Lecture 11.docx

Alright, beginning in 3, 7. Here are the numbers. 2, 3, 5, 3, 1, 6, 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 3, 4, and 5. Cross reference is 2, 26, 4, 6, and 2 John 7. In 2, 29, if you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of him. Commentary interaction. The false teachers, to...

Alright, beginning in 3, 7. Here are the numbers. 2, 3, 5, 3, 1, 6, 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 3, 4, and 5. Cross reference is 2, 26, 4, 6, and 2 John 7. In 2, 29, if you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of him. Commentary interaction. The false teachers, tools of Satan, the arch deceiver, were seeking to lead them astray, not only theologically in 2, 26, but morally as well. That's from Stock. As John had already indicated a key purpose of his letter was so that joy may be completed or full, he also wrote to his audience to warn them about those who would lead them astray in 2, 26. Stock explains that the heretics appear to have indulged in a subtly perverse reasoning that somehow you could be righteous without necessarily bothering to practice righteousness. John roundly denies the possibility. Regarding this verse, Lou does not feel that John is referring to sin. She states sin is not the author's real concern. If John is seeking to not have the under deceivers of Satan deceive and lead astray the spiritual dear children, he strongly warns them regarding righteous behavior that is evident of being like Christ. He then discusses the essence of righteous behavior in verses 8 and 9 mentioning specifically the topic of sin and then the distinction between the children of God and of Satan in verse 10. My final translation, children let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous just as he is righteous. Who's the he? Christ. Christ and not God? Well, both. The Trinity? I'm just wondering if you had thought about that or do you think it matters that much? Well, he is referring here to God. Yeah, I don't know if it really matters that much. What do you think? Yeah, right. I knew it would come to that. Well, you remember earlier in the week, Scott pointed out that often in 1 John, Echanos, when it's used, refers to Jesus. So this is where the context doesn't help you very much because I think if you start going up line by line, it's a long time since we've had an explicit reference to either God or Christ. So I'd probably lean a little bit more towards Christ, but I'd translate it he and then see if anybody asked me about it. Does it emphaticate the self? Could be. Could be emphatic. Well, with the Echanos, I wouldn't want to put himself. I mean, literally it's that one. I mean, literally that's what it says. It just says that one is righteous. And when you put it that way, then you'd want to do what Scott claims to have done. He's claimed to look up all the Echanos-ahs, look at every time it's used and see if you do need to privilege it, kind of as a designator for Christ. On a grounded insight, as Christians, Satan does continue to try to deceive us and have other people try to lead us astray from Biblical truth. However, the person that generally loves Jesus keeps his commandments, John 14, 21. He who has my commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves me. How we behave as Christians is important. The Christian does not seek to step out of the bounds of righteousness and listen to the darkness out of fellowship with the light. First John 1, 6 through 7. Because the warning here indicates that a believer may be deceived, led astray, as in let no one deceive you, it is critical to be on guard against the deception. Light is a preventative measure as to know the commandments of Jesus is vital to being in that light through knowing scripture. Psalm 119, 105. Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. Next verse. Okay, sweating away. 3, 8, here are the numbers. 1, 6. 1, 2, 9. 1, 2, 5. 10, 9, 2. 1, 2, 5. 9, 3, 5. 1, 2, 1, 2. 2, 1, 2, 10, 5, 1, 2, 1, 2. On the cross reference, John 8, 34 and 8, 44. 1 John 3, 9. And then 2 Thessalonians 2, 5. Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I told you these things? Writing of the same type of things in instruction. On the commentaries. The challenge to allegiance becomes an uncompromising statement whose backdrop is the relentless antagonism between God and the devil. By the first century, the idea of the forces of opposition to God being embodied in or under the leadership of an arch opponent was a familiar one. And that's from Lou. Meaning that Lou views the issue as a battle of good against evil. She comments, what could be pulled as the story of two battle lines confronting each other in stretching through time and humanity has been interrupted. This interruption, she explains, is the intervention of a new figure, the son of God. Furthermore, Lou comments that the attempts to explain how such disobedience could emerge within God's good creation, something Genesis fails to do, struggle between affirming human free will and propensity to wrong and casting the blame on the primeval act of rebellion against God by an evil or fallen angel who could easily be merged with the devil. Such views influenced perhaps by Persian dualism pushed the conflict between good and evil onto the metaphysical or cosmic state. Lou appears to not have a strong belief in an actual being known as Satan who opposes God. More so, however, is his wrong attribution to the fall of humans solely to the deception by Satan. While Satan is influential in the temptation, James 1, 14-15 teaches that an individual's own desire is the cause of the real temptation and sin. Furthermore, Genesis teaches that while Satan was influential in the temptation of mankind, it was ultimately mankind's own rebellion that led to the sin. It was the rejection of God's word and