Week 15: Dec 18, 2011

This week we continued to unpack John’s arguments. While his teaching were largely aimed at addressing those who had broken away from the church, they have a lot to say about how we live our life today.

Study

ii. Three Proposition Refuted (1:6-10)

1:7 But if we keep living in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

– Having refuted the first claim, John now gives the counter teaching.

But if we keep living in the light as he himself is in the light

– Note the contrast between “If we say…” and “But if we keep living.” While those who had left were making claims about a relationship, it is what we do that is most important. In this case, we must live in the light. As was made clear in the Gospel of John, Jesus is our example of how we are to live. We should seek to follow him and do his will.

we have fellowship with one another

– The first result of right living is fellowship. It is the fellowship of believers that is in focus here, but all fellowship depends on “living in the light.” This is because sin damages our ability to have real fellowship with one another. This can most easily be seen in the bonds between a husband and a wife. The sin of adultery seriously damages that that relationship such that, even if forgiven, it can take a long time to heal. But the sin does not need to be as significant as adultery to cause damage. Lots of “little things” that seemingly could be brushed off can still have a cumulative effect and can keep a deeper relationship from ever forming in the first place.

It can seem strange that numerous studies have clearly demonstrated that the more and deeper the relationships that a person has, the more joy they will have in their lives. And yet in recent years such relationships have been harder to form and harder to maintain. But it is only strange until one realizes that over the same period society as a whole has devalued and even ridiculed the notion of “living in the light.”

the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin

– The idea that we should be living in the light does not mean we will never sin. John realizes that we will fail, but that we can be cleansed of our sins. One question is why does John refer to being cleansed here rather than forgiven? While some see the concepts as synonymous, I believe they are different and that here John has a particular reason for referring to cleansing. The reason goes back to his starting premise: God is light, and in him there is no darkness. We cannot be in fellowship with God while we have the stain, or darkness, of sin. Thus, the fact that we are cleansed is key to John’s claim that we have fellowship. This is also a repudiation of those who left, for they were claiming that sin did not matter. In short, they were claiming that darkness could be in God.

1:8 – If we say that we do not have any sin, we are deceiving ourselves and we’re not being truthful to ourselves.

– Here we come to the second claim: we do not have any sin. In this claim it is easy to see a rebuttal to John’s refutation of their first claim. John countered their claim to fellowship by pointing out that those who had left were walking in darkness. So you can almost hear them respond, “I am not walking in darkness because I do not have any sin.” In later Gnostic writing there were different views of this, both of which could be covered by the Greek construction here. Some argued that sin had no hold over them. Others argued that sin was just physical and that only the spiritual mattered. But either way they were arguing that the way they lived was no a barrier to fellowship with God.

– John refutes this second claim by pointing out that if we make such a claim, we are deceiving ourselves. We, after all, know ourselves better than anyone else, so to think that we have no sin is first and foremost to lie to ourselves.
The idea that we can lie to yourselves is at first blush a seeming contradiction. To lie, is to say anything with the intent of deceiving; but how could we deceive ourselves without knowing that we are deceiving ourselves? Yet while intellectually a problem, in reality the concept is so common place that it is not that strange at all. We deceive ourselves all the time. This is one of the key aspects of coming into a deeper relationship with God. A true relationship cannot be built on lies, so the first step in a deeper relationship is being honest with ourselves and with God about who we really are. Before we can really know God, we must first know ourselves. We must break through all the rationalization and self-justifications and see ourselves as God sees us. This can be a very difficult and even painful process, but it is important to remember that we can seek forgiveness and with God’s help become the person God wants us to be, a person who does not need to hide behind lies and rationalizations.

Questions and Discussion.

A lot of the discussion this week centered on the concept and value of true fellowship. True fellowship is a deep and abiding relationship, a relationship where one can be open about their lives, their struggles and their failures. While the amount of true fellowship in a person’s life is perhaps the clearest indicator of a truly joyful life, it is also difficult obtain and once obtained is easily damaged. True fellowship requires openness, and openness requires trust. At its core sin damages relationships, both with God and with each other. We also spent time taking about how societal pressures push toward casual swallow relationship, rather than true fellowship.

The class is taking a break for Christmas and the New Year, and will resume on Sunday January 8^th 2012 where we will continue in 1 John 9

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

Week 14:  Dec 11, 2011

This week we began to unpack John arguments and saw that 1 Century Gnosticism shared some key characteristic with modern 21 Century thought.

Study

ii.            Three Proposition Refuted (1:6-10)

Having establish his premise (that God is light) John now begins to address the claims of the group that left.  But rather than doing this specifically, John shows their inconsistency by stating their claims by as universal principles; principles that they were not living up to. He starts with three claims and formats his arguments in the following fashion.

Claim/Refutation:                    If we claim that…/ we are… – v 6
Counter-Teaching        :           But if we – v 7

Claim/ Refutation:                   If we claim that…/we are… – v 8
Counter- Teaching       :           (But) if we – v 9

Claim/ Refutation:                   If we claim that…/we make… – v 10
Counter- Teaching       : …But if anyone – v 2:1 – Expansion in next section.

These were almost certainly claims that were made by the splinter group. But since John is phrasing these as universal principles, these claims can be troubling for Christians if taken out of context. Thus it is important to remember that John is combating heresy and his readers knew the people to which he was referring. They used to all be members of the same local church. Thus, as John is contrasting the behavior of the heretics with the lives of his readers, he does not need to provide a lot of details to show his readers that they had the truth, not the heretics that left.

1:6 – If we claim that we have fellowship with him but keep living in darkness, we are lying and not practicing the truth.

If we claim

–          The construction of the Greek (if + subjunctive) shows that this and the claims that follow are said as a hypothetical.   By stating the claims in this way John is including himself and his readers. He is making it clear that these are universal rules, and not just rationales created to attack his opponents. There is something fundamentally wrong with their claims.  Their inconsistency meant that they cannot possibly be right no matter how good what they say may sound.

Claim #1 : we have fellowship with him

–          This was a key claim of his opponents.  They had fellowship with God.  Gnosticism stressed that a true relationship could only be had by initiates who had the secret knowledge that Gnosticism provided.

but keep living in darkness

–          Lit: Keep walking. In context this refers to continuous walk that differs from the teaching of God.  This passage has concerned some Christians because they realize they fail on a daily basis to live as God wants. As such, they see themselves as living in darkness. But, as we will see shortly, John is not asking for perfection.  The issue here is not one of perfection, but rather that for Gnostics such things did not really matter. It was the unseen spiritual not the physical that was important.  Thus it was not that they tried and failed, but that they saw no reason to try, which is not the case with most Christians.  As one Pastor I had put it, if you are worried about this verse, then most likely it is not referring to you.

With his mention of “darkness” John ties this back to his starting premise, a premise that his critics would have accepted. As John will make clear shortly, some of this “darkness” was that those who left do not have fellowship with one another (v7) and they “hates his brother.” (v 2:9) But while we do not know the exact specifics of how his opponents were living in the darkness, his readers would have understood the argument.

