Week Seven: \u00a0Oct 23, 2011<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0 Instead I encourage discussion and leave room for the Holy Spirit to take the class, where He needs to take it.\u00a0 This was one of those week, were most of the class was taken up in the discussion and questions.\u00a0\u00a0 As a result we only covered one verse.\u00a0\u00a0 I will try to summarize at least the main points that were discussed in the question section below.<\/p>\n
Study<\/p>\n
3 – Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus1<\/sup> the Messiah,2<\/sup> the Father\u2019s Son, in truth and love.<\/strong><\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ancient letters followed the standard opening with a greeting, an example of which can be seen in Acts 15:23.<\/p>\n From:\u00a0 The apostles and the elders, your brothers Paul\u2019s letters show an expansion of the standard greeting with Christian elements in awordplay with the word Greeting (\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\/chairein) changing it to Grace (\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2\/charis) and often adding peace, the standard Jewish greeting. \u00a0Thus in 1 Cor 1:3,<\/p>\n May grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, be yours!<\/strong><\/p>\n This came to be a common patter among Christian letters and one that John follows here.<\/p>\n Grace, mercy and peace<\/strong><\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Grace and peace were common among Paul\u2019s letters and to this John adds mercy.<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 A member of the class mentioned that there was a progression in this verse, and there is a definite progression.\u00a0 Working backwards, you cannot have true peace apart from God. But sin keeps us from God, and it is God\u2019s mercy that allows us to be reconciled with him, and this mercy in grounded in grace.<\/p>\n will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus<\/strong><\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This is an affirmation, not a request.\u00a0 Note that John is making it clear that the source of our grace, mercy and peace are both the Father and Jesus.<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n the Father\u2019s Son <\/strong><\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Jesus is further described as the Father\u2019s Son.\u00a0 This repletion is a form of emphasis that Jesus is the son. Again this was something the traveling missionaries discussed in this letter rejected.<\/p>\n in truth and love.<\/strong><\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 John again comes back to truth adding love.\u00a0 This stresses their importance in grace, mercy and peace, without truth or love, there can be no grace, mercy or peace.\u00a0 This is why truth and love will play such large role in the rest of the letter. \u00a0So John is not just greeting his readers, he is using the opening of this letter to prepare his readers for what follows.<\/p>\n Question\/Discussion<\/em><\/strong>:<\/p>\n 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!\u00a0 But I will do my best.<\/p>\n The discussion started with the theme of the class, living in truth and love.\u00a0\u00a0 These are both very important concepts, but they are often at odds with each other.\u00a0 In addition, truth, itself is a very challenging concept.\u00a0 This was brought home to me in the very first week of this current class.\u00a0 Highland Community Church has a winter and summer schedule and does not have classes during the summer.\u00a0 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?<\/p>\n My first reaction was to say the standard, \u201cfine,\u201d but I realized this was not true.\u00a0 For reason that are not important here, it had been a difficult summer with virtually no free time to actually enjoy it.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 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. \u00a0We are fine; no problems with God; I have my life in order.\u00a0 Yet if we were to ask God, would he say the same thing?<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 But it did not mean that I was up to God\u2019s standards, or even that I viewed truth, or its importance, in quite the same way that He does.<\/p>\n Jesus is the truth in every sense of that word.\u00a0 A commitment to Him is a commitment to truth, a key component of which is being honest with, and about, ourselves.\u00a0 Letting God shine his light into our lives to reveal the things we need to work on.<\/p>\n A few weeks ago, we had some questions<\/a> about Mormons and Jehovah\u2019s 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\u2019s Witnesses coming over to his house, and so he stopped by to ask some questions about what they were claiming. \u00a0\u00a0One argument in particular stood out and I wanted to share it with the class.<\/p>\n A key difference between the historical Christian belief and the beliefs of the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses is over the deity of Jesus Christ.\u00a0 Christians have historically affirmed it, while Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses deny it.\u00a0 A key verse in this debate is John 1:1.<\/p>\n In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God. <\/strong><\/p>\n Verses 1:14, 15 and 30 clearly identify the Word in verse 1 as Jesus.\u00a0\u00a0 So when it says \u201cThe Word was God,\u201d\u00a0 it is not hard to see why historically Christians have believed that Jesus is God.<\/p>\n My neighbor said that in response to this passage, the Jehovah\u2019s Witness had pulled out a Greek-English Interlinear and pointed out how the word translated God in the phase, \u201cand the Word was with God\u201d<\/strong> was different than the word translated God in the phrase \u201cand the word was God.\u201d<\/strong> My neighbor went on to explain that he had been told that the word \u2018God\u2019 in \u201cthe Word was with God\u201d<\/strong>, refers to Jehovah, while \u2018God\u2019 in \u201cthe word was God\u201d<\/strong> is not really god. Thus in the New World Bible, the Jehovah\u2019s Witness\u2019 translation, John 1:1 reads,<\/p>\n In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. \u00a0(NWT)<\/strong><\/p>\n While this argument may sound good in English, it falls completely apart with even the most preliminary understanding of Greek.