At a recent lunch with some co-workers a friend shared a picture he thought was funny.  The picture was of the sign for a Christadelphian Meeting Room, which in addition to the name and meeting time also had an area for a short message that could be changed. The message in the picture was “Evolution is a Lie.”  What he found humorous was that taped to the sign was a paper that said, “If you have evidence to disprove evolution… then write it down, get it peer reviewed & collect your Nobel prize.”

Regardless of any possible humorous value, this picture does highlight a number problems with this entire issue.   The first point is that it is always easy to poke fun at the fringe and the Christadelphian Church is clearly on the fringe.  Not only do they reject evolution, they reject most of teachings that have defined Christianity for 2000 years.

Their claim that evolution is a lie is at best hyperbole, and more likely simply absurd.   Regardless of what you think about evolution, it is not a lie.  A lie is something said with the intent to deceive. The core of a lie is deception not truthfulness.  In fact, it is possible to lie while only saying things that are true, if they are said in such a way as to mislead.

Few if any supporting evolution do so because they know that evolution is false, and they are just trying to deceive people into thinking it was true.  They believe evolution to be true and that is why they defend it. Evolution can be true or false, but it is not a lie.

The paper taped to the sign is not much better, has it has several problems. Let me take them in reverse order.  Let’s assume for a second that someone did have such evidence.  Would it really be as simple as getting it peered reviewed and collecting a Nobel Prize? The history of science says no. Science, regardless of its benefits as a method to learn about the natural world, is governed by people.  As a community, scientists have beliefs and agendas that get in the way of pure objectivity.

In my book, I cite the example of Alfred Wegener, who had a theory of Continental Displacement, what we would now call Plate Tectonics.  When he published his results rather than winning a Nobel Price he was shunned and ridiculed to the point that he could not even get a job teaching in his own country.  This was because his theory would have overturned the then current thinking on Geology.  It was only 20 years after his death that his theory ceased to be considered pseudoscience and finally came to be accepted.  Overturning evolution would be a far more massive change than that proposed by Wegener.

That brings us to the issue of what this “supposed evidence to disprove evolution” might be.  Just how would one go about trying to disprove the theory?  Evolution is not a repeatable event that can be verified by experiments.  If one wanted to “disprove” Gravity one would need to construct an experiment which showed that the mathematical formulas that describe it break down.

But evolution was an historical process. It attempts to describe what happened. So how would one “disprove” it? Find a difference between the theory and the evidence? That already exists.  Darwin’s theory involved small changes over long periods of time, but the fossil records shows long periods of stability marked by short periods of change, which has led to the version of evolution called punctuated equilibrium.

This leads to the second problem, which goes to the heart of what is evolution.  I have seen a very wide variety of definitions. In short it means many things to many people. I have seen evolutionists define it so broadly as to account for all dogs, or even all canines, evolving from a single type, something even devout 7-day creationists would accept; to a godless and undirected natural process that accounts for the origin of all life.

This later definition is probably the most accurate for the most ardent supporters. It is not tied directly to any evidence, as evidence really does not matter. The theory of evolution will simply adjust itself to include whatever the evidence is found. Given the human ability to rationalize almost anything, it is hard to conceive of anything that could not be fitted in somehow.

After all the core of Darwin’s original theory was small changes over long periods of time.  When that was not supported by the evidence, the evidence was simply incorporated into to the theory.  In short, Evolution can accommodate large changes or small changes; long periods of change or short periods of change. It is whatever it needs to be.  In short, it is a tautology and thus is something that cannot be disproven.

Finally, there is an even deeper issue at play, and it is one that involves the nature of science, particularly when it comes to historical issues such as evolution that do not lend themselves to repeated testing and experimentation.  When dealing with such issues, is it the purpose of science to discover what happened, or is science limited only providing a natural explanation?  This question is at the core of the debate over the possibility of discovering intelligent design.

The short history of research into intelligent design also shows the absurdity of the claim taped to the church’s sign.  Even scientists who accept evolution have found themselves in trouble for even considering the possibility of Intelligent Design. This is because for many, science can only consider natural explanations, and as such, any consideration of Intelligent Design is a priori unscientific.  This would be fine if it was then acknowledged that science was correspondingly biased, but strangely few skeptics will acknowledge that point.

The real irony in all this is that within the Christian community, evolution is a matter of open debate.  There are Christians who accept evolution, Christians who do not, and some in the middle.  One is free to look at the evidence and reach their own conclusion.  Within the scientific community, evolution is a belief that can only be questioned at serious risk to one’s career, where even the research into the possibility of Intelligent Design is strongly opposed and condemned.  Yet somehow it is the Christians who are closed minded because they consider more than one option.