A key difference between Christianity and (proto) Gnosticism is that Gnosticism saw salvation, not as freedom from sin, but from ignorance.  Ethics and morality were seen as just systems of rules, and as such to be resisted. Right conduct results, not from following external rules, but from inner integrity with the in-dwelling spark.

In some respects Gnosticism has a lot in common with modern thought.  Today we also see “salvation” in knowledge.    In fact the solution to most problems is seen as education.  Have a problem with anger?  This really does not have anything to do with sin. Rather it is a lack of knowledge and therefore the solution is to go to anger management classes.   It would be as if, instead of telling the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more” a modern Jesus said, “go and take a remedial class.”

In addition, while the terminology is a little different, the modern view of morality held in the culture at large would be pretty consistent with the Gnostic view of morality, except rather than that saying they are guided by an inner spark as with Gnosticism, today we would phrase it as that we should be guided by our heart.   

Refutation #1: we are lying and not practicing the truth.

–          Yet while they claim they have fellowship, John shows that their lives are in contradiction with the truth they claim to have.  God is light.  Those who walk in darkness cannot be in fellowship with God.   Note that again, as in 2 & 3 John, the key standard here is Truth.   This is a very important standard for proto-Gnostics as their big claim was that they had the secret truth that no one else had.  So to show that they are lying and don’t have the truth goes to the very core of their claims.

Questions and Discussion.

Much of the discussion this week centered on the nature of Gnosticism, its view of the importance of knowledge and its view of morality, and how they are similar to modern views.  There are differences to be sure, but there is broad similarity as well. Thus as John is talking about those who left the church to which he is writing, he is also saying a great deal about the modern world as well.

Next week we will continue in 1 John 7

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

Week 13: Dec 4, 2011

This week we finished the prologue and got a brief start into the main part of the letter.

Study

1:1b – what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we observed and touched with our own hands—this is the[1] Word of life!

what we

John continues with the 2^nd of the 4 “whats”, and we immediately come to yet another question. Just who are the “we” mentioned here? One option is that John is using the so called royal we and referring to himself in the plural. While possible, one problem is that elsewhere in the letter John refers to himself saying “I’m writing these things…”

Another possibility is that “we” refers to the church at large. While this is consistent with some the later usage, (e.g. 1:6) this would seem to negate the importance of the eyewitness aspect of the testimony since by the time the letter was written, most Christians were not eyewitnesses.

With the stress on eyewitnesses, another possibility is that “we” refers to those who like John were eyewitnesses. While this is consistent with the stress on eyewitness, I believe there is better possibility: The apostles. This is similar to the previous option but is focused on the authority and consistency of message. This is not just John, but all the Apostles who heard the message. He is being sure to point out that he is not special, but that he was an eyewitness, just as other apostles were eyewitnesses.

have heard

The verb here is perfect tense indicating that this was a completed action and not one that was continuing. The message was complete and was not new was the case with his opponents teaching. This emphasis on hearing would stress the message more than the person.

what we have seen with our eyes

This is the third “What.” That it was something that that could be seen, shows that this is more than just a message, this a person, but could also include the miracles. Again, note the emphasis here. This was not just something that was seen; this was something that they saw with their own eyes.

This part conflicts with proto-gnostic teaching. Gnostics believed that outwardly you would only see Jesus. The Christ was within and unseen. Because of this, it is easy to understand why John would choose to emphasizes this point.

what we observed

The 4^th and Last of the 4 “whats” is yet a further emphasis on visible nature of the “What.” This verb differs from the previous “have seen” in that it stresses continuity and attention. It often has the implication that what is being observed is unusual or out of the ordinary. Gnostics saw nothing unusual in Jesus. For them, it was the Christ within him that was special.

and touched with our own hands

Not a separate “what,” but linked to the previous one. Not only did they see the “what,” they touched it with their own hands. Again note the emphasis, this was not just something one could touch, but something they did touch. While a miracle could be seen, touching stresses the physical person of Christ.

this is the Word of life!

Having gone through the four “Whats” we come to the center of the chiasmus, and the focus of the “whats.” The Greek phrase could be translated several different ways:

1 this is word of life
2 concerning the word of life
3 the message concerning life
4 the message which is life
5 the life giving message

It all depends on how the passage is understood in the syntax. Given the Chiastic structure, I support the first view – Both the message and the person of Jesus Christ, who was himself the physical manifestation of the Word of God, a message that is focused on eternal life.

1:2 – This life was revealed to us, and we have seen it and testify about it. We declare to you this eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.

Verse one, with it allusions to John 1:1 and ending with The Word focused readers on the message, the logos. But unlike John 1:1 it was not just the Word, but the Word of Life. Here John begins to focuses on the life as he backs out of the chiasmus. (The ↑ ­ mark is to indicate the corresponding phrase in the beginning of the chiasmus.

was revealed to us ↑ observed and touched with our own hands

and we have seen it ↑ what we have seen with our eyes

and testify about it and declare to you ↑ what we have heard

Again note the emphasis on this point with both Testify and Declare. This was not some secret (Gnostic) teaching, but one that was to be testified about and proclaimed.

this eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us. ↑ What existed from the beginning

At the beginning we have the Person (Word) but with a strong focus on message. Here at the end we have the result: eternal life. Yet there remains a strong focus on the person of Jesus, i.e. that was with the Father. This is similar to John 1:2 he was in the beginning with God.

In this passage we have the same teaching as John 14:6, Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life. Jesus is the embodiment of eternal life in the same way he is the embodiment of the Word of God. It is the whole: Jesus as the embodiment of the message and life that is John’s focus.

This is one of the reasons for the complexity found in this verse. John is tying all of this together with yet another emphasis on the fact that this is not just something that he teaches, but that something to which he and others were eyewitness.

1:3 – What we have seen and heard we declare to you so that you, too, can have fellowship with us. Now this fellowship of ours is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus, the Messiah.²

Having established his main theme, John returns his reader back to where he left off with a short summary before moving on to the main verb in the sentence.

we declare to you so that you, too, can have fellowship with us

The point of all this is not just abstract theology, but our fellowship (κοινωνίαν). This is an association involving close mutual relations and involvement. (Louw-Nida) There is a unity and oneness to fellowship and this sets it apart from proto-Gnostics who had recent split off, who had broken fellowship.

Now this fellowship of ours is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus, the Messiah

This is not just a fellowship of other Christians but a fellowship that includes the Father, and also includes his Son, Jesus Christ. This again may be stressing a difference with John’s proto-Gnostic opponents. They had separated and thus were not in fellowship with eyewitnesses. More importantly their theological views put a difference between Jesus and the Christ. Finally, Gnosticism was more individualistic, stressing secret knowledge held by a few, whereas Christian is more communal offering a fellowship to be shared with all true believers.

1:4 – We are writing these things³ so that our⁴ joy may be full.

Finally John ends the prologue with a statement of purpose. There is an issue here as to exactly what he is referring to when he writes “these things.” Does he mean this letter or something more? A key here is the use of We, which is emphatic. In Greek, pronouns such as ‘we’ are optional as they are already included at the end of the verb itself. The ending –μεν (-men) means ‘we,’ so the word γράφομεν (graphomen) already means “we write,” since it ends in μεν (men). Yet John does not write γράφομεν (graphomen), but γράφομεν ἡμεῖς (graphomen hemeis) where ἡμεῖς (hemeis) is the Greek word for we. Thus he is emphasizing that this is “We,” and not just him. Given the context, discussed above, i.e., of the eyewitness testimony of the apostles, I believe “these things” references to the written version of the testimony of the apostles; to the entire New Testament, or at least as much as had been written to that point.

so that our joy may be full.