lack of obedience to it that resulted in the fall of humanity. This is the same warning John provides in 1 John related to righteousness. As the previous verse indicated that one practicing righteousness is just like Christ. There is a clear distinction between the work of Satan and that of Christ. Stock comments, if the characteristic work of the devil is to sin, the characteristic work of the son of God is to save. If then the whole purpose of Christ first appearing was to remove sins and to undo the works of the devil, Christians must not compromise with either sin or the devil or they will find themselves fighting against Christ. Stock concludes this thought saying sin is incompatible with Christ and his sinless person and saving work. Final translation, he who practices sin is of the devil because the devil is a sinner from the beginning. For this reason, the son of God was revealed to destroy the work of the devil. From the grounded insight, a genuine believer in fellowship with God will do all they can to not sin. Sin is completely contrary to the person and work of Christ. If a person truly loves Jesus for his work of salvation, they will not be able to practice sin because it goes against the very work Christ died to destroy and set believers free from. Therefore, if a person is continuously in sin, it is evidence that they are not of God but of the devil. We'll have you do the numbers and the cross-armances on the next verse and then at that point we'll call up Matthew. Krilala, are you here? Then you'll take over from there. Numbers. Two, five. The cross-references, 1 John 5, 18, Matthew 7, 18, and Matthew 13, 37, along with 1 John 4, 7. Beloved, let us love one another for love is of God and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Thank you. We can do the commentary interaction. The concept of not being able to sin does not refer to Christians being incapable of sinning. Rather characteristic of Christians are that they do not continue to sin and that they cannot go on sinning. John does not deny the possibility of sin from Christians. The seed can be translated offspring. The reason that those who are born of God cannot continue in sin is due to the reality that they have become their very offspring of God. For my final translation, I have, All who are born of God does not sin, for his seed remains in him and is not able to sin, for he is born of God. For the grounded insight, the children of God are marked with a life that cannot continue to sin since they inherited the righteous nature of God. And that's taking seed the way that you're taking it. It's something from God that's implanted in us. Another way to take it is his seed remain in him. It's another way you can take it. In other words, it's not seed referring to God's word or something that goes into our souls, but that word, sperm, there refers, it's sort of like the children of God. And then I explain that in my commentary. So then you're going to explain that a little bit differently than the way you're explaining it here. But that's two major ways to take it. Next verse. What I have is nine, three, two, Hold it. Vanu Ra. We got a different number. Four. Evident. Obvious, revealed. Five. One. Two. One. Two. Ten. One. Two. One. Two. Four. One. Eight. Six. Two. Eight. Five. Nine. One. Two. Ten. One. Eight. Six. One. Two. And three. Okay, cross your armances. All right, I have 1 John 2, 29 and John chapter 8, verse 47. If you know from verse, chapter 2, verse 29 of 1 John, if you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of him. And so you see that there's a relationship of how one lives through the connection to God. Commentary interaction. There are only two groups, a person can be in, and it's, it is recognizable. We are either children of God or children of the devil. Children of the devil are marked out by a lack of righteousness and love. Final translation. And so for the grounded insight, God's children practice righteous living and a love for the brethren. It is what one practices, either sin or righteousness, that distinguishes whether or not they have a relationship with God or are still bound to the devil. It's not the only thing that distinguishes them, but it is something that distinguishes them. There are other ways that one could prove to be bound to the devil. You could have circumspect behavior and still be bound to the devil. At least pretty good behavior. Okay, next let's give some applause to these presenters. I know that's what you're living for in this class is to hear that popular acclaim. You have one more verse? Oh, okay, Matt, go ahead. You've heard, you've heard of throwing under the bus. Well, for the brother. All right. Verse 11. What I have here is 10, 3, 5, 1, 2, 9, 5, 9, 2, 10, 5, 3. Yes, relative pronoun. All right, for the cross-reference analysis. I have 1 John 1, 5. We can see those, and we can see the tie. Why don't we just go back to the commentary? Commentary interaction. The heretics boasted of their new teaching, yet John declares that the truth was what they have heard from the beginning. It is the unchanging gospel of which to love one another, of which to love one another is an essential part of it. For the final translation, for this is the truth which you heard from the beginning, that we love, that we might love one another. That's the truth? I'm not, I'm just, what text did you translate? Yeah, a message. Can I? Okay. It was truth at 3 a.m. Truth at 3 a.m. Because there is a textual variant there. There, Angelia is what Nessy Allant read, but other translations read promise. In fact, if you look at the textual apparatus, almost all manuscripts say promise. There are only one, two, three, four, only, well, that's not true. Four plus the majority say message. So I guess message is pretty strong. Message or promise? Okay, grounded insight. The message of the gospel will never change, remaining the same as it was proclaimed from the beginning by the apostles. And likewise, those who have genuinely trusted upon Christ and have received this message, I have a message there, should result in a life that loves others. All right, thank you. All right, chapter 3, verse 12. 