This begins a 16 week study on the Bible, How we got it and why we can trust it.

It has been some time since I posted on 1 John.  This has been because we switched from summaries of the class to videos, and the first video is finally ready.

Study

John began his summary starting with how we should love one another, a key error of those who left. Now he moves to their other key error, their rejection of Jesus.

To love God is to Love Jesus (5:1)

Chapter 5

1 – Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah[1] has been born from God, and everyone who loves the parent also loves the child.

– John now expands on the other key error of those who left: their denial of Jesus.

– He starts by linking this to the last section on love.

• Here with some comments on obeying.

– The parent here is the Father, and the Child is Jesus.

• To love one is to love the other.

To love God is to keep his commandments (5:2-3)

2 – This is how we know that we love God’s children: we love God and keep his commandments.

This is how we know

– Not completely clear what “this” refers to

• • could look back to previous verse (KJV, NAS)
  • could look forward to later part of this verse (NIV)
  • The later seems to be the best

– Again (see 2:1-11) John equates Loving = Obey for God which = loving God’s children

3a – For this demonstrates our love for God: We keep his commandments,

– In 2:3 John equated knowing God with obeying God.

– Here knowing it replace with loving.

To be born of God is to overcome the world (5:4-5)

3b-4 – and his commandments are not difficult because everyone who is born from God has overcome the world. Our faith is the victory that overcomes the world.

his commandments are not difficult

– John goes on to assure us that this is not a difficult request.

has overcome the world

– It is not difficult because we have overcome the world

– The biggest battle is the battle for salvation

Our faith is the victory that overcomes the world.

– Our faith is key

– If we really believe in God, and in Jesus, and that he died for our sins can we really sin?

1. 1. To sin is to deny God, his love, his power.

 

5 – Who overcomes the world? Is it not the person who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

– John emphasizes this point by repeating this as a question.

– This is a particularly strong rhetorical device as it forces the reader to provide the answer themselves.

– The key of our faith is belief in Jesus.

1. 1. Jesus as Son of God, has the power of God which overcomes the power in the World.

– The Testimony about Jesus (5:6-)

a. This Man Jesus (5:6)

6 – This man, Jesus the Messiah,[2] is the one who came by water and blood—not with water only, but with water and with blood. The Spirit is the one who verifies this, because the Spirit is the truth.

This man, Jesus the Messiah

– John expands on this, once again alluding to those who left.

– Again equates Jesus with the Messiah.

is the one who came by water and blood

– Several understandings of water and blood have been suggested

1. 1. Baptism and death
   2. Baptism and Lord Supper
   3. Water and Blood that flowed from his pierced side (John 19:34)

– Best seem to be first Baptism and Death

not with water only, but with water and with blood

– This probably emphasizes a difference with those who left

– Gnosticism did not believe that the Messiah went to the Cross.

a. That the Messiah left Jesus, or that Simon was mistake for Jesus

b. This is what Cerinthus, and opponent of John believed.

– This is important because it goes to the core of John’s argument

a. God’s love is shown in that he sent his Son to die for our sins

b. Gnostic teach undercuts that because Messiah did not die

c. It also goes to the core of atonement which required God’s Son to die as a payment for sin. No death no payment.

The Spirit is the one who verifies this, because the Spirit is the truth.

– This is not just John saying this.

– The Holy Spirit, also testifies of this

verifies this

1. 1. This is present tense, not past, The spirit testifies to us,
   2. in our prayers and through God’s word.

– This is the foundation of our faith.

– Some argue that this refers to the spirit coming on Jesus at his baptism.

1. 1. It does fit theologically
   2. Main problem is present tense.
      1. Present tense does not exclude this,

b. The three witnesses (5:7-8)

7 – For there are three witnesses[1]— 8the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are one.

– Textual issue

1. Evidence very clear
   1. Does not appear in Latin until 4^th century and then is written in margins
   2. Does not appear in Greek until 16^th century.
   3. They are not quoted by any early church father, even when the trinity was being discussed.
   4. May have been written as a gloss (comment) in Latin mss which was later mistaken for a correction and included in the text such that it became common.
   5. When Erasmus created the first two versions of his attempt to create a scholarly version Greek text is was not in any mss he had so he did not include. But a mss was then created that did have it, and Erasmus included it. Erasmus’ work eventually became the basis for the KJV.
2. While this removes a clear reference to the Trinity, it is important to know that the Trinity does not depend on this verse.
3. This textual issue affects how we understand this passage, but has no effect on the overall teaching of the Bible.