This is the second reason clause in the sentence (the first was so we could have fellowship). The verse recalls Jesus words in John 15:11

I have told you this so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete (full).

The “our” here is inclusive. John’s joy would not be complete unless theirs was complete. Remaining in the truth, within the apostolic message, and having a fellowship with the Father, the son, and with other Christians is the way to be full of joy.

I. Part 1 – Light and Darkness (1:5 – 3:10)

a. The Message – Living in the Light (1:5-10)

i. God Is Light – Establishing Common Ground (1:5)

1:5 – This is the message that we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness—none at all!

This is the message

John begins the main part of his letter with the phrase “This is the message.” This basic phase occurs only here and then again in 3:11 which reads, “This is the message that you have heard from the beginning:” I believe phrases mark off the two major sections of the letter.

we have heard from him and declare to you

This message was not a deduction or a belief; it was a revelation from Jesus. John is still referring to the testimony of the apostles. The message was one they heard (perfect – complete), and it is one they declare (Present – ongoing). It remains ongoing even today in the New Testament.

God is light

This is not a statement that is found directly in the rest of the Bible, but some passage come close. John 1:4-5 says, “In him was life, and that life brought light to humanity. 5 And the light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out.” Psalm 104:2 says, “you are wrapped in light like a garment, stretching out the sky like a curtain.”

More importantly, the Light and Darkness metaphor is common to many religious traditions during the first century. Itcan be found in Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, and even the Jews at Qumran, talked of “sons of light” and “sons of darkness.” So John is starting at a point of common ground upon which all would agree.

and in him there is no darkness—none at all!

John not only makes the point that God is light positively, but for emphasis he makes the same point negatively. Then for yet further emphasis he add, “none at all!” The metaphor of light includes revelation and salvation, knowledge and morality. So while John is starting with common ground, he is also drawing a clear standard. “God is good and evil can have no place beside him” (Marshall)

Next week we will continue in 1 John 6

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

Footnotes:

1 v1:1 Lit. about the
2 v1:3 Or Christ
3 v1:4 Other mss. read these things to you {B}
4 v1:4 Other mss. read your {A}

Week 12: Nov 27, 2011

This week we had a lot of discussion before continuing 1 John 1:1

Study

1:1 – What existed from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we observed and touched with our own hands—this is the[1] Word of life!

existed from the beginning

– Last week we saw that the “What” at the start of the verse referred to the totality of Jesus, and the message he brought concerning eternal life. This brings us to the next question. When was the beginning that is being referred to here? Again there are several possibilities.

1 From all eternity as in John 1:1. One question however, is that this is from (ἀπ) the beginning whereas John 1:1 was in (ἐν) the beginning. It would also seem to be in contrast from the other three clauses that will follow this one.

2 From the beginning of the world. This is certainly possible but seems a bit arbitrary. Why pick this point as the point to begin. It also has the problem of possibly, but necessarily, implying that Jesus only existed from the creation. So it add little to our understanding of the verse, but introduces a possible problem

3 From Jesus’ earthly ministry. This is consistent with the other three clauses and since the “What” includes both the message and eternal life, this would make sense as this was the point at which the message of eternal life began to be spread.

4 From the beginning of the apostles teachings. This is also largely consistent with the time frame of the three clauses yet to come. However it would shift the focus from the totality of Jesus and the message of life that he embodied, to more of an emphasis on the message, i.e., this is the message we have taught from the beginning. And while this is consistent with the timeframe, it would conflict with the see and touch aspects of the “What” discussed in the next verse.

Given all of this it would seem that it is close between the 1st and 3rd options. The lack of explanation by John, and clear allusion to John 1:1 would seem to argue for the first option. Yet the third option seems to fit a little better. One thing to consider is that they may have been conflated in John’s mind. The main point being stressed here is the lack of change. Whether one sees this as from the beginning of Jesus’ Ministry or from all eternity ultimately matters little, and it may not have mattered to John as he wrote.

Questions and Discussion.

The class began with a question concerning the judgment seat of Christ: Since none of us are perfect and all have sinned and fallen short, even as Christians, will this be a judgment that we should fear? This developed into a long discussion on the balance between love and judgment and the nature of forgiveness that would be impossible to recreate here, however it does foreshadow some issues that we will be covering later in the study. In the end I argued that while our life will be judged at the judgment seat of Christ, this will not be a time of fear. I am not sure we have the words for the emotions what we will be feeling, it will be a time of sadness for all the times that we failed our savior, but it will be a time when we experience true forgiveness and as such our sense of failure will be, I believe, overwhelmed by the love of Christ and at that point we will understand both his sacrifice and his forgiveness in ways that we can’t now. So while I do not believe it will be a time of fear, like most of the afterlife, we cannot really say what it will be, for now we see through a glass darkly. (1 Cor 13:12)

Next week we will continue in 1 John 1

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

Footnotes:
1 v1:1 Lit. about the

Week Eleven: Nov 20, 2011

This week we finish 2 John, and then started 1 John. I finished 2 John in previous post.

Study

1 John

Outline

While there is very large agreement when it comes to the outline of 2^nd and 3^rd John, the reverse is true when it comes to 1^st John as there is very little agreement. As Marshall described the problem “It is… extremely difficult to find a pattern in the author’s thinking, and many different suggestions have been offered.”(p 22)  As I reviewed the many suggested outlines none stuck me being correct as they seemed to be imposed upon instead of derived from the letter.  So I looked at the text of 1 John and, right and wrong, came up with my own.  You will need to decide if I have taken a step in the right direction, or just added to the confusion.

My approach was to look for distinctive features in the text that would define the structure, and I noticed two.  While there is wide disagreement over the outline there is a general agreement that the first 4 verses of chapter one serves as a prologue to the rest of the letter, and I agree with this assessment. There is also general agreement that the letter has two main sections with the division occurring somewhere around the end of chapter 2 or the beginning of chapter 3. Commentators differ as to exactly where.

As such, the body of the letter begins in verse 5 with “This is the message that we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness—none at all!”    I noticed that a very similar phrase occurs in 3:11, “This is the message that you have heard from the beginning: We should love one another.”  These are the only two places where such a phrase occurs in 1 John and so I took them as marking off the two main portions of the letter.  Verse 5:13 begins “I have written these things to you who believe…”  While similar phrases do occur elsewhere, most notably in chapter 2, here they seem to have the tone of summation, and thus begin the final portion of the letter.   So based on this we have 4 main parts,  a prologue, two major sections and a conclusion.

