Lecture 12.docx

ēmēs oidēmēn hāti mētā bebeikamēn ektū fēnātū. ēstēn zoein hāti agapōmēn tūs adōfūs. Hāmē agapōn mēne entō fēnātō. We know that we have... crossed over from death to life because we love the brothers. The one who does not love abides in death. And then later in 1 John there's a sin unto death. And i...

ēmēs oidēmēn hāti mētā bebeikamēn ektū fēnātū. ēstēn zoein hāti agapōmēn tūs adōfūs. Hāmē agapōn mēne entō fēnātō. We know that we have... crossed over from death to life because we love the brothers. The one who does not love abides in death. And then later in 1 John there's a sin unto death. And if the writer of John's letters is the writer of the Gospel Then he's familiar with death, he saw Christ die. He saw Lazarus raised, he saw other people raised by the Lord. I mentioned yesterday John the son of Zebedee, I don't think he witnessed his brother's execution, but his brother was executed for being a Christian. I think he was executed for being a Christian. I think he was executed for being a Christian. I think he was executed for being a Christian. I think he was executed for being a Christian. I think he was executed for being a Christian. I think he was executed for being a Christian. I think he was executed for being a Christian. I think he was executed for being a Christian. I think he was executed for being a Christian. And just living in an occupied area of the Roman world. It's like living in some parts of the world right now, I think especially Myanmar. Certainly a lot of places in Afghanistan, Pakistan, a lot of places in Africa. People see death. And a lot of us are insulated from it. And that's not a bad thing necessarily. But... It can make less real than is healthy something that, you know, we need to have... We need to be keeping in mind at all times that... you know, there's an enemy and it's one of the glories of salvation in Christ that enemy, that last enemy has been defeated. And in congregational ministry it's something that you run into a lot and some congregations more than others. Now, I've mentioned already this week the cancer death... looming in the congregation of a friend of mine and he says, in my 40 years of ministry I've never witnessed the kind of profound congregational grief that I'm already seeing in anticipation of this lady's death. Please be much in prayer as I seek to guide my flock through this crisis. Such intense emotion could lead to congregational despair and a drifting away from active faith. or it could draw us closer to each other and the Savior. Right now we are in the deep gloom of the valley of the shadow of death. It is as if every member of this church were losing a particularly close sibling to death all at the same time. For now, it is the overwhelming presence that absorbs the energy and focus of every person in the congregation. Well, you know, every pastor, you have to figure out, you know, to troubleshoot. And the older you are, you know, the more you've had experience. And the longer your track record here is your congregation. You know, you learn how to muddle through things like this. But I think it needs to be underscored, because sometimes I think... I don't know, I know it gets talked about in all seminary educations, but I'll just do my part to reinforce it. You're going to be the point person. If you're a congregational leader, if you're a pastor in particular, especially if you're a solo pastor, you're the point person. People look to you. And... I mean, you can't fix what's broken when people die. And in many ways, only the Lord can minister to the grief of souls. But when I was rearing children, one of the things I observed is how fearful they get of things. And one thing that we stumbled on, we put certain Bible verses to music. so that a kid could remember it by the tune. You know, kids remember tunes better than they just remember naked words. So one of the verses I taught, especially to my more fearful son, who is especially fearful of needles, and life is entirely too full of needles when you're three years old and five years old. I won't sing it to you. You can figure out your own tune. What time I am afraid I will trust in thee. Psalm 56.3. Get the reference in there. It rhymes with thee. What time I am afraid I will trust in thee. Psalm 56.3. I'll give you the tune. What time I am afraid I will trust in thee. Psalm 56.3. I can't tell you. The number of times in the dentist's chair we're getting ready for a tonsillectomy, but he'd be humming that to himself. He'd just be humming it. The doctor would kind of look at him like, what's that? The other thing I never allowed was for medical people to lie to him. Because he'd always ask, the nurse, and he knew, but he'd ask, is this going to hurt? He's always hoping they'd say, no, we've got a new invention. This needle is going to go into your body, but you're not going to feel it. And they'd always lie, oh no, it's not going to hurt. And I just, you know, just very calmly, I'd be right there, usually with my, like, my hand on him or my arm around him, and I'd say, you know it's going to hurt. Be ready. You know? Or once this well-meaning nurse said, oh, it's just going to be a little pinch. I said, yeah, like a lobster. Yeah. You know, so, you know, on one hand you can say, well, isn't that cruel? But on the other hand, you know, he needed somebody to help him face reality. You know? And I think the physical part was very important. You know, the physical part of a dad touching your kid. I mean, now if that's the only time you do it, it'll scare him to death. But if you're used to holding your kids and carrying them and, you know, wrestling with them, that physical presence is very, very reassuring to a kid. And there's no substitute for it. And then, you know, you don't