8, 10, 2, 9, 1, 4-2, 5, 10, 5, 1, 2, 3, 10, 9, 3, 5, 3, 10, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 10, 1, 2, 3, 4. You won the lottery. I don't think I ever saw a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 before. It's like a royal flush or something like that. I don't know what a royal flush is. I think that Harim beats me in 8 as an emperor. I think he labeled it as a preposition. That one is a tricky one. Which one? Can you point to it? Oh, Harim? I had to look that one up. I would call it a preposition. It is a preposition. It's an improper preposition. So it can fool you. Because morphologically it looks like a form of a noun, but it's actually a preposition. And the proof of it is the ten-offs that comes after it. So you just find it's a different lexical entry. By the way, note, it almost always comes after the word it governs. I think Ephesians 3, verse 1 or 2 has, in fact it might be the first two words of Ephesians 3, has the same construction, but they flip the object and the preposition. So usually the preposition comes at the end of the prepositional phrase with this word. Very strange. Okay, cross-references. Cross-references to Genesis 4. Cain told Abel his brother, and it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and killed him. His verse provides the background reference for the first part of the 312, 312A. Usually the focus is on Abel, the righteous, in the New Testament. But in 3, verse 12, Abel is not even named. Cain is named as a negative example of a lack of love, meaning to murder. Here the reference is Hebrews 11, verse 4. By faith, Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous. God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks. This verse is the Mother Lode, in the S.A. Vantex. It enhances our understanding of the righteous brother of Cain in the second half of 312, 312B. He was ultimately righteous because of faith, which evidence itself the offering of a better gift, a better sacrifice. Just because I know not everybody is packing a great New Testament, this is what I was referring to in Ephesians 3, 1. Tutu-charen. And charen is a preposition meaning on account of. So on account of this, I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus. So tutu-charen. This is usually how charen is used. It's a backwards prepositional construction. Cometary or grammar interaction. News states that Cain's murder is not the only point. Rather the point is that Cain belonged to or had his origin in the evil one. The readers, however, already know that they or the youths have conquered the evil one, so they can be in no doubt where they stand. Thus Cain is a prototype of one who is from the evil one, who does not love his brother. This lack of love ultimately leads to murder. John gives a negative example that those who do not act like Cain show the archaic way of God. Therefore, love of the brethren is a way to tell that one has conquered the evil one. Conversely, lack of love for the brethren shows that one is of the evil one, just as Cain did. So she's relating it back to chapter 2 verses 13 and 14. Final translation. Not as Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And for what reason did he murder him? Because his deeds were evil and his brothers were righteous. Grounded insight. The antithesis of love is jealous hatred, ultimately leading to murder. I forgot that from the start. Cain becomes a picture of a direct negation of true love. Since 1 Corinthians 13 verse 4 says, Love is not jealous. And 13 verse 6 says that love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in truth. John uses Cain as a negative example of jealousy arising out of a loveless heart to be avoided by those who cling to Christians. This relates to 3 verse 11 where love is seen to be inherent in the gospel message which they have heard from the beginning. Okay, why don't you run us through 3.13 and then we'll get your compatriot up. 3.13 11 slash 8 5 2 10 5 3 1 2 1 2 1 Cross-arvance analysis. This is the mother load. John 15 verse 18. If the world hates you, you know that it has hated you before it hated you. The reason Christians should not be surprised that the world hates them is because the world hated Christ before it hated us. Cometary grammar interaction. Stott says, the world is Cain's posterity, so we are not to be surprised if the world hates us. It is only to be expected that a wicked should continue to guard and treat the righteous as Cain regarded and treated his righteous brother Abel. This is the connection between verses 12 and 13. Cain correlates with the world and Abel correlates with brotherhood. Drew supports this idea when she says, the world takes the place of Cain. We who are brothers take the place of his brother. Therefore, since the world hates us, as Cain hated Abel, this implies that believers' deeds are righteous just as Abel's were righteous. Final translation. Do not be surprised, brothers, if the world hates you. Do not be surprised, brothers, if the world hates you. Do not be surprised, brothers, if the world hates you. Do not be surprised, brothers, if the world hates you. Grounded insight. John gives this command to not marvel or be surprised if the world hates Christians. By not giving the reason for their hatred, he points back to either of the righteous deeds which caused Cain to hate them. John makes clear that Cain and Abel were obviously very different from one another in morality and in love. Therefore, true Christians living righteously should expect