The second feature I noticed is, as I noted in 2 and 3 John,  John seems to use phrases such as “Dear Friend”  (3 John 2, 5 & 11)  and “Dear Lady” (2 John 5)  to mark changes in thought, and the same appears to be true here as the transition at 2:1 is marked by “My little Children…”  Looking through the letter, this and similar phrases occur periodically “My little Children…” (2:1), “Dear Friends…” (2:7 & 18), “Little Children…” (2:18, 2:28  & 3:7), etc., so I took these as marking transition.   Using this as my framework I started my detailed analysis of the letter to see if this would work out.  I am currently up to Chapter 3 and for the most part it is working very well.

The major diversion from this pattern has been in the middle of Chapter 2.  While verse 12 does begin a section with “I am writing to you, little children…”  it is the beginning of an almost poetic section of two groups of three phrases, were each phrase beginning with either “little children”, “fathers” or “young people” and clearly not all of them are meant to be transitions, rather the entire passage is a unit.

The other major break with this pattern occurs in verse 20, where John switches from talking about those who left in verse 19, to his readers with “You have an anointing from the Holy One and know all things.” This also seems to beginning a new section. Internally, most of these subsections consist of two part, and opening statement which often serves as a premise, and then a expansion or discussion.

At this point I have only worked through the beginning of chapter 3 and here is what I have so far. I will update this when I have finished my notes.

I.            Prologue – Our Testimony: the Word of Life (1:1-4)

II.            Part I – Light and Darkness (1:5 -310)

a.      The Message – Living in the Light (1:5-1:10)

i.      God Is Light – Establishing Common Ground (1:5)

ii.      Three Proposition Refuted (1:6-10)

b.      Expansion:  Keep His Commandments (2:1-6)

i.      Jesus the Messiah is our advocate (2:1-2)

ii.      To know him is to obey him (2:3-6)

1 Statement (2:3)

a Claim (2:4)

b Counter-Claim (2:5)

2 Restatement (2:6)

c.       Expansion: Love One Another (2:7-11)

i.            The commandment to Love (2:7-8)

ii.            To be in the light is to love (2:9-11)

1  Claim (2:9)

a  Counter-Claim (2:10)

2  Restatement of Claim(2:11)

d.      Our Position (2:12-17)

i.            Our position in Christ (2:12-14)

ii.            Warning: Do not love the world  (2:15-17)

e.       Their Position (2:18-27)

i.            Antichrists a sign of the time (2:18)

ii.            They Left us (2:19-20)

f.        Why John Writes (2:21-27)

i.      Premise: You Know all things (2:20-1)

1  You know lies are not in the truth

ii.      Those who deny are the liars (2:22-23)

1  Those who confess have the son and the father.

iii.      You remain in him (2:24-25)

1 You have the promise of eternal life

iv.       Summary (2:26-27)

g.      Expansion:  Abide in the Father (2:28-3:1)

i.      To abide is to be Prepared (2:28)

ii.      The righteous are God’s Children (2:29-30)

h.      Expansion:  We are God’s Children Live accordingly (3:2-3:6)

i.      Premise:   We will be like him (3:2)

ii.      Live accordingly (3:29-30)

i.        Don’t be Deceived (3:7 – 3:10)

i.      Premise:   Don’t be Deceived (3:7a)

ii.      Distinguishing between Righteous and Unrighteous (3:7b-3:10)

III.            Part II  –  Love One Another (3:11-5:14)

a.      The Message  – Love One Another(3:11-17)

b.      True Love Acts (3:18-20)

c.       Love answer prayer (3:21-24)

d.      Test what People Say (4:1-3)

e.       We overcome the World (4:4-6)

f.        Love comes from God (4:7-10)

g.      Love leads to perfection (4:11-5:12)

IV.            Epilogue – These things have I written unto you (5:13-21)

a.      Conclusion (5:13-20)

b.      4:21 – Final warning (5:20)

Notes

I.            Prologue – Our Testimony: the Word of Life (1:1-4)

The first four verses of this letter are one sentence in the Greek text and most consider this sentence to be the most complicated in the writings of John, with phrases such as “bordering on incoherence,” “grammatical impossibilities” and “unclear.”  (Harris)  The train of thought is interrupted 3 times and the main verb does not occur until the end of verse 3.  However the thoughts here are not random but appear to have the following structure.

1a – 2d are in the form of a chiasmus, centered on 1e, “Concerning the word of Life,” with 2e and f begin a further description of “The life eternal.” 3a quickly summarizes the chiasmus before getting to the main verb “We proclaim” in 3b. The remainder of the passage (3c-4b) then explains the reasons for the proclamation.

The reason for all this complexity is that John is doing many things.  He is making an allusion to the Gospel of John, which also opens with a chiasmus.  He is stressing the eyewitness nature of his testimony and that it results in both eternal life and fellowship with the father.

1:1 – What existed from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we observed and touched with our own hands—this is the[1] Word of life!

–          There is a pretty clear  allusion to John 1:1 here:  In the beginning was the Word…

–          This is the first of 4 “what” phrases, and instantly raises the question of just what is being referred to here?  As is often the case there are several possibilities that have been suggested.

1 Jesus as the Word (λόγος) as in John 1:1.  There does seem to be a clear allusion to the opening of John’s gospel and the word (λόγου) is mention here at the end of the verse, “The word of life (τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς).  There is, however, a problem.  The passage says “What” (neuter), not “The one” (masculine).  It is not impossible for a person to be referred to using a neuter.  Paul does this in 1 Cor 15:10 saying about himself that, “By the grace of God I am WHAT I am.” But it is unusual.

2 Life is another possibility, as this is also mentioned at the end of the verse. It is also supported by 1:2 which begins “This life…”  However this option has the same problem as understanding this as Jesus for the Greek word for life (ζωῆς)  is feminine.

3 I believe the best way to understand this is to see Word of Life as embodying both the incarnation and message of God.  Thus the reason John uses “What” (neuter) is because the reference is not just personal but is inclusive of the message of salvation that Jesus proclaimed.  John is stressing the inseparability between the message of Christ and the person of Jesus, which as we will see early in the letter is very important to his overall message.

Next week we will continue in 1 John 1

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

Footnotes:

1 v1:1 Lit. about the

Week Eleven: Nov 20, 2011

This week we finished 2 John, and then started 1 John. I will start 1 John in a separate post.

Study

II.Conclusion

b. Final words (12)

12 – Although I have a great deal to write to you,¹ I would prefer not to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to come to you and talk face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

– This is a serious matter and there is a lot to do, but John does not want to write. The ending her is very similar to the closing of 3 John

c. Greeting (13)

13 – The children of your² chosen sister greet you.³

– John closes the letter closes in the standard way. The reference to “Children” most likely refers to the members of John’s Church.

In the next post I will start 1 John

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

Footnotes:

1 v12 Lit. you (plural)
2 v13 Lit. you (singular)
3 v13 Other mss. read you. Amen

Week Ten:  Nov 13, 2011

This week we finish the bulk of 2 John.

Study

II. Body

a.      Reject False Teachers (7-11)

8 – See¹ to it that you² don’t destroy what we have³ worked for, but that you⁴ receive your⁵ full reward.

–          This is not talking about losing one’s salvation for John is talking about a reward that we work for (εἰργασάμεθα – eirgasametha).  The background here is that God has set aside a reward for us, but our unfaithfulness could destroy it.  This refers to loss of rewards that are earned, rather than loss of salvation which is by grace.

