Lecture 10.docx

Let's get one more review out of the way, and then we will launch into our next set of verses. And if you feel a little overwhelmed by, I mean I'm always overwhelmed. The longer I study 1 John, the more overwhelming I find it. Well, I will.. I hate to admit this, but I was reminded last night, this...

Let's get one more review out of the way, and then we will launch into our next set of verses. And if you feel a little overwhelmed by, I mean I'm always overwhelmed. The longer I study 1 John, the more overwhelming I find it. Well, I will.. I hate to admit this, but I was reminded last night, this is the Bible I threw in to bring with me. And it's kind of my default personal daily reading Bible that my wife gave to me for Christmas present in 1975. And the books in it that have the most coffee stains are 1 John. And when I look especially at 1 John, Chapter 2 going into Chapter 3, you know you can see the brown. So that's a lot of early mornings, you know when you're sloshing. How long does it take you to write the textbook? 30 years? No, off and on, you know probably 10 years. If I could have had time, you know it's probably a couple years, but it got stretched out over a long time, much longer than it should have. About 15 years of the time I said I'd do it till the time it got done. But a lot of that's just, you know, I made several moves and you know you have kids and things don't get done as fast as they need to get done. Anyway, I'm sorry we can't take more time to answer more questions in depth. But that's one of the reasons we look forward to heaven, is because we can spend more time meditating on these things. But the one thing I'm most conscious of having shortchanged us on is the structure of 1st John and the flow. We just launched right into 1.1 and we haven't paid too much attention to sectioning and outlines and organization. Of course, I've got a very extensive outline in my commentary. I'm sure Stott's got one. Everybody's got an outline, so you can kind of do it yourself. But I just wanted to point out that in my commentary on page 21 and 22 is a little graphic. So, if you want to see that, you can go to the link in the description. I'm going to put it in the description. So, if you want to see that, you can go to the link in the description. So, if you want to see that, you can go to the link in the description. So, if you want to see that, you can go to the link in the description. So, if you want to see that, you can go to the link in the description. So, if you want to see that, you can go to the link in the description. So, if you want to see that, you can go to the link in the description. So, if you want to see that, you can go to the link in the description. So, if you want to see that, you can go to the link in the description. So, if you want to see that, you can go to the link in the description. We've already done the first section. This is the seven sections that we get in the Byzantine tradition. The central burden of the first section of 1 John is that God is light. And then the second section, which we finished yesterday, the theme we could say is the primary commandment. And that is to embody the age-old message. That is, you know, to love. Today... And actually yesterday we had moved into the third section in which we get the key counsel. So we've had the chief burden, we've had the central burden, we've had the primary commandment. We're in a section where we're getting the key counsel, and that counsel is to abide in his anointing and receive eternal life. And then, God willing, today we'll move into the core teaching. We'll get into the foundational imperative. We'll go through a section which is an appeal, that I call it an illustrative appeal. And then finally a concluding admonition. So those are the seven sections that we can divide first John into. And I wish we had more time to correlate our presentations with this particular sectioning. But one reason we don't is... Any sectioning of 1st John is somewhat arbitrary. And the only way, I think, to keep an exposition really in close sync with a certain organizational scheme would be just for one person to do it. If I were doing all the presentations and unpacking a certain organization, then I think it might be effective. But with everybody and his brother coming up here and trying to take the class over, then I think we just kind of have to let... let the organization kind of take care of itself. But just bear in mind, if you have the luxury of preaching first, John, then you can sort of set up the themes and relate that to your exposition, and it'll make the pedagogical side of what you're doing all the more effective, because you control the thematic overlay that everything feeds into. So that's a downside of... how we're doing what we're doing. Mr. Spitaly, your paper please. And this gives us an introduction to different commentaries, or different approaches to commentaries. My voice. The book under review is a commentary entitled The Fist of John, authored by Raymond E. Brown, which was published in 1982 by Double Day, by the CDJ. Raymond Brown was an American Roman Catholic priest, but also a well-known biblical scholar, who wrote many books on biblical subjects. As a biblical scholar, he is known for his reconstruction of the hypothetical Jewanine community, and also for his advocacy of sense claim. This commentary is a part of the A.M. Eichor-Yalb Bible series, whose intentions not to reflect any particular theological doctrine. It is an interfaith project in which scholars of different religions contribute to individual volumes. This book is marked by an extensive exegetical analysis of the text, which is preceded as well by quite extensive introductory matters. In his review, the writer would first of all point out what the purpose of ground is in writing this book. Then a major part of this review will be focused on Brown's basic presuppositions that he himself presents in his introduction, followed by a critique whose aim is to cross the outcome of his presuppositions. In the following, there will be a brief review about the method that follows in his