need so many words. And some of you know this. Some of you got kids. And you know how important that is to kids. But it's especially at those hours. You know that they need that presence. And it's also important because it also is teaching them about the presence of God. It's more of a stretch to believe in a loving father when you never had a dad that did something like that. And it's less of a stretch. You know, when you actually had a dad that was there and was even there physically. Well, what time I am afraid I will trust in the Psalm 56.3. That's like a short version. of something longer. And does anybody know the first question and answer to the Heidelberg Catechism? So we have pagan churches. But we can reclaim the church. In every generation we are scrambling to help reclaim the church. And I want to commend this to you for death therapy. You know, for yourself. For your children. For your wife. And then, you know, maybe for your congregation. This is the kind of thing you can print in the bulletin now and then, if you have a church bulletin. Of course now you can put it online. If you say it every week for a few weeks, it'll be memorized. The really gung-ho people, you know, the homeschoolers and stuff in your church, they'll download this, they'll print it, in five days their kids will be reciting it. And, uh, you know. it can anchor. It can anchor you. And it can pull you together as a, maybe a demoralized family. You know, when grandma dies. Or when the pillar in the church dies. And, you know, the way you do catechisms, you say, what is your only comfort in life and in death? And then you repeat the question and the answer. So you just imagine you know you're having family devotions and you say to your kids and you got a four-year-old and you got a six-year-old you know you don't do this every night necessarily but you know they it's one of the things you do and you say what is your only comfort in life and in death? And the little kids say. My only comfort in life and in death is that I am not my own, but belong body and soul in life and in death to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil. He also watches over me in such a way that not a hair can fall from my head. Without the will of my Father in heaven, indeed all things must work together for my salvation. Because I belong to Him, Christ by His Holy Spirit assures me of eternal life and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for Him. Now that's a seed. That's a seed in the soul. And we all know theoretically, crisis conquered death. There's a propositional truth. But you know, propositional truths have their limits. If grandma has just died and you're going to put the kid to bed in a dark room, you know, don't just look at him and say, oh, I see you're crying. Crisis conquered death, and you turn off the light. Remember, it might be better than nothing, maybe. And of course, if you never pray with your kids, well, there's something to work on right there. Because some of the biggest memories kids have is when their dads went to seminary because they became absentee. Or because the marriage became so rocky because of the tension introduced by just the demands. That's one thing, whatever the demands of your work and crazy modular classes like this one, you don't want to make the people that really paid the worst of the price your kids. So, I'm just throwing it out there. I reminded my friend of this. The Heidelberg Catechism comes to us, I mean you can Google it or look in your church history textbooks, but the Heidelberg Catechism comes to us courtesy of the Reformed Christians in Germany. It wasn't only in Geneva, and it wasn't only in Holland, and it wasn't only over in what's now Hungary that the Reformed faith spread. But the Reformed church took very deep routage and is still, you know, a dominant Protestant voice in northwestern Germany. And along the side near Holland, which would describe also Heidelberg, and they came up with a catechism. And it was very different from the Westminster catechism, which is also excellent, but the Westminster catechism is much more cerebral. It's much less pastoral. And the more research you do in the Heidelberg Catechism, the more you'll see that it really is a set of questions and answers that really is meant to confirm believers in faith and not only to confirm them in doctrine. Now we don't have to make the choice, you know, pastoral nurture or doctrine, but it just so happens that... you know, the Westminster Catechism starts out, what is the chief end of man? It's a great question, but you know, it is kind of academic. What's the chief end of man? And different question that what is your only comfort in life and in death? I always thought one of the most horrible things that people did was just teach their people. pretty much two prayers the Lord's Prayer if you want to teach your kids dead ritual just say the Lord's Prayer every night for a few years and just don't do anything but that but then you know close to that is now I lay me down to sleep I pray the Lord my soul he says I should die before I wake I pray the Lord my soul to take that's a Hail Mary. I hope if I die I was taught that prayer but I wasn't taught anything else so every night I'd go to bed thinking about dying and not knowing you know not knowing much beyond that. I remember trying to imagine God at night. So that's just a maybe a painful reminder that we're being stalked. I know we have pastors here. I hope none of you have front burner bereavement issues facing you when you get back. I hope you're not texting back and forth on whether your bill will stay through Saturday because somebody might need you at the bedside before that time. But whether that's true or not for us in this room, it's certainly