–          First and foremost when dealing with heresy, we must be careful that we don’t fall into the deception.   We should look to our own walk first.   As Jesus says in Luke 6:42, “How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye?”

9a – Everyone who does not remain true to the teaching of the Messiah,⁶ but goes beyond it, does not have God.

–          Literally this says “stay in the teaching” where teaching is singular.  Teaching here is synonymous with the truth referred to earlier.   It is the teaching of the Lord, transmitted by the apostles down to us.

but goes beyond it

–          Literally but goes ahead of it. The picture here is that God has given us a place to be and we are not to go wandering off.  God has given us what we need to know.  Trying to go beyond this can lead to error.  For example, the heresies surrounding the Trinity all stem from trying to make sense of the statements of scripture, to force them into something we can understand, instead of just taking them for what they say.

–          This may also be a sarcastic statement against the deceivers mentioned in verse 8.   Again a key aspect about Gnosticism and proto-Gnosticism was the belief in secret knowledge.  Christianity is knowledge for everyone. Gnosticism is the secret knowledge only for the Gnostics.  Therefore, Gnostics could easily be seen as not remaining with the teaching of Jesus but going “going ahead” to the secret knowledge.

does not have God.

–          Is not in a personal relationship with God.   However, the focus here is not really on salvation, either having it or losing it.  The focus is on whom you should trust for teaching.  If a person does not have God, we should not be looking to them for teachings.

9b – The person who remains true to the teaching of the Messiah⁷ has both the Father and the Son.

–          The one who stays with the teaching of Jesus, rather than going ahead of the teachings is the person that has the Father and the Son.  To have one is to have the other.  This is the person you can trust.

10*-11 – If anyone comes to you⁸ but does not present this teachings,⁹ do not receive¹⁰ him into your house or even welcome¹¹ him, because the one who welcomes him shares in his evil deeds

–          Verse 9 was the test we should use; now John gives us the application.

do not receive him into your house or even welcome him

–          Does this mean only Christians should enter our homes?  Here is a case where the historical context is important.   3 John 5-7 makes it clear the gospel was being spread through the efforts traveling missionaries.  These missionaries depended upon the support and hospitality of fellow Christians to do their work.  The core meaning here is that we should not to give aid and support to those spreading false teaching.  When applying this verse, this is the key question we should ask.  Are we giving aid and support?

Based on this, I do not believe this applies to non-Christians in a non-religious role.  As Walter Martin once pointed out, it is ok to have a non-Christian plumber enter your house if your basement is flooding.

How does this apply to missionaries such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who come to your house, should you invite them into your home?  Again the key question applies; are you supporting their efforts by your actions?   I do not believe you are for two reasons.  First you can challenge them in truth and love and in the process share the Gospel with them.  Secondly, while they are with you, they are no out spreading their errors to others.  So by inviting them in, you are actually inhibiting their efforts to get converts.  This, of course, assumes, you are grounded enough in the teaching of the Bible not to be deceived yourselves.

–          Another question is what about Christians who have different beliefs than we do?  What are the core teachings on which we should break fellowship? Different views of the millennium? Different views of rapture? Different views of Salvation? Election? Can you lose salvation? Different understandings of Genesis?  Inerrancy?  Where do we draw the line?

This is where John’s test is important.  What do they say about Jesus and how is their walk with the Lord?  With all of the issues just listed, there are Christians on both sides of the issue who would still agree about Jesus and whose walk with Lord is good.  This should be our primary focus.

because the one who welcomes him shares in his evil deeds

–          Literally:  the one speaking a greeting to him.  The concept here is of giving encouragement. To support evil is to do evil.  The concept here is the flip side of the point made in 3 John 8 “Therefore, we ought to support such people so that we can become fellow workers with them.”

–          The key point here is that we must be careful whom we support.  In a modern time this will largely be concerned with what charities do we give money to?  What do they do with that money?

Questions and Discussion.

A of lot of the discussion this week centered on verse 10-11, and was summarized in the verse above. The rest centered on what constitutes “going beyond” the teaching of Jesus.  Does, for example, liberation theology go beyond?   Liberation theology is a blend of the Gospel interpreted into Marxist ideology.   For example, the fact that there was no room at the inn for Joseph and Mary is interpreted in term of class struggle with them being homeless, and exploited by wealth elites.  This is going beyond what the gospel teachings.  From this we started to discuss what our duty to the poor is. Finally we spend some time discussing how to deal with Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Next week we will continue in 2 John 8

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

1 v8 The Gk. verb is plural
2 v8 Lit. you (plural)
3 v8 Other mss. read you have
4 v8 Lit. you (plural)
5 v8 Lit. your (plural)
6 v9 Or Christ
7 v9 Or Christ
8 v10 Lit. you (plural)
9 v10 ISV:  his teaching
10 v10 The Gk. verb is plural
11 v10 The Gk. verb is plural

Week Nine:  Nov 6, 2011

This week we focused on the false teachers that are the subject of the letter.  As a result we spend all of our time on verse 7.  I will repeat the first part of this verse from last week.

Study

II. Body

a.      Reject False Teachers (7-11)

7* – For many deceivers have gone out into the world. They refuse to acknowledge Jesus the Messiah¹ is coming in flesh². Any such person is a deceiver and an antichrist.

For (ὅτι -oti )

–          While this verse marks a change in the letter from positive exhortation to warnings, it is connect to the previous verse.  In context, John was glad that they were living in the truth because…

many deceivers have gone out into the world.

–          Just as Christian missionaries that 3 John 5-6 says we should welcome have gone out
so had their counterparts. It is these counter parts that John is now going to warn them about.

refuse to acknowledge Jesus the Messiah is coming in flesh

–          The word translated acknowledge (ὁμολογοῦντες – omologountes) is a legal term for contracts in terms of   someone agrees and therefore promises to do something.   It is not referring to a mere intellectual acceptance of doctrine, but implies action as well.   In this light we can better understand John’s stress on both Truth (intellectual acceptance) and Love (doing).  Both are inseparably linked. To really believe is to do.

–          The phrase is coming is in the present tense, and is somewhat an unusual way of putting this.   Normally we would expect has come as in a reference to the incarnation, or will come, as a reference to the second coming.  But John puts this into the present tense.   We can see in this a clue concerning the identity of the false teachers.

It is unlikely that John would be warning them about the common place dangers of which they all were aware.  As such these false teachers were probably not from any of the well known religious groups of the time.  For example, if he were referring to the Jews, he could have simply said that they denied that Jesus was the Christ.

Therefore these false teachers were most likely people who claimed to be Christian, but who were not spreading the truth, but a lie.  Thus John’s use of the label “deceivers.”  Understood in this light, John’s reference to “Jesus the Messiah is coming in flesh “ makes a lot more sense as it point to a particular group, the Gnostics, or probably more accurately proto-Gnostics.  This is because full blown Gnosticism is a 2^nd century movement.

Gnosticism may have had it start with Simon Magnus in Acts 8:9-24, a magician who claimed to be a Christian, but who really wanted to buy from the apostles the ability to give the Holy Spirit.  It was built around a number of concepts borrowed from many beliefs.  But they did see Christ as an important figure, and thus could be mistake for more orthodox Christians.