exegesis analysis. With regard to the purpose, Graham observes that since the author of these epistodes did not intend to encourage his readers in isolation from his community's tradition, it is critical then to be well acquainted with the Juhani tradition. So, Graham's aim, beside conveying an executive analysis of the text, is to give a thorough representation of what the Juhani community tradition is. in order to accurately comprehend the meaning of these letters. Braun starts his introduction discussing about the problem of Johani authorship. To his view, there is a common author for all three epistles, while there is a different author for the Gospel. He affirms that this decision is based not on theological and stylistic differences only, but mostly on an accurate analysis of what happened. in the history of the Juhani community, that is, as a section that occurred among the followers of John. After praising the different possibilities about the dignity of the opulence spoken of in the first and second John, he starts a new section along 46 pages that he labels the theory adopted in this commentary. According to Brown, this theory is that which makes the most sense of the exegetical conclusions he reaches in writing this comment. His basic presupposition is that although we do not have the community tradition preserved, we have, nevertheless, a specimen of that tradition in the Gospel of John. Furthermore, according to Graham, the epistles are critical because they allow scholars to see that the Christology presented in the Gospel of John contains also dangers. Contains what? Also dangers. Dangers. According to this theory, a schism occurred within the Juhani community over the interpretation and application of Juhani thought. In other words, this theory asserts that two different groups within the Juhani community interpreted differently the proclamation of Christianity known through the Gospel of Juhani. One of these groups had a higher view of Christ. thus placing no emphasis on his death, just because the Gospel of John does not place as much emphasis on the death of Christ as the other gospels. Therefore, 1 John is a sort of reaction to basically an overemphasis on high Christology. In short, according to Brown, the epistles of John must be understood in light of the Gospel of John in order to acquire a value beyond or self-contained message. This theory appears to be a presupposition founded on an anonymous view of biblical inerrancy. Since he views the Gospel as a specimen of the Juranic tradition, and yet claims that there are dangers in the Christology found in the Gospel of Job, which ultimately caused the rise of different interpretations of John's teaching. Brown is arguing on the basis of higher criticism, namely historical criticism. which becomes his key hermeneutical tool to interpret the epistles and the gospels. He believes that a redactor added parts of the Gospel of John later, after the writing of 1 and 2 John. He's clearly using redacted criticism, whose basic presupposition is that the gospel writers, in this case, John, are not historians, but rather theologians. As a result, the gospel writers do not convey an objective historical account of Jesus' life only a representation of their own theology. In fact, when Brown speaks of the Gospel of John, he talks about the Germanic thought or tradition. His expression and reduction criticism in itself put into question the historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts, which are not viewed anymore as the historical accounts of the words and works of Jesus Christ. Moreover, it should be pointed out at this point that in the epistles the issue is not about a different view of the death of Christ, but rather about a complete denial of the guilt of Jesus. Furthermore, John addresses other aspects in his letters which have to do with the Christian walk, with the lack of fraternal love, and with the law for the world, which are things that could not have been interpreted differently by the opponents in a lot of what is presented in some, I find it very difficult and inappropriate that all the errors of the opponents, as Brown firmly asserts, derive from a different interpretation of the Gospel of John. Moreover, this hypothesis literally dominates the Cometor, becoming the fundamental key for Brown's interpretation, as he himself admits. In fact, his emphasis on the relationship between the Gospel and the Epistles is most of the time forced by his theory. Bible, instead of being the result of this exegetical research. What are some of the results of these hypothesis? One is, at times, an erroneous exegesis and interpretation of the biblical text. For instance, according to Brown, the writer of the first Epistle is not the Apostle John, but rather one of his disciples. However, how could a second generation believer, a non-Eyewitness, write the following phrase we have seen with our hands. He argues that the word touched should be translated felt, following other religious literature in which there are examples of verbs of sensation used by people who participated in the sensation only, vicariously. He translates also the phrase we have not seen, verse John 1, 8, in the following way. We are free from the guilt of sin. It does so in order to fit this exegesis of the text with this hypothetical view of the Japanese community. However, there is also a second result that comes out of this theory. He does not deal explicitly with how the epistles are significant for today. Considering the structure of the first epistle, he observes that there are two major parts that begin with the same phrase. This is the gospel. The first part has the theme of walking in the light, while the second part is about loving one another. He views the second epistle as a letter from the presbyter at the sight of John to a church warning against any reception of secessionists, while the third epistle is a letter written by the same author to Gaius, urging him to offer hospitality to missionaries. With regard to the method followed in the exegetical analysis, Brown uses the same method the same precision for all three