is amiss.
When directed, as moral antipathy, against these detestable Nikolaitans
(corresponding to the Greek quality of μισοπονηρία), it is a healthy feature of their Christian consciousness. The
Nikolaitans have been identified by patristic tradition, from Irenæus
downwards, with the followers of the proselyte Nikolaos (Acts 6:5, where see
note), who is alleged, especially by Tertullian and Epiphanius, to have lapsed
into antinomian license, as the result of an overstrained asceticism, and to
have given his name to a sect which practised religious sensuality in the days
before Cerinthus. The tenets of the latter are in fact declared by Irenæus to
have been anticipated by the Nicolaitans, who represented the spirit of
libertinism which, like the opposite extreme of legalism at an earlier period,
threatened the church’s moral health. But if the comment of Vict. were
reliable, that the N. principle was merely ut
delibatum exorcizaretur et manducari posset et ut quicumque fornicatus esset
octauo die pacem acciperet, the representation of John would become
vigorously polemical rather than historically accurate. The tradition of the
N.’s origin may of course be simply due to the play of later imagination upon
the present narrative taken with the isolated reference to Nikolaos in Acts
6:6. On the other hand it was not in the interest of later tradition to
propagate ideas derogatory to the character of an apostolic Christian; indeed,
as early as Clem. Alex. (Strom. ii.
20, iii. 4; cf. Constit. Ap. vi. 8),
a disposition (shared by Vict.) to clear his character is evident. Whatever was
the precise relation of the sect to Nikolaos, whether some tenet of his was
exploited immorally or whether he was himself a dangerously lax teacher, there
is no reason to doubt the original connexion of the party with him. Its
accommodating principles are luminously indicated by the comment of Hippolytus
(ἐδίδασκεν ἀδιαφορίαν βίου) and the phrase attributed to him by
Clem. Alex, (παραχρήσασθαι τῇ σαρκὶ δεῖ), a hint which is confirmed, if the
Nikolaitans here and in ver. 15 are identified with the Balaamites (νικο-λαος, in popular etymology, a rough Greek equivalent for בלע עם, perdidit uel absorpsit populum). This
symbolic interpretation has prevailed from the beginning of the eighteenth
century (so Ewald, Hengstenberg, Düst., Schürer, Julicher, Bousset). The
original party-name was probably interpreted by opponents in this derogatory
sense. It was thus turned into a covert censure upon men who were either
positively immoral or liberally indifferent to scruples (on food, clubs,
marriage, and the like) which this puritan prophet regarded as vital to the
preservation of genuine Christianity in a pagan city. A contemporary parallel
of moral laxity is quoted by Derenbourg, Hist,
de la Palestine (1867), p. 363. If Nikolaos was really an ascetic himself,
the abuse of his principles is quite intelligible, as well as their popularity
with people of inferior character. Pushed to an extreme, asceticism confines
ethical perfection to the spirit. As the flesh has no part in the divine life,
it may be regarded either as a foe to be constantly thwarted or as something
morally indifferent. In the latter case, the practical inference of sensual
indulgence is obvious, the argument being that the lofty spirit cannot be
soiled by such indulgence any more than the sun is polluted by shining on a
dunghill. (James Moffat, “The Revelation of St. John the Divine,” in
The Expositor’s Greek Testament: Commentary, 5 vols. [New York: George
H. Doran Company, n.d.], 351-52)
Ver. 6. But this thou hast, that
thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, &c.] Though these Christians
had left their first love, yet they bore an hatred to the filthy and impure
practices of some men, who were called Nicolaitans;
who committed fornication, adultery, and all uncleanness, and had their wives
in common, and also ate things offered to idols; who were so called, as some
think, from Nicolas of Antioch, one of the seven deacons in Acts 6:5 though as
to Nicolas himself, it is said, that he lived with his own lawful married wife,
and no other, and that his daughters continued virgins all their days, and his
son incorrupt; and that these men, so called, only shrouded themselves under
his name, and abused a saying or action of his, or both, to patronize their
wicked deeds: he had used to advise παραχρησθαι τη σαρκι, by which be meant a restraining of all
carnal and unlawful lusts; but these men interpreted it of an indulgence in
them, and so gave themselves up to all uncleanness; and whereas, he having a
beautiful wife, and being charged with jealousy, in order to clear himself of
it, he brought her forth, and gave free liberty to any person to marry her as
would; which indiscreet action of his these men chose to understand as allowing
of community of wives. Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, that these Nicolaitans were not
called so from any man, but from the word נכילה,
Nicolah, let us eat, which they often
used to encourage each other to eat things offered to idols. However this be,
it is certain that there were such a set of men, whose deeds were hateful; but
neither their principles nor their practices obtained much in this period of time,
though they afterwards did; see ver. 15. Professors of the Christian religion
in general abhorred such impure notions and deeds, as they were by Christ: which also I hate; all sin is hateful to
Christ, being contrary to his nature, to his will, and to his Gospel; and
whatever is hateful to him should be to his people; and where grace is, sin
will be hateful, both in themselves and others; and men’s deeds may be hated
when their persons are not; and hatred of sin is taken notice of by Christ,
with a commendation. (John Gill, An Exposition of the New
Testament, 3 vols. [The Baptist Commentary Series; London: Matthews and
Leigh, 1809], 3:696)
Some are convinced that Onesiphorus was dead because Paul uses the
word οἶκος. But look at 1 Cor.