<\/p>\n Here is the Greek of John 1:1<\/p>\n \u1f18\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc7 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2.<\/strong><\/p>\n Or transliterated<\/p>\n En arche en o logos, kai o logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en o logos.<\/strong><\/p>\n Or as a word for word literal translation<\/p>\n In beginning was the word, and the word was with the god, and god was the word.<\/strong><\/p>\n From this we can see that it is true that two words translated \u201cGod\u201d in this passage are spelled differently, the first one is \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd (theon) and the other is \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 (theos).\u00a0 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.\u00a0\u00a0 The spelling is different because Greek uses the ending of words to indicate their function.\u00a0 Consider the following sentence:<\/p>\n Bill threw the ball to Joe.<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 Greek however uses the ending of the word for this.\u00a0\u00a0 One place were English also uses word endings, is with the possessive (i.e. Genitive case).\u00a0\u00a0 Thus in the sentence<\/p>\n Joe threw Bill\u2019s ball back.<\/p>\n The\u00a0 -\u2019s\u00a0 ending is used to show that the ball belongs to Bill.\u00a0 \u00a0English also uses the \u2013s ending to show plural.\u00a0\u00a0 So whereas English does this for the Genitive case and for plurals,\u00a0 Greek does this for all cases and for both singular and plural. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0It shows the Nominative singular (i.e, the subject) with the\u00a0 -o\u03c2\u00a0\u00a0 ending and the Accusative singular (i.e. the object) with \u2013o\u03bd.\u00a0 This the reason for the difference in spelling between \u00a0\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd (theon) and \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u00a0(theos).\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n To see the fallacy of the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses\u2019 argument consider again the two sentences about Bill and the ball.<\/p>\n Bill threw the ball to Joe. Bill is spelled differently in these two sentences.\u00a0 Does that mean that \u201cBill\u201d in the first sentence is a different kind of Bill than \u201cBill\u2019s\u201d in the second sentence?\u00a0 Clearly not! Bill is the same in both sentences and the spelling difference merely concerns how it is being used in the sentence.\u00a0\u00a0 The same is true for \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd (theon)\u00a0 and \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 (theos) in John 1:1.<\/p>\n At this point a question was asked about the translation of \u201ca god\u201d found in the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses\u2019 translation. \u00a0\u00a0First off, it is not impossible.\u00a0 Greek has no indefinite article (\u201ca\u201d) nor can one simply determine by the absence of the definite article (\u201cthe\u201d)\u00a0 that a noun is indefinite. Normally, this must be determined by the context.<\/p>\n A key issue in John 1:1 is that in the phrase \u201cThe Word was God<\/strong>\u201d (lit:\u00a0 God was the Word) both \u201cGod\u201d and \u201cWord\u201d are in the nominative case.\u00a0 A rule in Greek, Colwell\u2019s Rule, does help us determine that \u201cWord\u201d is the subject, which is why it is translated as \u201cThe Word was God,<\/strong>\u201d and not \u201cGod was the Word<\/strong>\u201d because in English the subject normal appears first. It also suggests that God is definite (\u201cwas God\u201d) instead of indefinite (\u201cwas a god\u201d).\u00a0 But it does to prove it.\u00a0 I will not go into the details of the grammar here.\u00a0 Those who are interested can find a more complete discussion of the grammar here<\/a>.<\/p>\n In terms of the context, an extremely difficult problem arises with the translation of \u201ca god\u201d particularly in the way it is understood by the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses. \u00a0If Jesus is \u201ca god,\u201d in what sense is he a god?\u00a0 If he really is \u201ca god,\u201d separate and distinct from the father, then you have the teaching of polytheism, the belief in more than one God.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n 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) \u00a0Remember, 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 \u201cBill\u2019s Joe ball threw\u201d 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 \u201cJoe threw Bill\u2019s ball.\u201d \u00a0\u00a0As mentioned above, the Greek literally reads \u201cgod was the word.\u201d\u00a0 So not only is the word being equated with God, but the \u201cGod\u201d part is being emphasized.\u00a0 Yet the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses\u2019 understanding attempts to de-emphasize this out of existence.\u00a0 It is not \u201cGod\u201d but just \u201ca god,\u201d and then it was not really even \u201ca god,\u201d but something lesser than that, because according to their belief Jesus is not god.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 When dealing with questions, the simplest thing is to be honest.\u00a0\u00a0 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 \u201cthat is a good question, and I do not know the answer. Let me look into that and I will get back to you.\u201d<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n In many ways truth is liberating.\u00a0 It frees us to go wherever the truth leads us.\u00a0 We do not have to live in fear that what we believe will be proven wrong. If a Jehovah\u2019s 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.\u00a0 Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n Next week we will start in 2 John 4<\/p>\n If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com<\/a> and be sure to put \u201cEpistles of John\u201d in the header.<\/p>\n See here for references and more background on the class<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nTo: Their gentile brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.
\nGreetings<\/strong>.<\/p>\n
\nJoe threw Bill\u2019s ball back.<\/p>\n