pieces, starting crucible with a section called notes, in which he explores in great detail each verse, and very often each word, whose purpose is to convey the reason for his position in interpretations. This word, note, in the ground gives an extensive and thorough exegetical analysis that can be very helpful, especially for scholars and students who look for exegetical details, as well as for information about. the different views held by other commentators. It is my help also to the bibliography that he gives after the analysis of each pericode. After this section, there is another whole comments in which he traces how he reads the pieces in light of his position and conclusions. It is, in other words, a section focused on the exposition of the text as a result of the piece that he conveys in the previous section. At the end of this commentary in the appendices, it gives us additional notes about different topics, for example, about the relationship between the gospel and the epistles, about serendipity and about the Juhannic comma, which he rightly refutes as part of the renewed text. In conclusion, Fraud conveys an extensive, comprehensive detail and well-informed analysis of the text that can certainly be very useful. However, the weakness of this commentary Brown's theory has the priority over the exegesis of the text, which although comprehensive, is at times inaccurate, because heavily dependent upon his theory. Therefore, since his exegesis is not always accurate, I would recommend this commentary only to scholars and students, but not to lay people who most likely would not be able to assume his alleged presuppositions. Anyone who makes use of this commentary should start by reading the... section theory, section, in order to be acquainted with Brown's fictitious hypothesis. Do you own the commentary? No. Would you add it to your library if we're not an African, and why or why not? I would. Why or why not? Well, you say you would, so why? I would, yeah. Because I think that I've been there. Because you like the community theory? No. I'm sorry. It's not. It's not. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's beautiful. I know that I think good. But it's, to me, pretty scary when you start to suggest a commentary by saying that you have a theory. To me, that's the equal system. You know, on the plus side, at least he tells you. Yeah. Because so many commentaries, in a way, every commentary, the commentary has an agenda. And most of them don't tell you what it is. Yeah. I think it's honest. But it's a really good system. And any step is really, that is the first. But he is a very learned scholar, isn't he? There's a lot of information, especially in the notes section where his theory doesn't affect it so much. So this is an example, I mean it's a judgment call and everybody's got their budget limitations, but I think this may be the longest commentary in English on the Johanna Epistles. It's kind of fine print and it's, isn't it 800 something pages? So it's about twice as long as my commentary. So in terms of work... There's a lot of work, there's a lot of data. And he was trained as a historian at Johns Hopkins University. And he knew many, many languages. So all the European languages and all the ancient languages, all the Latin and Greek stuff, he goes into it and it's there. All these references are there in the fine print. So in terms of a resource... You can't buy every scholarly commentator or commentary, but this is really kind of like... It can anchor your... your... your Johanian Epistles book section in your library. Anything else you want to say in hindsight now that you've done it all? I would really prefer it to be for scholars and students, not for lay people. I really don't like to have lay people going through the work without knowing what it is you. And why it's using words like tradition and community, that's really important. But for us, I think it's really important. What year did he publish? He really has influenced Johannine scholars since he published. And what's the year? 1980 or so? roughly that time, more than any other single scholar or commentator in the English language world. You know, Raymond Brown's approach. Has affected the discussion. It affects Lou immensely, although she often takes a different tack. But it affects Wetherington. Wetherington is heavily dependent. You know, even his unwillingness to say that there's a John, the apostle, and you know, attributing the different Johanian writings to different groups or different authors. That's really right out of Raymond Brown. All right. Thank you. So I did bring the book with me. I did review Gary M. Burge's commentary in the new, in the NIV application commentary series. The Letters of John, I believe, Brink, the only one that does the one on Corinthians, I don't know if it's the first or second Corinthians, but with Jar Box and that series as well. But Gary M. Burge has served as a professor of New Testament at Wheaton College, Wheaton Illinois, since 1992. In addition to writing his commentary on the Epistles of John, he's published multiple works and articles, including the Commentary on the Gospel of John, in this same series. He received his PhD from King's College, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, where he studied under the New Testament scholar, I. Howard Marshall. Before reviewing the commentary, it might be helpful to inform the reader that the NIV application commentary series is formatted and structured specifically to help the reader think through three aspects of the text, its original meaning, bridging context, and contemporary significance. Each section helps the reader navigate through these categories in order to aid them in their understanding of the John and the Apostolari Testaments. Dr. Burge begins by offering us the best lens he can in order to make the most sense out of the ancient document. Burge believes that it is best to understand the letter within the backdrop of John's gospel circulating through the churches of Asia Minor. He contends that a protonostic interpretation of John's gospel, his own gospel, was splitting