Another belief important in this discussion is that Gnostics drew a sharp distinction between the spiritual world which was good, and the material world which was corrupt.   In fact they drew the divide so sharply that it resulted in a major problem.  How could a spiritual god create a corrupt world?  They attempted to solve this by postulating a very complex series of layers and intermediate actors in an attempt to separate the spiritual creator, from the corrupt creation.

This also caused a problem with Jesus and Christ for Gnostics made a division between the two.   In Gnosticism, the body is material and therefore corrupt.  But Christ is spiritual, and not corrupted. Gnosticism had several explanations for this, but they all centered on separating Jesus from the Christ.   Irenaeus described such a view in his discussion of the beliefs of person named Cerinthus .  In his book Against Heresies (Book 1.26.1)

Christ descended upon [Jesus] in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.

Irenaeus also tells us that Cerinthus was a contemporary of John, in the following amusing antidote  (Against Heresies,  Book III.3.4):

There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”

John apparently new Cerinthus and is referring to him, or someone with similar beliefs.  Thus his phasing of the false teachers as denying that Jesus is coming in the flesh, i.e., Jesus and the Christ are the same, always have been, and always will be.

Any such person is a deceiver and an antichrist.

–          There is a translation issue here.  It is not so much in the Greek text, or with what the author wrote, but rather with what the modern reader hears.   We hear of the antichrist, and immediately think of the end times. But that is not what John is saying here.   Rather John is stressing the magnitude of the error. They are not just wrong, but 180 degrees wrong.

–          So the false teachers were most likely a group of traveling messengers bringing a gospel of Christ, but it was not the true Gospel but a false one. This is why John felt it so important to warn this church so that they would not be taken in.

Questions and Discussion.

The questions and discussion this week centered on the false teachers and modern applications.   Did these teachers know they were spreading false doctrine, or did they really believe what they taught? My belief is that then, like now, one must draw a distinction between the founders of a religious movement, and the followers. Thus for example, it is very possible that Simon Magus was nothing more than a con-man.  But con men deceive people, and as a result many were taken in by his teaching.  By the time you get to the later part of the century when John is writing, it is very possible that the false teachers John was writing about were themselves deceived, and thought they were spreading the truth.

In terms of a modern application, there is a pretty general agreement that, whatever one thinks of Joseph Smith,  Mormons as a group are wonderful people.  Yet there is little doubt that they have been deceived and are deceiving others. Many of their converts come from evangelical denominations.   For example, while Christians have historically taught, along with the Jews and Muslims, the belief in monotheism, that there is only one god,  Mormon are henotheists, they believe that there are many gods, but they only worship one God.  To justify this belief, one of the verses they cite is 1 Cor 8:5,  which does say “as there be gods many, and lords many” (KJV).

Standing alone and out of context, this does seem to support the Mormon belief.  But read in context it cannot.  Paul here is addressing the issue of whether or not it was acceptable for Christians to eat meat sacrificed to idols.   He argues that it is ok to eat the meat because, “We know that no idol is real in this world and that there is only one God.”  (1 Cor 8:4) He acknowledges, what was in the first century city of Corinth very true, that there are many things that are called gods.  Thus the ISV renders this as,

4Now concerning eating food offered to idols: We know that no idol is real in this world and that there is only one God. 5For even if there are “gods” in heaven and on earth (as indeed there are many so-called “gods” and “lords”), 6yet for us
there is only one God, the Father,
from whom everything came into being
and for whom we live.
And there is only one Lord, Jesus the Messiah,
through whom everything came into being
and through whom we live.  (1 Cor 8:4-6)

Not only does the passage in context not support the Mormon claim, it actually refutes it, for it starts with a strong statement of monotheism.  In addition to this the Mormon claim is further rendered impossible for it would completely undercut Paul’s argument.  Paul argument is that “no idol is real in this world.”  Since they do not exist, it is meaningless that the meat was sacrificed to them, so it is ok to eat.  Yet the Mormon claim is that this passages is saying that other gods do in fact exist, which would destroy Paul’s argument.  Thus the twisting of God’s word to teach doctrines antithetical to those historically accepted by Christians is not something that was only confined to John’s day, but rather continues today.

So does this make Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses “antichrists?”  The answer here depends very heavily on the translational issue addressed above.  Again the word antichrist is for the modern mind strongly linked to the end-times, and in this sense I would say no, they are not.    But John was not referring to the end times, but rather to the type of error. He was referring to people who claimed to be bringing the truth, when what they were bringing was the opposite of the truth.  They were not bringing the truth of the real Christ, but of a false, or antichrist.  In this latter sense, they are antichrist’s, for the Jesus Christ preached by the Mormons, and by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, is one that is significantly different from the Jesus Christ that has historically been taught by Christians down through the ages, and I would argue significantly different that the Jesus Christ taught in the Bible.  Yet given the modern understanding of the word “antichrist” the label does not apply.

Next week we will continue in 2 John 8

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

1 7 Or Christ
2 ISV: having become human

Week Eight:  Oct 30, 2011

This week we began the body of the letter.  As is common, John starts with some positive statements aimed at framing the discussion of the problem, which begins in verse 7.

Study

II. Body

a.      Living In Truth and Love (4-6)

4 – I was overjoyed to find some of your[1] children living truthfully, just as the Father has commanded us.

I was overjoyed to find

–          The Greek word for find is the word εὕρηκα – eurēka.  This is what Archimedes supposedly said when he discovered buoyancy in a public bath and ran home naked crying Eureka.  It means “I have found it.”  It is in the Perfect tense which suggests that John’s joy was  based on a personal experience.  Thus it is probably referring to something that happened during a recent visit to this church.

some of your children living truthfully

–          There was a question in the class as to why the word “Some” was italicized is some versions. Does this mean that the translators added the word?  The answer is yes, but the meaning is pretty clearly implied which is why some other translators don’t.   The Greek text of the key phrase reads,  ἐκ τῶν τέκνων σου (ek ton teknon sou) – or in a literal translation: “out of the children of you.” Thus word translated “out of”  (ἐκ)  is pretty clearly indicating that out of a whole there were some.  Thus translators render this as “some of your children.”

–          While it is clear that John was referring to some, the meaning is disputed.  One option is that he found “some” were and other that were not.  In other words John was happy to find that there were still some who were following the truth (lit walking in truth ), that not all had fallen away.  Note again the emphasis on the truth.  A second option, however, is that while John is happy about the “some”  he is saying nothing about the others. Since his comments appeared to be based on personal experience, he may have met with some during his visit, and those were the ones he is talking about.   He is saying nothing about those he did not meet with.  Given the positive tone in this section I would think that the second option is more likely.

just as the Father has commanded us

–          While the word translated commanded refers to a singular commandment, John is referring here not to any particular command but to the commandments of God in a general sense.   All of the commandments, taken as a whole, are a commandment that we live in the Truth.  That is what God asks of us.

5 – Dear lady, I am now requesting of you[2] that we all continue to love one another. It is not as though I am writing to give you[3] a new commandment, but one that we have had from the beginning.