– John now combines the three the Spirit the water and the blood into a single testimony.

– i.e., they are in agreement and cannot be separated as the critics try to do.

– Again some scholar claim water and blood refer to sacraments.

1. a. But this does not really match body and blood.

c. God’s Testimony (5:9-12)

9 – If we accept human testimony, God’s testimony is greater, because it is the testimony of God and because he has testified about his Son.

– John started this letter with a strong statement of his eyewitness testimony.

– As he comes to the close he emphasizes God’s testimony, which is even greater

a. Both greater trustworthiness and significance

– It is greater trustworthiness: because God, by his very nature cannot lie.

– It is greater significance: because it is about his Son

God’s testimony

– What is this testimony – Three possibilities

a. (1) The three just mentioned: Spirit, water and blood

• i. Flows from previous
• ii. Problem with change in tense 6-8 are present here is perfect
• iii. John 5:31-40 lists several testimonies of Jesus (John the Baptist, his works, Scripture and God) which seem distinct.
• iv. None of these are major objections.

b. (2) That God’s testimony is the inner witness of the spirit.

c. (3) That God’s testimony is unspecified by John.

d. I believe the first would be the best.

 

Questions and Discussion

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] 5:1 Or Christ
[2] 5:6 Or Christ
[3] 5:7 Other mss. read witnesses in heaven—the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. ⁸And there are three witnesses on earth—

 

Study

John now begins a summary starting with a summary of the key points in this section but then moving into a summary of the letter. Such summaries are very helpful in making sure that our understanding of the key points in this letter, line up with John’s intent.

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

i. The significance of God’s Love (4:11-12)

11 – Dear friends, if this is the way God loved us, we must also love one another.

– John now begins his summary where he started this section – love one another. He starts by taking God’s example of love and applies it to us. This is more than just an example, it is an obligation. Note that this is not a command to love God, but to love others.

 

12 – No one has ever seen God. If we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us.

– It is likely that some of those who left, were claiming visions of God. Here John is pointing out that this is not possible, and that if we really want to experience God we do so, not through mystical visions, but by serving others.

his love is perfected in us.

– Lit: the love of him (ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ ) It is not completely clear what John means here. This could refer to: Our love of God; God’s Love for us; or the type of love God has. The context here would seem to support either 1 or 3.

– True Christianity is not to be found in retreating from the world in prayer, but working in the world through love and service.

 

ii. How we know we abide in him (4:13-15)

13 – This is how we know that we abide in him and he in us: he has given us his Spirit.

– This here refers to in the living out of our faith in the service of others. There is a dual point being made here. First, that we can know our personal relationship to God. Second, we can test the relationship of others. Do they live the love of Christ?

– The spirit also reveals himself in our service to others.

14 – We have seen for ourselves and can testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

– John return to the opening of the letter: as statement of his personal witness.

– Here the focus is on Jesus as the savior of the world. God’s love was not limited to Christians. Our love is, likewise for the world. Gnostic had secret teachings for the few, We have service to all.

– Given the context, it is likely that the “We” refers to the Church as a whole, rather than just the apostles, as in the opening.

– Can we say this today? Have you seen the work of Christ in your life? It is the Holy Spirit that testifies to us.

 

15 – God abides in the one who acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, and he abides in God.

– John again return to the concept of abiding, and thus these three verses are in the form of a chiasmus, the focus of which is on our testimony.

Abide – v13

Testify – v14

Abide – v15

that Jesus is the Son of God

– An emphasis on the human side of Jesus.

 

The results of abiding in God (4:16-18)

16 – We have come to know and rely on[1] the love that God has for us. God is love, and the person who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

And rely on (πεπιστεύκαμεν)

– Believe – trust – perfect tense indicates lasting conviction

the love that God has for us

– Lit the love which has the God in us. (τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἔχει ὁ θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν) This would seem to indicate that the love here includes the love of the Cross and the gift of the Holy Spirit

God is love

– John is giving us a logical argument here. Since God is Love (also v 8) therefore to abide in love is to abide in God. Abiding in love is a result of abiding in God. Scholars debate whether or not this is Love of God, or love for one another. John makes no real distinction, to do one is to do the other. It is a demonstration and source of comfort for relationship with Christ

 

17 – This is how love has been perfected among us: we will have confidence on the day of judgment because, during our time in this world, we are just like him.