the churches he oversaw, which motivated the writing of 1 John. In Burge's view, 1 John's purpose was to protect and encourage believers who were experiencing crisis of faith due to these early false teachers who were claiming divine authority for their views and even using John's own testimony of Jesus's life, death, and teachings, I'm sorry, life and teachings for their ends. He reminds us that the apostolic church did not yet have the New Testament canon by which to judge and discern teaching. He also reminds us that within this context, the early church functioned pneumatically, that is, by powerful workings of the spirit to lead believers. According to Burge, this is why the cessationists were upsetting John's church so much. They were claiming pneumatic inspiration for their views, but were teaching a different Christology. Sort of pro-Gnostic Christology. This early form of Docetism marginalized the earthly life of Jesus, including his death and resurrection. Burge states that despite their historical view of Jesus, they still claim to have immediate access to God. In their view, they had moved beyond the basic elementary Orthodox teachings of Christianity, and, inspired by the Spirit, could know God directly. In addition... And as Burge points out, because they had an errant Christology influenced by their underlying Hellenistic philosophy, they had an errant ethic which was out of line with the apostolic message of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus. So Burge informs us that the occasion of the letter colors the nature of the letter. And it is both polemical and encouraging. John's purposes are both corrective and protective. In summary, Burge claims that the fourth gospel serves as the backdrop of John's epistles that a crisis caused by a misinterpretation of John's gospel, a person's misinterpretation of John's gospel, gave fuel to those who would eventually become John's opponents. These false teachers were claiming spiritual authority and teaching inherent Christology which in turn led to immoral practice. John's concern was to correct this errant teaching and protect the church. Burge's commentary on John's epistolary testimony was insightful in many ways. I found his pastoral concern for young or hurt Christians especially helpful and very practical. His explanations concerning the bridging context and contemporary significance gave more insight into the meaning of the text that was not found in previous sections, in the previous section, as the original meaning section. Burge also seemed to value other traditions and theological viewpoints other than his own, which is PCUSA, that's the denomination he's really with, by exemplifying others outside this tradition who have gotten it right. He also seemed very honest about the shortcomings of his own denomination when the text addressed an issue where he believed it fell short. Burge's effort to achieve balance while addressing the thorny issues of conviction versus cooperation is in the Johanan context. and the contemporary context was commendable. Regrettably, I thought that his generosity also weakened some of the more salient points in the commentary lacking emphasis on the text emphasis. This might be due in part to Burge's view of the scriptures. While he rightly emphasized John's concern that after Christology fleshing itself out in right ethical behavior governs our view of cooperation and or separation, he also downplayed other important doctrines that could be cause for separation in the church. For example, Burge lumps in those, quote, conservatives who deny inerrancy, drink alcohol, or refuse some random conservative politics, unquote, together as some of them, as ones from whom we separate illegitimately. Previously, Burge also criticized the evangelical theological society on their view of inerrancy. Unfortunately, but less seriously, there's a bit of Burge's mystical and charismatic theology ensconced mostly in the bridging contemporary context sections. which is to be expected in a commentary structure like this. Despite these few drawbacks, one should take seriously this commentary as it relates to understanding and applying the text of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John. Even though the structure of the series opens the way for more subjective perspectives, it does aid the reader, and the warm and succinct style of Dr. Burge makes this volume readable and useful. The knowledge of the text, its background, and various Christian traditions and theologies coupled with his pastoral heart makes Gary Burgess commentary on John's epistles insightful, enjoyable, and beneficial for both the lay person in the armchair and the pastor of the state. Any questions? Okay. 3 x 2, 2 x 2, 8 x 2, 2 x 5, 10 x 8, 5 x 3, 5, 5 x 10, 10 x 5, 4 x 3, 5 x 10, 5 x 3, 8 x 5. Can you crank that up just a little bit? It can be a little larger? There's a round dial? No, at the bottom under your paper. Under your paper those come around and turn it twist it to the right a little bit and it'll enlarge That's a little too much That's probably alright, then you can use that monitor right in front of you that that will tell you what we're seeing Cross reference analysis, Colossians 3-4, which the NASB has when Christ, who is our life, is revealed, and you also will be revealed with Him in glory. It's helped me in my translation 3 to the And it also makes the same link between Christ appearing and our being with Him. Philippians 3-21 who will transform the body of our hunger state into conformity with the body of his glory by the exertion of the power that he is even to subject all things to himself. So again, it communicates our transformation into something like him and it's perhaps more explicit about how that might happen, namely by the exertion of his power. Concrete interaction. stop notes the apostolic confession of ignorance. We do not know the exact state of the redeemed in heaven however he does affirm that we know that we shall be with Christ and like Christ on the last day and through eternity. Thus he makes a helpful observation of what the text says and what the text does