Dear lady, I am now requesting of you

–          John now makes a direct request, which serves to emphasize his request.

that we all continue love one another

–          Notice how verse 4 and 5 link the concepts of living truthfully, and loving one another.  Both are at the core of the Christian experience.  For many this view of love, a view where love is something we have control over such that we can be commanded to love, does not make a lot of sense.  In the modern view, love is something that just happens.  We may fall in or out of love and it is really beyond our control, it just happens.  While this is a common view, this is not a biblical one.  Biblical love is something we have a choice in. We are commanded to love:

John 13:34 I am giving you a new commandment to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.

Eph 5:25   Husbands, love your wives as the Messiah loved the church and gave himself for it,

Not…a new commandment

–          A minor issue arises with John’s claim that this is not a new command.  How does this square with John 13:34 just quoted?   This is really not hard to reconcile.  While for us, 2000 years later, the New Testament is take as a whole, it must be remember that the period it covers was nearly 70 years.  Thus while Jesus told his disciple this was a “new” commandment,  2 John was probably written over 50 years later to second or or even third generation Christians who had heard this from the time of their conversion. Thus for them it was not new.  This will be in contrast to the new teachings spread by the false teachers.

6 – And this is what demonstrates[4] love: that we live according to God’s[5] commandments. Just as you[6] have heard from the beginning what he commanded, you[7] must live by it.

And this is what demonstrates love:

–          This is Lit:  and this is love (καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ` ἀγάπη / kai autē estin ē agapē)   John now goes on to describe exactly what he is requesting.

we live according to God’s commandments.

–          Note the change from The commandment (v5) to commandments (v6). The commandment is  that we love one another.  The Commandments  are how we love another.   To love God is to obey God.

John 14:21  The person who has my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I, too, will love him and reveal myself to him.

–          Obeying God shows love for God. But how does it show love to “one another?”  God laws are not arbitrary rules, given so that he can punish us,  but are given by God to make our lives better.  The simple fact is that sin damages relationships and damages lives.   While Christians are often portrayed as killjoys who irrationally follow blindly old rules that no longer apply, the simple fact is that the evidence is on our side.  Many studies have shown that on average those who regularly attend church live happier and longer lives than those who don’t.

b.      Reject False Teachers (7-11)

7* – For many deceivers have gone out into the world. They refuse to acknowledge Jesus the Messiah[8] is coming in flesh[9]. Any such person is a deceiver and an antichrist.

For (ὅτι)

–          While this verse marks a change in the letter from positive exhortation to warnings, it is connect to the previous verse.  In context,  John was glad that they were living in the truth because…

many deceivers have gone out into the world.

–          Just as Christians missionaries that 3 John 5-6 says we should welcome have gone out so had their counterparts. And it is these counter parts that John is now going to warn about.

Questions and Discussion.

This week’s discussion picked up on the themes of living in truth and love, and in particular old versus new commandments.  The modern technological society has a built in bias towards the new,  and against the old.  While it is primarily driven by the rapid change in technology, cultural development is rarely so nicely compartmentalized.  For example,  after Einstein’s theory of relativity came to be accepted in physics, relativity as a concept spread throughout the culture and soon many things, including morals were seen as relative.  Likewise, modern cultures love of the the new, and devaluing of  the old is not restricted to technology. This has affected the church as well.

One of the members brought up the issue of the lack of contemplation and meditation on God’s word.  In the fast pace world there is little time for such things.  In fact, many kids (and even some adults) are virtually addicted to their own adrenaline, as life becomes a search for excitement and the next big rush of adrenaline. Little wonder that they do not have time to just sit and pray, contemplate study and meditate on God’s word.  And yet, if we do not stop to listen, how will we ever hear the Holy Spirit?  If we do not stop to study, contemplate and meditate on God’s word, how will we ever know what it says for our lives?  Are you powered by adrenaline, or by the Holy Spirit?

Next week we will continue in 2 John 7

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

Footnotes:
[1] 4 Lit. your (singular)
[2] 5 Lit. you (singular)
[3] 5 Lit. you (singular)
[4] 6 The Gk. lacks what demonstrates
[5] 6 Lit. his
[6] 6 Lit. you (plural)
[7] 6 Lit. you (plural)
[8] 7 Or Christ
[9] ISV: having become human

Week Seven:  Oct 23, 2011

While this class follows the text very closely, there is no preset schedule, nor any particular number of verses that we need to cover each week.  Instead I encourage discussion and leave room for the Holy Spirit to take the class, where He needs to take it.  This was one of those week, were most of the class was taken up in the discussion and questions.   As a result we only covered one verse.   I will try to summarize at least the main points that were discussed in the question section below.

Study

I. Opening

b.      Greeting(3)

3 – Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus¹ the Messiah,² the Father’s Son, in truth and love.

–          Ancient letters followed the standard opening with a greeting, an example of which can be seen in Acts 15:23.

From:  The apostles and the elders, your brothers
To: Their gentile brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.
Greetings.

Paul’s letters show an expansion of the standard greeting with Christian elements in awordplay with the word Greeting (χαίρειν/chairein) changing it to Grace (χάρις/charis) and often adding peace, the standard Jewish greeting.  Thus in 1 Cor 1:3,

May grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, be yours!

This came to be a common patter among Christian letters and one that John follows here.

Grace, mercy and peace

–          Grace and peace were common among Paul’s letters and to this John adds mercy.

–          A member of the class mentioned that there was a progression in this verse, and there is a definite progression.  Working backwards, you cannot have true peace apart from God. But sin keeps us from God, and it is God’s mercy that allows us to be reconciled with him, and this mercy in grounded in grace.

will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus

–          This is an affirmation, not a request.  Note that John is making it clear that the source of our grace, mercy and peace are both the Father and Jesus.

–          This will be important has the letter develops, for the denial of Jesus as the Messiah forms a key part of the false teachings this letter warns against.

the Father’s Son

–          Jesus is further described as the Father’s Son.  This repletion is a form of emphasis that Jesus is the son. Again this was something the traveling missionaries discussed in this letter rejected.

in truth and love.

–          John again comes back to truth adding love.  This stresses their importance in grace, mercy and peace, without truth or love, there can be no grace, mercy or peace.  This is why truth and love will play such large role in the rest of the letter.  So John is not just greeting his readers, he is using the opening of this letter to prepare his readers for what follows.

Question/Discussion:

As mention above the question and discussion took up the majority of the class, and my memory is not sufficient to have captured it all. So you see there is a reason to come to the class and not just follow it online!  But I will do my best.

The discussion started with the theme of the class, living in truth and love.   These are both very important concepts, but they are often at odds with each other.  In addition, truth, itself is a very challenging concept.  This was brought home to me in the very first week of this current class.  Highland Community Church has a winter and summer schedule and does not have classes during the summer.  So when our class started up again, not too surprisingly, one of the members who has been in the class for several years asked me, how was my summer?

My first reaction was to say the standard, “fine,” but I realized this was not true.  For reason that are not important here, it had been a difficult summer with virtually no free time to actually enjoy it.  Here I was, about to start teaching on truth and love, and before class even started I was about to say something that was not true. So I was honest, it had been a difficult summer.