– The perfection of God’s love leads to confidence. Do you have confidence about Judgment day?

during our time in this world, we are just like him

– Some claim a contradiction with 3:2. While a superficial reading can lead to a contradiction, as usual context is very important. The context here is Judgment Day. What is critical to judgment? Sin. Give this, how are we like him? We are sinless because of his love, and that is why we can have confidence.

 

18 – There is no fear where love exists[2]. Rather, perfect love banishes fear, for fear involves punishment, and the person who lives in fear has not been perfected in love.

– Because of this, there is no fear. After all, what do we have to fear of Judgment day? Nothing! We have been washed clean but the blood of the lamb. We abide in the perfect love of God. We are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

– How does this line up with verse like Phil 2:12

And so, my dear friends, just as you have always obeyed, not only when I was with you but even more now that I am absent, continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling

That we do not fear judgment day does not mean we lose our respect for God position.

has not been perfected in love

– This is not necessarily referring to those who are lost. It means that God’s love needs to be perfected in them.

 

To love God is to Love one another (4:19-21)

19 – We love[3] because God[4] first loved us.

– Our love for God is not grounded in a threat of punishment. It is a response to the love that God has already shown us. It is grounded in gratitude, not fear.

 

20 – Whoever says, “I love God,” but hates his brother is a liar. The one who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love the God whom he has not seen.

– John returns again to the claims of those who left, but here he is making a larger point. We cannot see God, but we can see our brother. So while we might not really be able to tell if someone loves God, we can tell if someone loves his brother.

– This works both ways. Sometimes is it easier to love God, because we do not see him. Sometimes it is easier to love people because we do see them. True love covers both.

 

21 – And this is the commandment that we have from him: the person who loves God must also love his brother.

– This is more than just a guideline, this is a commandment. In John 13:34 Jesus said,

I’m giving you a new commandment…to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.

– John started his summary with how we should Love, which was one the key errors of those who left. Why do you think John has stressed this point so often?

 

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] 4:16 Lit. believe in
[2] 4:18 Lit. in love
[3] 4:19 Other mss. read love him; still other mss. read love God
[4] 4:19 Lit. he

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

i. You have overcome them (4:4)

4 – Little children, you belong to God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

– John assures them of their victory. They have resisted the temptation though the power of the Holy Spirit. There is possibly a hint of persecution here. Also note the contrast between “in you” and “in the world.” While we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, non-believers are not indwelt by Satan.

ii. Belonging to World vs. Belonging to God (4:5-6)

5 – These people belong to the world. That is why they speak from the world’s perspective,[1] and the world listens to them.

– Then, as now, there was the way the world looks at things, and the way God looks at things. Those who left were of the world and they speak that way. Today we see this in the use of, and battle over, labels such as Pro-Life – Pro-choice. We must remember we are not in a popularity contest. God’s message will is not to be judged by numbers. The world judges by how big and how popular something is. But for God, what matters is truth and love.

6 – We belong to God. The person who knows God listens to us. Whoever does not belong to God does not listen to us. This is how we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.

– Note the change to plural. John is speaking of all Christians. Those who know God will accept the teachings of God, while those who do not know God will not. We are not in a battle of logic and reason. That someone does not accept the Gospel is not a failure on our part. That the experts disagree is not relevant.

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

i. Love one another (4:7a)

7 – Dear friends, let us continually love one another, because love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born from God and knows God.

– Having just talked about the importance of truth, John now turns to the other test: Love. Here John adds a reason: because love comes from God. He is continuing his argument that those who know God accept the truth of his message, and they reflect his actions: i.e., they love.

Everyone who loves has been born from God and knows God

– This can be a difficult verse and context is important to avoid misunderstanding. Here the context is of loving others. John is not talking about the love of a parent for a child, or love of a spouse. The context is loving people.

– To really love, require that we love in truth. We are to love as God Loves. To know God is to obey God; to Obey is to Love; to Love is to know God – John closes the circle. This is a goal that few and probably none actually achieve. It is something we strive for.

ii. Loving one another = knowing God (4:7b-8)

8 – The person who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

– Again having stated the positive, John now emphasizes this with the negative.

because God is love

– This is one of John definitional statements, such as God is Light (1:7), God is Spirit (Jn 4:24) This statement is quite popular in the modern Church but note that it does not say God is only Love. John’s argument here is that God is Love, how can we claim to be followers of God if we do not love?

iii. God’s Love demonstrated (4:9-10)

9 – This is how God’s love was revealed among us: God sent his unique Son into the world so that we might live through him.