true around the world that people who are doing what you're training for or what you currently do are facing congregational calamities and the disruption of lives of their parishioners because of the visit of the last enemy. But there are resources. Soon we'll get into the verse that says, you know, perfect love casts out all fear. Of course there are other things that cast out all fear, like obliviousness to God. So just because people are fearless it doesn't mean they're really able to face death. But 1 John does equip God's people with the knowledge they need and the assurance they need to glorify God, even in the hour of death. And I commend you. Heidelberg Catechism, it's something to think about. You can see the link there. And if you need the link sent to you, just email me and I'll be happy to send you the link. It's a real gift of the Church in another day and time to the Church in other days and times. Let us pray. Lord, we give you thanks for bearing us up through the days of this week already. Thank you for answering prayers that have made it possible for us to be here and that have kept our families and our churches safe in our absence. Thank you for our sleep last night and thank you for this new day. that probably all of us have food in our bellies if we have wanted to eat and we have health and we have shelter and light and electricity and we have your Holy Word and we have this collection of the fellowship of the saints and so we can be built up together in your presence through our attention to your word today for all these things we give you thanks and praise we pray for those who face affliction, we pray for pastors who are seeking to lead their flock. We pray for this friend of mine, and we do pray that you would fortify him and that you would give him hope in the midst of his own personal grief, and that you would make him strong and wise and compassionate in all of his dealings, whether with this woman and with her husband, Amen. with his congregation more broadly. And then, Lord, only you know what we face in the next week and in the next decade, but we know that as we are here together today for the reasons that have brought us together, we'll render account to you for what we make of the things that you have made available to us. And so we pray that your spirit would work powerfully. in all of our lives and that you would deeply implant those things that will be called on to make use of in our own walks before you and our spiritual nurture of our marriages and families and in the nurture of your people. Lord, stir up our hearts to see new truths, new commands, new assurances. in these familiar words of 1 John. Remind us of the challenges we face and deepen us in our loyalty to you and in our readiness to face what will come as you lead us into situations where we can't honor and glorify you. Thank you that we have comfort in death and in life and as we live unto you today, we pray that you will be pleased with the service that we render. And we know that this is possible through the grace that you extend to us and through the fellowship that you have made possible in Christ. We pray in His name. Amen. 3, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 3, 5, 10, 1, 2, 1, 2, 7. What's? Oh, I see you've got it there. The iris, the actin, the infinitive, the tith, I mean, all right? and the Aristachymidicative of Tithemi Ethaikhan. Okay, cross references. Excuse me. Isn't the Hupere space the end? Which one? Hupere, yes. Any others? Okay. Okay. Cross-reference, John 15-13. Greater love has no one than this, that one laid down to like first friends. 1 John echoes this significant verse from John where Jesus explains that there is no greater love than that of self-sacrifice. Here the friends are specified as brethren. Cross-reference, John 15-13. Greater love has no one than this, that one laid down to like first friends. 1 John echoes this significant verse from John where Jesus explains that there is no greater love than that of self-sacrifice. Here the friends are specified as brethren. Cross-reference, John 15-13. Greater love has no one than this, that one laid down to like first friends. 1 John echoes this significant verse from John where Jesus explains that there is no greater love than that of self-sacrifice. Here the friends are specified as brethren. Cross-reference, John 15-13. Greater love has no one than this, that one laid down to like first friends. 1 John echoes this significant verse from John where Jesus explains that there is no greater love than that of self-sacrifice. Here the friends are specified as brethren. Cross-reference, John 15-13. Greater love has no one than this, that one laid down to like first friends. 1 John echoes this significant verse from John where Jesus explains that there is no greater love than that of self-sacrifice. Here the friends are specified as brethren. John 13, 14. By then the Lord and teacher washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. There's a similar construction in this verse, since Jesus performed an action for his people, we likewise are to perform that action for one another. In fact, the verb afelah also appears in this verse. Commentary or grammar interaction. Liu conveys that if king was the prime example of hatred and failure to love, then Jesus is the concrete example of love. She also points out concerning Egnokamen that this form of the verb with perfect tense is elsewhere used personally, of knowing God or Him, rather than things. The love that is known is not an impersonal object, but is embodied in personal action. This fits well with the emphasis in 1 John on authentic Christian experience involving personal dimension. Our love for God just as God's toward us is about personal action, not whole objectivity. Sot