This started a discussion among the class as to what and how much to say, and how you can answer truthfully, without going into long and possibly unwanted explanations.  But before long, the discussion broadened onto how we are not always truthful with ourselves. Just as we tell others that we are Ok, or that everything is fine, we say the same things to ourselves.  We are fine; no problems with God; I have my life in order.  Yet if we were to ask God, would he say the same thing?

Before I had started this study, I thought I was doing pretty well on the truth front, and in a general sense this was probably true.  But it did not mean that I was up to God’s standards, or even that I viewed truth, or its importance, in quite the same way that He does.

Jesus is the truth in every sense of that word.  A commitment to Him is a commitment to truth, a key component of which is being honest with, and about, ourselves.  Letting God shine his light into our lives to reveal the things we need to work on.

A few weeks ago, we had some questions about Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so after the discussion above, before going into 2 John, I updated the class on something that had happened during the week. My neighbor has had some Jehovah’s Witnesses coming over to his house, and so he stopped by to ask some questions about what they were claiming.   One argument in particular stood out and I wanted to share it with the class.

A key difference between the historical Christian belief and the beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is over the deity of Jesus Christ.  Christians have historically affirmed it, while Jehovah’s Witnesses deny it.  A key verse in this debate is John 1:1.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God.

Verses 1:14, 15 and 30 clearly identify the Word in verse 1 as Jesus.   So when it says “The Word was God,”  it is not hard to see why historically Christians have believed that Jesus is God.

My neighbor said that in response to this passage, the Jehovah’s Witness had pulled out a Greek-English Interlinear and pointed out how the word translated God in the phase, “and the Word was with God” was different than the word translated God in the phrase “and the word was God.” My neighbor went on to explain that he had been told that the word ‘God’ in “the Word was with God”, refers to Jehovah, while ‘God’ in “the word was God” is not really god. Thus in the New World Bible, the Jehovah’s Witness’ translation, John 1:1 reads,

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.  (NWT)

While this argument may sound good in English, it falls completely apart with even the most preliminary understanding of Greek.

Here is the Greek of John 1:1

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Or transliterated

En arche en o logos, kai o logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en o logos.

Or as a word for word literal translation

In beginning was the word, and the word was with the god, and god was the word.

From this we can see that it is true that two words translated “God” in this passage are spelled differently, the first one is θεόν (theon) and the other is θεὸς (theos).  But the difference in spelling has nothing at all to do with the basic meaning of the word, but rather the grammar of the sentence.   The spelling is different because Greek uses the ending of words to indicate their function.  Consider the following sentence:

Bill threw the ball to Joe.

English uses word order to indicate function, so we know that Bill is the subject (i.e., Nominative Case) and Joe is the indirect object (i.e. Dative Case) by where they appear in the sentence.  Greek however uses the ending of the word for this.   One place were English also uses word endings, is with the possessive (i.e. Genitive case).   Thus in the sentence

Joe threw Bill’s ball back.

The  -’s  ending is used to show that the ball belongs to Bill.   English also uses the –s ending to show plural.   So whereas English does this for the Genitive case and for plurals,  Greek does this for all cases and for both singular and plural.    It shows the Nominative singular (i.e, the subject) with the  -oς   ending and the Accusative singular (i.e. the object) with –oν.  This the reason for the difference in spelling between  θεόν (theon) and θεὸς  (theos).  The first is in the Accusative case, which is exactly what one would expect as it is the object of the phrase, and the second occurrence is in the Nominative case.

To see the fallacy of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ argument consider again the two sentences about Bill and the ball.

Bill threw the ball to Joe.
Joe threw Bill’s ball back.

Bill is spelled differently in these two sentences.  Does that mean that “Bill” in the first sentence is a different kind of Bill than “Bill’s” in the second sentence?  Clearly not! Bill is the same in both sentences and the spelling difference merely concerns how it is being used in the sentence.   The same is true for θεόν (theon)  and θεὸς (theos) in John 1:1.

At this point a question was asked about the translation of “a god” found in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation.   First off, it is not impossible.  Greek has no indefinite article (“a”) nor can one simply determine by the absence of the definite article (“the”)  that a noun is indefinite. Normally, this must be determined by the context.

A key issue in John 1:1 is that in the phrase “The Word was God” (lit:  God was the Word) both “God” and “Word” are in the nominative case.  A rule in Greek, Colwell’s Rule, does help us determine that “Word” is the subject, which is why it is translated as “The Word was God,” and not “God was the Word” because in English the subject normal appears first. It also suggests that God is definite (“was God”) instead of indefinite (“was a god”).  But it does to prove it.  I will not go into the details of the grammar here.  Those who are interested can find a more complete discussion of the grammar here.

In terms of the context, an extremely difficult problem arises with the translation of “a god” particularly in the way it is understood by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  If Jesus is “a god,” in what sense is he a god?  If he really is “a god,” separate and distinct from the father, then you have the teaching of polytheism, the belief in more than one God.  On the other hand, if you want hold on to monotheism, the belief in only one god, then John 1:1 cannot really be saying what it is saying.

Another point is that one of the ways Greek emphasizes something is by moving it to the front. (The other is, as we saw in the verse this week, by repetition)  Remember, because of the word endings, word order is not needed to determine the function of the word. In Greek you can put the words pretty much where you want them. While “Bill’s Joe ball threw” does not make much sense in English, that word order would not be a problem in Greek as the word endings would make it clear that the meaning was “Joe threw Bill’s ball.”   As mentioned above, the Greek literally reads “god was the word.”  So not only is the word being equated with God, but the “God” part is being emphasized.  Yet the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ understanding attempts to de-emphasize this out of existence.  It is not “God” but just “a god,” and then it was not really even “a god,” but something lesser than that, because according to their belief Jesus is not god.  In short it is pretty easy to see that their translation is trying to get around what the text says, because what it says does not match their beliefs.

From here the discussion turned to how average Christians can deal with such arguments. After all, few Christians know very much Greek, nor do they need to. God does not expect anyone to become a super-Christian, one who know all the answers and whose walk with God is perfect. This goes right back to the subject of this class.  When dealing with questions, the simplest thing is to be honest.   Answer those questions you know, and when you are not sure, or do not know the answer, or someone raises a point or objection you have never heard before, simply say “that is a good question, and I do not know the answer. Let me look into that and I will get back to you.”

Everyone has their role to play, and just as not everyone is called to be a pastor, not everyone is called to be an apologist.   So while you may not know the answer, there is probably someone in your church who does, or at least who knows how to get the answer. Your pastor is a great place to start.

In many ways truth is liberating.  It frees us to go wherever the truth leads us.  We do not have to live in fear that what we believe will be proven wrong. If a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon showed me an error in my understanding of the Bible, I would praise God, because that would remove an error from my understanding and move me one step closer to the truth.  Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.  Having said that, as with the example above, I have seen so much error and falsehood in their teachings that I know that they cannot represent the true teaching of the Bible, but I approach them in truth and in love seeking the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Next week we will start in 2 John 4

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

Footnotes:
1 Other mss. read the Lord Jesus
2 Or Christ