– If we are to love as God loves, then how does God love? John gives us the greatest example in a fashion very reminiscent of John 3:16. This example has both of the major components of godly love: A true compassion that works itself out in action.

10 – This is love: not that we have loved[2] God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.

– John expands on his definition of love

Not that we have loved God but that he loved us

– As we seek to understand real love, we cannot look to how we love God or how we love others. True love is to be found in how God loved us.

sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sin

– Rom 5:8 – But God demonstrates his love for us by the fact that the Messiah died for us while we were still sinners.

– God’s love was demonstrated while we were in rebellion against him. What does that say about our love? What does it say about how we treat others?

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] 4:5 Lit. from the world
[2] 4:10 Other mss. read we loved

I recently answered some questions from a critic, and I thought I would post them here.   Initially he just sent questions and never responded to the answers except to ask more questions.  Over time however, he evidently became frustrated by the answers, became belligerent and then quickly his question devolved into name-calling and obscenity, with a wish for God to kill me; at which point I ended the discussion.  But his questions do provide a nice window into the mind of a hostile critic. Note will be editing the questions a little, as it appears that the critic may only speak English as a second, and then for the later questions, to remove the insults and obscenities.

Such questions are also important as they can reveal how the Bible can be misunderstood.  For example, questions 8 and 9 depend on a particular understanding of the word “fulfill,” an understanding that is all too often promoted by Christians.   Thus such questions not only reveal the critics incorrectly understanding of the Bible, they can also help us come to a more accurate understanding.

Question 1 Where is the original Bible?
Question 3 Can you show me a complete manuscript of the New Testament written in the 1st century?
Question 4 Can you show me a complete manuscript of the New Testament written in the 2nd century?
Question 5 HOW MANY YEARS is there from writing the last book of the New Testament to the oldest complete copy of the New Testament?

Answer: Questions 1, 3-5 all deal the reliability of the text of the books of the Bible.  The originals have all been lost, but they are not needed to confirm the reliability of the text, particularly of the New Testament. For example, the books of the New Testament were copied and distributed during the lifetime of the Apostles. From these other copies were made.  We have fragments of manuscripts starting in the early part of the 2nd century (A first century manuscript find has been announced but the details are not scheduled to be published till next year).  In all there are thousands of manuscripts and portions of manuscripts, along with the tens of thousands of early translations, along with the numerous citations of the Bible made by the early church fathers, and they are all very consistent with each other.

Now it is true that not all of these sources agree 100 percent.  Mistakes were made in copying, and we can see this in the manuscripts, but there is such a wealth of evidence, that in the vast majority of places it is pretty clear which is the original reading and which is the mistake. The few places were doubt remains, while important to the particular passages; do not affect the teaching of the Bible as a whole. No teaching of Christians depends on a passage where there is a doubt about the text.

I would also point out that there is a huge problem if you want to believe that the text has been deliberately changed and that would be:  How would it have happened?  During the life time of the Apostles they would have resisted any such corruption of the text, as would their followers. By the time of their deaths there would have been many copies scattered across the Roman world.  It simply would not have been possible to gather up and destroy all of these, replacing them with the “new” versions.  The emperor Diocletian tried to destroy all copies of the Bible in the early part of the 4th century, and even with the power of the Empire, was unsuccessful, as many Christians died protecting their copies.

Against this evidence, your questions are not that important when it comes to the issue of can we trust what the text says.  We can.

Question #2 How can you be 100% sure that the UNKNOWN writer of judges was NOT a liar? The writer is UNKNOWN and this makes the characteristics of the writer unknown.

Answer #2,   That the author of Judges is unknown, is true.  He could be a lair, or he could be truthful; and thus the much broader question is how can we know if he is reliable?  Like with the issue of the text there are a number of factors both internal and external we can look at in determining the reliability of an account.  Much of this is the same that historians use to judge the reliability of any account.  But for me there is one additional factor, which is the judgment of Jesus. Jesus repeatedly makes reference to the Old Testament in whole and in part, and considers it to be the word of God.

Question 6: Do you believe there are contradictions in the Bible?

Answer #6: The Bible is a reliable record so at times it records the false claims made by people which are in conflict with the truth, such as the Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1.  So in this sense, yes.  But in terms of contradictions that would call into question the reliability of the writers, I have yet to see one that can stand up to serious examination.