not say. Lewis states the axiomatic biblical tradition is that no mortal can see God and live. However, to be able to look on God does belong to the eschatological hope of the future. One area where they may differ is that Stott argues it's Christ who will be revealed and whom we shall be like whilst Lewis seems to contend that God, actually not, is best compared with Lewis. Within the context of the subsequent verses I concluded that Christ seems the most logical interpretation of the text. So my final translation is, Beloved, now we are children of God, and what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We know that if he is revealed, we should be like him, because we shall see him as his face. Let's see, your footnote says Aona is used 21 times on 16. It renders it if. This is the most sensible translation in those instances. While translating the Aona 3-2 as if appears to indicate some degree of uncertainty. Can you push that up because somebody had a question on this yesterday? Perhaps be more faithful to John's writing. More faithful than what? When, sorry I haven't discussed the, so you and I discussed whether it should be if or when, and I'd always read it as when, I think the ESP has it as when. But that doesn't really seem consistent with the way in which John uses the words. Yeah. Of the 21 times it's used in 1 John 16, if I think two are when, one of them actually appeared. But as we discussed, it seems to be that John uses the word to mean it. And whilst for us in English language that might seem to suggest this uncertainty about whether he will appear, actually the only uncertainty in John's life seems to be when he will appear, not if he will appear. My conclusion was that a more faithful translation of the Greek would be, we know that if he is revealed as a place to win. Okay. That's a good example of a translator's dilemma. You lose something. You know, the saying is, translation is treason. That saying exists in many languages. Translation is treason. Because you translate, you're always betraying something in you're leaving something out or you're adding a little something in in that target language that isn't really there where you're coming from. But you don't have an alternative. Whichever way you go here, somebody's going to say, you weren't really faithful to the Aeon. And I think if you had the if and you were preaching it, you would need to stress, there is no ambiguity, Christ will return. Because some people might read it and say, is he returning? without the spirit and with the spirit. So... Yeah, just follow it forward. Alright, so in 3-3 we have 10, 4, 1, 6, 1, 2, 3, 9, 3, 5, 3, 8, 3, 4, 5. Bravo. And for cross-reference analysis, in Hebrews 12-14 it says, Strive for peace with everyone in their holiness, for there in which no one will see the Lord. Matthew 5-8, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. And 2 Corinthians 7-1, Since we have these promises beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of the body and spirit, that is to bring holiness to completion near God. Commentary and grammar interaction, Stott says, John has already emphasized that since Christ is righteous, we must practice righteousness if we do not want to be ashamed at his coming. That was in 2-28-29. Christians therefore who fix their hope upon Christ's return will purify themselves, not ceremonially but morally. Lou starts off well when she says, The confident expectation of future likeness demands a commitment to being like him, now to purifying oneself. But she goes on to relate this to a sort of cultic sexual purity. Could we just pause there? back to the start. If we don't want to be ashamed at his coming. I just want to point out that that ischiumi word, you know, we can translate that, I am ashamed, ischiumi. That word, and it's now in cognate, in Septuagint usage, in New Testament usage, it often is used in eschatological settings, and it's a euphemism. It's cognate with the word for nakedness, and it's a euphemism for being judged by God. Coming into judgment and being found naked before God and subject to punishment. So in our nomenclature, being ashamed is more of a psychological term. It's kind of petty. Get over it. You're ashamed. But it has nothing to do with being ashamed in our petty psychological sense in biblical usage. It has to do with standing naked before God's eschatological disapproval. Now that's going to be ashamed. You're going to be put to shame. That's why some translations say put to shame there rather than be ashamed. Because they're trying to do justice to reality that this is sort of a forensic, bang the gavel, sentencing context and not an emotional context of how you feel about yourself or how you feel about God. Thanks for watching! For final translation, and everyone who has this hope, again, peer advise themselves, even as a human peer. And for the grounded insight, I actually looked to Marshall, who I did my commentary review on. I thought he summarized it nicely when he said, The importance of this section as opposed to the reality and the incompleteness of the Christian experience. While we should be assured of our standing, we should also be born against any self-satisfaction or would suggest that God has already done all that he can do. We have to be reminded of the hope of a future consummation and be encouraged to live in light of that great event. Why don't you do the next verse and then we'll have Paul come up and finish this out. And then we'll take our 15 minute break. 3, 4. Yeah, 4, 1, 6, 1, 2, 10, 1, 2, 5, 10, 1, 2, 5, 1, 2. And. for cross-reference analysis. He references 1 John 5 17, all wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death. There is Matthew 7 23, and I will declare to them, I never knew you, depart from me, you workers of lawlessness. And in 2 Thessalonians 2 and 3, let no one deceive you in any way, for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. Yes? There's chai. So you write it as a tape and use it as a pen. Ah-ha. We caught you, Old Testament. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. I didn't hear his name. Hebrew is his first language, so we can forget it. For commentary, Stott points to other definitions of sin in the New Testament, giving examples of Romans, James, and also the first children, before claiming that this is the clearest and most revealing definition of sin. The passage identifies the two as to render them interchangeable, that's sin and lawlessness, such that lawlessness can no longer be called the result of sin, but instead seen as its very essence. The view points to the cross references as proof that lawlessness is intrinsically tied to its eschatological implications. And in doing so, she launches off way from Stott and instead sees the verse as an intentional indication of Genesis 4-7, basically where sin becomes personified in its attempt to control pain. And she goes that the writer's audience should be in no doubt that its threat and breach cannot be bypassed as it meant to the general audience as well. I didn't bring my shi-ya with the final translation. But my preliminary translation was everyone who is doing sin also does lawlessness and sin and lawlessness. Paul, what's your final translation of that? Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness and sin is lawlessness. Would you agree with that Josiah? Yep. Okay. So we have a consensus, we must be pretty close to the truth. Let's get the next verses. When the Old and New Testament agree, that must be right. Josiah, you'll be on the alert if Paul says or doesn't say something that your research contravenes, then by all means let us know. We're changing this from a cooperative model to an antagonistic model now. 3-5, the numbers are 10-5, 10-3-5, 10-1-2-5, 10-2-9-3-8-5. Gosh reference analysis. Same book, chapter 3, 8b. The son of God appeared for this purpose, that he might destroy the works of the devil. So here John states again the reason for Christ appearing in the book, in reference to the devil, and rather than using RA, he used the more forceful use. John chapter 1 verse 29, the next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Christ's purpose is confirmed, again with reference to sin, using the same verb in 3.5. John the Baptist is more specific regarding the sins that came to take away the sins of the world. This in turn reminds us of 1 John 2.2. And lastly, 1 Peter 2 verse 24, and he himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, but we might die to sin and live to righteousness, or by his wounds you will be healed. So here the same essentially thought is communicated but with greater specificity and with the result of action. So he takes away our sin by bearing them on the cross in order that we might be holy. Commentary interaction. Stott suggests that John stresses the sinless nature of Jesus often, and each time he uses estin in order to demonstrate that the sinlessness of Christ does not belong only to his pre-existence, or to the days of his flesh, or to his present heavenly condition, but to his essential and eternal nature. Lou discusses how the taking away of sins is not specifically linked here to Jesus' death. John does not mention how Jesus takes away sins. Furthermore, the absence of any personal pronoun suggests not the taking away of an individual's sin, but, quote, a more comprehensive removal of sins from the sphere in which he is active and of those who also belong to it. He argues that the intended allusions to Isaiah 53 are not persuasive. So on both accounts, he seems to deny, on this occasion, that John is making any reference to proficiation. My final translation to this verse. You know that he appeared in order to take away sin, and sin is not in him. I found it in West Tabor the Pest. Hang on just one minute. If you could look at your Greek text right after Hina, either look at Hamartias, which could fool you, or look at TAS. And can you locate that? That is parsed TAS? you might take away to sin. Well, since, yeah. Did I put it as singular? Yes. Take away sin, I did. So I'm just wondering, do you have some rationale for going from sins to sin? No. If I had spotted my error, I wouldn't have been sinned. Are you ashamed now? You didn't put to shame? No, the process was good. It was good. No, that wasn't intentional. Yeah, the word ha-mart-ias can fool you because what else could ha-mart-ias be? Here it's accusative plural, but what else could it be? It could be genitive singular. That's why, you know, you always try to correlate the ending and knowing that it's a first declension noun from ha-mart-ia. Ha-mart-ia, ha-mart-ias. Ha-mart-ia was a subscript ha-mart-ian. ha-mah-tee-eye, ha-mah-tee-on, ha-mah-tee-ice, ha-mah-tee-as, that's the same as the genitive. So either the context or in this case the article is your only help to really tell you that that's an accusative plural. So then you have to decide is it maybe somehow a collective noun, so you need to translate it singular, or should we just stick with the bitter reality what it is and say sins, and I hear you saying you want to say sins. Plural. Yes. I also noticed that you've switched the terrorist passive to an active with the appears. He appeared but was more possibly correct to say he was revealed. You know, whether that's going to make a difference in the translation, it's pretty subtle. But again, you as an expositor, you see behind Phanerao, what we call, and I suppose you learn this in first year Greek, you learn about divine passives, right? Or theological passives. We don't want to overdo that, but often when New Testament writers, this is true with the ashamed word group. Often when it's be put to shame behind that passive is God's shaming. And behind the passive of ephanerothe, you know the the active agent in that verb is God it's it's God who manifested himself in Christ so show us that show us your translation again you know that he appeared you know this is you know again you do your lexical work and you say does it make a difference whether we say appeared or was revealed or was the older word was was manifested but now that really gets obscure to most people so appeared you know covers most what's being said but it in your in your exposition you know you wanna you might want to point