16:15 where the head of that “house” was not dead, and where “house” is used
because its head was not the only member who ministered. How did Onesiphorus
get to Rome? Not by mere chance. May we not assume that when Paul’s appeal
reached Ephesus, when all to whom it was addressed turned away, the whole
family of Onesiphorus gladly let him go to Rome to do what he could for Paul?
Yes, Paul had to write “house” here and in 4:19.
Others rely only on v. 18a to support their opinion that Onesiphorus
was dead. Strange, indeed, for then the two prayers should be reversed, the
prayer for Onesiphorus himself should be first, the prayer for his bereaved
family second. Moreover, if the father had died recently, “comfort” should be
Paul’s prayer for the family and not just “mercy,” some word from Paul that
reflects the bereavement. That word, too, should be found in the prayer for the
family (this to be placed second) and not in a prayer for the dead man. We have
never seen Paul fail in a tender situation; he always knows just what to say
and just where and how to say it. If this man had just died, I for one cannot
conceive that Paul would write as he does. The family evidently lived in Ephesus,
for Paul sends greetings through Timothy. Some think that, although he had left
Rome when Paul wrote, it was not to make a direct return home, but that is only
a surmise. In both prayers we have the aorist optative of wish. (R.
C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians,
to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon [Columbus, Ohio:
Lutheran Book Concern, 1937], 773-74)
This Is Not a Prayer for the
Dead. Henry Hammond: What
“the household of Onesiphorus” here signifies is thought fit to be examined by
some in order to [prove] the doctrine of praying for the dead. For because the
prayer is here for the household, and not for the master of it, Onesiphorus
himself, it is by some presently concluded that Onesiphorus was dead at that
time. And then that being supposed, it appears that St. Paul prays for him that
he may find mercy in that day. How far it may be fit to pray for those who are
departed this life needs not to be disputed here. It is certain that some
measure of bliss, which shall at the day of judgment be vouchsafed the saints
when their bodies and souls shall be reunited, is not till then enjoyed by
them, and therefore may safely and fitly be prayed for them (in the same manner
as Christ prays to his Father to glorify him with that glory which he had
before the world was). And this is a very distant thing from that prayer which
is now used in the Romish Church for deliverance from temporal pains, founded
in their doctrine of purgatory, which would no way be deducible from hence,
though Onesiphorus for whom St. Paul here prays for mercy had been now dead.…
But neither is there any evidence of Onesiphorus being then dead, nor
probability of it here. A Paraphrase and Annotations. (Henry
Hammond, Paraphrase and Annotations on the New Testament (1653), in 1-2
Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon: New Testament [Reformation
Commentary on Scripture; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2019], 225)
1:16–18 May the Lord (he
says) give mercy to the household of
Onesiphorus, since he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chain, but
when I came to Rome, he carefully
sought me out and found me. May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord
at that day. And how much he ministered to me at Ephesus, you know better.
Now while he mentions Onesiphorus he is also urging Timothy to apply
diligence for true religion. That is why he put down in this place: and he was not ashamed of my chain. In
logical order he has joined these words to those he had spoken in his
exhortation (1:8): therefore, do not be
ashamed of the testimony of the Lord. And confident about his preceding
exhortation, he added:
2:1–2 You, therefore, my son, be
strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, [203] and the things you have heard from me through many witnesses, these
entrust to faithful people, who may be fitted also to teach others. (Theodore
of Mopsuestia: The Commentaries on the Minor Epistles of Paul: Introduction and
Translation [trans. Rowan A. Greer; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2010], 699-701)
Latin Text:
1:16–18 ⌜det ⌜(inquit) Dominus misericordiam
⌜Onesifori
domui, quoniam frequenter me refrigerauit et catenam meam
non erubuit, sed cum uenissem Romae
sollicite me exquisiuit et inuenit. det ei Dominus misericordiam inuenire a Domino in illa die. et quanta
Ephesi ministrauerit mihi, melius tu
cognoscis.
nam dum ⌜memoratur Onesiforum, hortatur et Timotheum erga pietatem diligentiam
adhibere. unde et hoc in loco posuit: et
catenam meam non erubuit.
consequenter ista iunxit illis quae ad eius exhortationem dixerat: ⌜ne
ergo erubescas testimonium Domini. confidens uero de ⌜praecedenti exhortatione ⌜adiecit:
2:1–2 tu ergo, fili mi,
confortare in gratia quae est in Christo Iesu; et quae audisti a me per
multos testes haec commenda fidelibus hominibus, qui idonei ⌜sint etiam alios docere. (Ibid., 698)