opposition from the world. On the other hand, if a professing Christian continues to live so much like the world that he blends in with it and thus never receives opposition from his profession of faith, this may be a reason to question that profession. Awesome. Thank you. Verse 14. Here are the numbers. Cross-harvests. You can actually just read your observation because we can very quickly see the reference. So read your explanation of the reference. Okay. John 5, 24 o'clock. He has passed out of death in the night. In John 5, 24, he's almost safe with death in 1 John 3, 14. The 21st and number of the world are different. Because Jesus is describing a believer's condition by the cross in John 5, 24, John here assumes that he enters with the believers who are in that condition. Interestingly, while Jesus is saying how one can enter the condition, they still believe in Jesus Christ. John is here saying how one can manifest or show that he is in that condition. That is love for the brothers. And verse John 2, 11. Here we have a parallel statement. The one who hates his brothers is in the darkness, and the one who doesn't know love remains in death. Commentary collection. Okay. Hamas at the beginning of the verse is in fact, which implies an adversity right here. And Luce suggests the author may not have wanted to decide whether their love for the brothers is not for their certain knowledge or for their having made the transition, both of which are grammatically possible. The latter option is only grammatically not theoretically possible because it implies a doctrine of salvation by words. Stubb rightly states, love is the short test of having life, and it has already been shown to be the test of being in the life. And my final translation is, we ourselves know that we have passed out of that in life because we love our brothers. The one who does not love still remains in the death. One of the purpose of verse John is to give assurance to the readers that they have eternal life. Here in 314, John directly gives the assurance, you can be sure of your salvation because you love your brothers. He does not use the conditional clause, if, but the cuddle clause, because. He does not ask the readers whether they love their brothers, whether he assumes so. He's trying to give the readers on assurance not a test. While we sometimes need to say like four in 2 Corinthians 35, test yourself to see if you can see the face. There is a time when we should say like John did. So I guess he really told, he told Stott, didn't he? Stott says the test and he says it's an assurance, it's not a test. So, good. Think for yourself. 315, last verse before lunch. Okay, four, one, six, one, two, three, two, five, ten, five, ten, four, two, eleven, five, two, four, nine, three, six. Cross references. Hold it. You got it. Anthropoktanos, the first one, it should be four. Well, it would be a four dash two then. Did you look it up and find it to be an adjective? Okay, so both of your anthropoktanos. The second one is more of an hour. The first one more of an hour. Everyone who hates his brother is a homicide, a man killer. So that, the question is when you look it up is it an adjective or a noun? First one, he did it as a noun. So yeah, they're both nouns. Okay, yeah, we'll call them twos. Cross reference. John 8.4, the great word for mother is used only in John 8.4 and 1 John 3.15 in the NT. And Jesus used it to refer to the devil in whom there is no truth. And John here used it to refer to anyone who hates his brother who does not have eternal life. The context of John 3.4 is notable. The Jews insisted they are the sons of Abraham and their father is God. Jesus does not agree with them because what they do denies what they speak. If their confession were true, they would love Jesus as Abraham did. However, what they want to do is to kill him. This is what the devil wants to do. So the Jews' hatred of Jesus proves that their father is not God but the devil. In this sense, we can understand the second part of John 3.15. If anyone doesn't want the word, he steals the word so that he does not have eternal life. There are three more cross references here. Commentary reflection. For 16 is the proof statement of the previous point that lack of love is the evidence of spiritual death. Start understand where this was as a general Christian action. For Louis also writes that there is no middle ground between hatred and love. Between death and life. It may be a general principle that has some exceptions, but the author does not imply any exceptions here. Rather, he uses it as an absolute principle. The question such as what kind of love it is or how should we love are not an issue here. The question is do you love your brother or do you hate him? Final translation. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer. And you know that no murderer has eternal life that is abiding in him. I just want to underscore your reference to Matthew 5, which is surely the Sermon on the Mount passage where Jesus likens just expressing contempt for a brother as murder. That's a very important background for this kind of rhetoric. Jesus engaged in it too. For Christians there may be a time when our hearts condemn us because we think we do not love enough. Yet it does not matter because our God is greater than our heart and knows all things including our mind, will and body. He said in verse 20. However, verse 15 should be applied to non-Christians. When the issue is spiritual salvation like here, you are either a lover or a murderer. Neither in life nor in death. Neither of God or of the devil. Will they identify with that paper of his? You know in the syllabus it says you're not supposed to be preaching here. But he got a zinger in there didn't he? Alright. We'll have one of you guys finish tomorrow. Both of you, very good work.