Question 7: If you read the CONTEXT Isaiah 7:14, you will realize that the verse is NOT about Jesus but about somebody else.  From the context the verse is NOT a dual prophecy.  Did Matthew make a mistake here?

Answer #7: Concerning Isaiah 7:14; no Matthew did not make a mistake. It is not quite as clear cut as you have presented it. While there is some ambiguity in the use of the Hebrew word almah in that while it normally means virgin, it can also mean young woman, the Septuagint (a Greek translation made several hundred years before Christ) used the same Greek word that Matthew used, i.e., virgin.  Nor is it clear that this is about someone else.  After all, the context here of a sign from God, and a young woman giving birth is hardly such a sign. Signs in the OT function as “present persuaders” or “future confirmations.”  The sign in 7:14 is of the latter type. The threat that was looming was not just to Azad, but to the house of David. The birth of Jesus was a future conformation of this.

Question 8: Matthew 2:15 cites Hosea 11:1; but Hosea 11:1 is NOT about Jesus.  Read the context of Hosea 11.  Did Matthew also make a mistake here?
Question 9: Matthew 2:17-18 references Jeremiah 31:15, but the context in Jeremiah 31 is NOT about Jesus. Read the CONTEXT in Jeremiah 31.  Did Matthew make a mistake?

Answers #8 and #9 Again Matthew did not make a mistake. To claim that he did requires very narrow understanding of the word “fulfill” an understanding narrower than the usage in the New Testament.  Thus, Jesus is often seen as the antitype of Israel where events in the history of Israel are paralleled (fulfilled) in the life of Christ. In addition Matthew is also citing these as contrasts with Israel, fulfillment in the sense that their failure is being replaced by Jesus success.

Question 10: If the Bible says that a part of a day is considered a whole day and whole night and if Jesus was in the tomb on Friday, then this means one day and one night.  If Jesus was also in the tomb on Saturday then this means another day and another night. But I do NOT think Jesus was also in the tomb for a part of a day on Sunday.  According to the Bible Jesus rose BEFORE Sunday began.  If this is true then Jesus was NOT in the tomb for three days and three nights as Matthew 12:40 says.  Did Matthew make a mistake here?

Answers #10 Your criticism assumes a level precision concerning time that was simply unknown before clocks and watches.  The most common time frame in the Gospels is a quarter of a day.  Frankly it is not even clear if the all the Gospels measured time from midnight to midnight or sunrise to sunrise.  Now while it is true that Matthew 28:1 can be translated as “Late on the Sabbath” it can also be translated as “After the Sabbath.” It depends on the context. Given the context here, I believe that NIV translation is correct when it translates this as, “After the Sabbath, at the dawn on the first day of the week.” This would indicate that the resurrection, as commonly believed, occurred early on Sunday, and thus there were 3 days.

Week 35: Sept 30, 2012

Study

i. How to test (4:2-3)

2 – This is how you can recognize God’s Spirit: Every spirit who acknowledges that Jesus the Messiah[1] has become human—and remains so—is from God.

– Having said that we should test, John now gives us a means for testing.

Jesus the Messiah has become human—and remains so

– The Greek is somewhat ambiguous here. This could be translated as Has become (NIV) or is come (KJV) The ISV translation encompasses both views. Those who left seem to have drawn a distinction between physical and spiritual and as such they would have denied this. So what John has done is go straight to the core issue: the nature and person of Jesus.

– This is also the dividing line when we look at those who attend other churches. What do they say about Jesus? We may disagree on a lot of side issues, but the key question is what do they say about Jesus.

3 – But every spirit who does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist. You have heard that he is coming, and now he is already in the world.

– This is so important that John expresses it both in a positive and a negative fashion as a way of emphasizing it.

not acknowledge Jesus

– There is a textual issue here as some manuscripts have Jesus is come in the flesh or similar variations. These are almost certainly later addition by scribes who were attempting to make this verse match verse the wording in verse 2.

– Note that the focus here on Jesus (as opposed to saying that we should acknowledge the Messiah) and thus it serves as a perfect summary. First, it focuses the issue on the key point denied by those who left. Second by just mentioning Jesus, and it serves as a generalization, i.e., the nature and person of Jesus.

spirit of the antichrist

– Again this is a term that has taken on a lot of meaning since the first century. John usage here is not focused on the end times, but on those who claim to be followers of Christ, when in reality they are against or opposed to Christ; i.e., antichrists. ( See comments on 2:18)

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] 4:2 Or Christ

---