out what you can see from the Greek that it appears to be a case where the appearing is happening because God is working. God sent his son. It's not just like somebody waved a wand and he appeared. You know, poof, there he was. But rather he was made manifest by the Father. Lastly, they're grabbing the Christ government purpose and so they want to ask him to destroy sin. The means by which he achieved this was the cross. Because of his sinlessness, he was able to satisfy to re-bear on equity, the saving of the second line he left behind. Thank you, Robert. Let me say one more thing. The importance of the plural can be... There's a temptation for people to want to cling to... One important aspect of the teaching of the Atonement and that is the comprehensiveness with which the Atonement deals with our sin. And then to move from that to the notion my individual sins don't matter because my sin has been taken away. And between Luo here and Iroh... You get not only the notion of your sin being taken away because Christ bore it, but also you get the idea of your sins. God has declared war on your sins. And if you're not battling from your side, if you're not battling your sins, you are denigrating the atonement. The reason the Son of God was made manifest was to destroy and take away sin and sins. So don't hide behind this comprehensive view of the atonement to be lazy and lax About your struggle against the world of flesh and the devil Because that's that's that's misunderstanding the comprehensiveness and the aggressiveness You know the New Testament teaching the atonement Has God moving into your personal life and purifying you and everybody who has the hope of standing before God not being ashamed you know whatever that verse said. It purifies himself. Everybody who has this confident expectation purifies himself as he is pure. That's not that's not you know making light of sins I say well you know there's that fudge factor that's what grace takes care of grace doesn't cut a slack so that we can tolerate sins yes Is it, like as an adverb, it can also be a particle, is it legitimate to translate it and there is no sin in him? Kind of like in chapter 1 verse 5. What's the better translation? Is it, how do you discern whether to say in him is no sin or sin is not in him? Is it just kind of the proximity to the verb? That's the first rule, it's the proximity. So in Greek it's negating the verb. Like in chapter 1 verse 5, there's darkness right before OOP and then estin is after. So you negate the verb and then you start playing with the translation, and sin in him not is. Well, we can't, that's not a very good translation. And you might end up in English with a translation something like, and there is no sin in him. It's hard to say, if you just say sin is not in him, I don't know if that gets it as well as in him, there is no sin. That way it's functioning as an adjective? It's complicated because of the there is construction. There's no there, there. But this is a case where you kind of, when you move from one language to the other, sometimes you move into a different semantic pattern to convey the weight of what that language uses. This pattern, we go over to the impersonal verb construction, there is no sin, where he is saying sin in him not is, which doesn't make any sense in English at all, literally. This is a stylistic question. You got one more verse or do you have a grounded insight? I just read that here. Next verse, last verse. 4, 1, 9, 3, 6, 8, 5, 4, 1, 6, 8, 5, 3, 10, 5, 3, 6, 8, 5, 3, 10, 5, 3, 6, 8, 5, 3, 10, 5, 3, 6, 8, 5, 3, 10, 5, 3, 6, 8, 5, 10, 5, 3, 6, 8, 10, 5, 3, 6, 10, 5, 3, 6, 10, 5, 3, 6, 10, 5, 3, 6, Any number of problems? Looks pretty good. First one is 1 John 3, 9. No one is born for a practice sin because he sees, abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born as one. It's again the same principle, only John says, the ones who have been born of God are those who are born of God. John also gives a reason for not sinning here, namely that his seed is abiding in him, and the seed could refer to the Holy Spirit. The NASB draws out the ongoing nature of the 10th, and suggests that John is not saying Christians never sin. In the third epistle, verse 11, the lover do not imitate what is evil, but is good. The one who does good is of God, and the one who does evil has not seen God. So it's an equivalent statement, but in the positive, before then essentially restating verse 6 of John chapter 3, only in terms of evil instead of sin. And finally, Romans 6, 14, the sin shall not be master over you, you are not under law but under grace. So here the saving power of grace is stressed, so as possibly to shed light on verse John 3, 6, in so much as that it shows that the Christian does not go on sinning because he is no longer a slave to it. Soul F pottery interaction! Stotten the Sands has seen him to mean that every Christian has already seen him with the eye of faith. This coupled with the future prospect of seeing him is a strong incentive to holiness. With regards to the Christian not sinning, Stotten expresses the present tense, and the usual feuding of the idea that John is talking about isolated sinful acts, but rather the settled habit of disagreements. you denies this interpretation. She suggests that it would be a hypersensitive reason you could legitimately distinguish between the present tense of this section and that of chapter one, verse eight, where having sinned is not to be denied. These interpretations is a three-six, is a restatement of what has already been said in chapter two, verses four and six. This first reformulates these ideas in an antithetical form and with the language of sinning supplied by the couplets that, as suggested above, underlie the whole section. My final translation is, everyone who abides in him does not sin, everyone who sins has not seen him or Luke. Leading on the cross references and the verse, the natural outworking of the genuine ongoing relationship of Christ founded in an honest seeing and accepting Him for who He is, is a life which is no longer defined by sins. This is a present reality because firstly we have been born of God, thus we are new creations who resemble our Heavenly Father. Secondly we have the Holy Spirit within us, and thirdly because sin no longer has mastery over us. So are you proposing that de facto when you translate everyone who abides in Him does not sin, that what your meaning is, everyone who abides in Him no longer sins in such a way that their life is defined by it? Yes, I think my original final translation was everyone who abides in Him does not go on sinning. But I think I agree with you here that it would be to stress that present tense is maybe not what John was doing. He uses present tense in other senses and says we shouldn't deny that we do sin. So I don't know, I mean, stop suggests that is the point of the verse. Which is true, but I don't think that's what John's trying to bring out using the present tense here. Right. I think Lou makes a valid point that it's a hypersensitive reading of the text to say that, because that's present tense, that's what the opposite seems. And the other wrap on that translation is, if you then go to other present tenses in 1 John and start applying that continually thing, it doesn't work in a lot of other places. You wouldn't want to say that. So what's the marker that tells us it is continual here, and it's not continual in other places? It's I don't think it's entirely honest with the tense So I lost this battle because I was a consultant for the ESV and I said, please don't translate go on sinning Just because it it commits you to an over interpretation that you can't defend in other places But I think the pastoral fear won out that if you just say does not sin, then it's going to create havoc among people. And so they said, well let's just go with what we know is true theologically. Does not go on sinning. But you can see with your own eyes, it doesn't say anything about going on. It just says doesn't sin. And the other possibility here, and then we'll have to take our 15 minute break, I mean, I think that's a fine translation. How do you explain it's the problem? And in my commentary, I suggest that we should think contextually, and in the context of the letter, John is warning against a sin, which is really, as he's just said, it's anomia. and you can read my lexical work on Anomia. Anomia is basically the worst kinds of idolatries and apostices and blah blah blah It's very very serious stuff that he's warning his readers about and we've already seen that it's in the Christological area or the doctrinal area. It's in the ethical area and it's in the relational area. And so my suggestion is that the readers of this would hear John saying, everyone who abides in him does not sin in the ways that I'm warning you with this letter you'd better watch out for. Chapter 1 and 2, anybody who denies they sin is a liar. If we sin we have an advocate. So in one sense. we allow for sin because it's going to be there and Christ will deal with it. But in a more limited sense in terms of what I'm warning you about in this letter, nobody who is born of God, which is another way he's going to put it later, denies Christ. Nobody who is born of God fails to reflect that ethically. Nobody who is born of God is going to get by with a... a walk that is relationally barren going back to Jesus saying I never knew you. So my understanding is everyone who abides in him does not sin in the ways I'm warning you about in this letter. Well it's a little more subtle than that because it's not the grossest of the sins. It's what we've been talking about this week in terms of, how do I want to put it? Aspects of our identity before God that show that Christologically, we're not in sync with God, and ethically we're not in sync with God, and relationally we're not in sync with God. Whatever we say, whatever we project, whatever we claim, whatever we think, we've betrayed Christ. We're not walking as He walked. We're not loving. We're like Cain. Or we're like the deceivers. who are denying the sun. So, you know, I could be wrong and it's, my interpretation is a subtle interpretation too, but it's a contextual interpretation. And it's saying that the people would understand that he's warning them against sins in these three areas that he keeps coming back to. And you know, when you read the commenters, everybody pretty much agrees that there are three big centers of what he's warning about. You know there's the doctrinal center, the ethical center, and there's the relational center. The main difference is that a lot of people collapse the relational into the ethical. They make the right observation that there's a tie between love and obedience, but then because they don't believe that love is anything but obedience, they collapse the two. And I think that's a big mistake. I've already harped on that this week. I think we should keep love separate and we should work on regaining love. for Christian practice instead of taking the easy way out and say well you know it just boils down to duty and obedience. That's what love is. If you love me you'll keep my commandments. Damn it! You know, I mean it can be that gross that people will put pressure on you just to show your love by what you do and God isn't interested in that kind of love that does away with a relational aspect. You know, he wants something beyond just doing what he says. He wants that to be the motivation for doing what he says. And I even think he wants that to be the motivation for accepting what he says and trusting him. So you know, I could be wrong, but that's how I deal with this is to push us to think in terms of this writer, this discourse, the social settings who got this, and them hearing in John. in this particular context, chapter 3 especially that's restated in chapter 5, nobody who's born of God sins in the ways that I'm warning you to avoid. Nobody goes wrong this way. I don't want you to go wrong this way either. You can do better than that. And then then you go back to chapter 1 and 2 to retrieve the Pauline reality and the whole the whole Bible makes it clear there's nobody righteous, no not one. But no matter how you explain it, it's a problem.