says, having shown that love is the evidence of life, he explains that the essence of love is self-sacrifice, which has been perfectly manifested in Christ, which should characterize the lives of His follower also. When John tells readers about true Christian love for one another, he gives them the most compelling example of all. I just want to continue to push us. These statements are not wrong. Our love for God, just as God's love for us is about personal action, not cold objectivity. That's certainly true. The essence of love is self-sacrifice. There's, I mean, there's a lot of truth to that. But I just want to, I want to push us not to collapse love into duty. Not to collapse love into action. You know, if you don't act, you don't love, but you could act and not love. It's not easy to keep love alive. And if you're married, you know this. You know that you take your wife for granted. And things can get rocky because she feels like you're not paying attention to her. And you know what? You're not. And you know, the longer you're married... the more you realize, I've got to, as a husband, I've got to work. Because I don't want just to be ticking off things, I did this, I brought flowers, I made her oatmeal, I made her, you know, whatever things you do. There's that interpersonal living dimension that transcends acts of self-sacrifice and acts of service. You can act, act, act, do, do, do, sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice. But there's no living rapport there. And it's kind of the mystery of interpersonal connection with people. You can't just treat people as sort of need bins. And you keep throwing stuff in the bin. And if you keep it full, they're satisfied. I mean that's a recipe for a divorce. And relationship is a tricky thing. It's tough to... it's really a mystery. Especially if you know yourself, why would your wife want a relationship with you? That's one of the greatest graces that we can experience. But there it is. And why would God want a relationship with us? What clutzes we are, and how glorious has God been? But he does. So, I'm just throwing that in there because it is It's elusive and it's essential. Thank you, Ben, for putting up with that. Go ahead. Final Translation. May this be no love that you lay down your life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the present. Grounded insight, true love is demonstrated by Jesus Christ not only in the Word but also in Jesus. It is also demonstrated not just by Jesus' dying words but also by forgiving for them too. Such a statement should have an especially profound application to husbands. For it commanded in Ephesians 5.5 to love your wives just as Christ also loved the Church and gave himself up to her. This way husbands are to love their wives. Freudian slip there. Paul says no man yet ever hated his own body. And this way husbands actually love their wives, they crucify love, they humble self sacrifice love, but it's shown in the affection of the world. Now Ben and I, we didn't work this out together. Are you married? Yes. Okay, and I love that you put affection there, cause that's a good word. And if you want to get a picture of Jesus and his self sacrifice, and yet his affection. then picture him weeping over Jerusalem. It's the weeping that made the cross real. Otherwise it would just be what was the phrase you used? Cold objectivity. I'm a perfect sin sacrifice. The Father's plan is for me to die. He can take care of the extent of it. Nail me up. I'm going to fulfill my mission. I'm going to defeat death. You know, it wasn't cold objectivity. It was messy. You know, not only in Gethsemane, coming to grips with it, but going into Jerusalem and seeing that magnificent sight of... the city of Zion, but then lamenting over it, weeping, oh Jerusalem, you who stone the prophets and kill those who are sent to you. What's the words? I wanted to gather you under my wings, but you would not. You wouldn't have it. And... Whatever our doctrine of the extent of the atonement, everybody in Jerusalem wasn't elect, but Jesus was weeping over them. And I do believe in the particular atonement. So you're really fortunate, Ben. You had a verse that really gets to the mystery. I mean, it gets right at the heart. This is the heart of the mystery of the z coordinate, the agape coordinate. Because this is where we see the mystery of the love of God. He laid down His life for us. Christ died for the ungodly. Why were we yet sinners? Christ died for us. He did not come to call the righteous, but sinners. And we don't understand it. But we see the entailment. And there's where a chi... And we ought to lay down that you might even get that pushed in the direction of so. How many of you have had Hebrew? Okay, you know, when you take Hebrew, doesn't the Vav kind of drive you nuts? What's a Vav? What's a Vav, right? Because it can mean so many things. And if you read the Greek Old Testament, when you're reading along in Greek like Deuteronomy, Every time you come to a chi, of course it's going to be evolving the MT. And suddenly you start realizing chi can mean about six or eight different things. And the readers felt it contextually. And so that chi was a marker that, depending on what was before and what came after, we do it in all languages. But you don't know what that word really means until you get further along in the sentence. And then your mind assigns a certain value to that word, which as a native speaker or an adept reader, you're not conscious. That is, you read the word, you don't know what it means yet. But that's the way chi is. Less severely, I think, in first job because the sentences are short. But that's one reason why I think we have adversative chi's. and also chis like this that you might call inferential, an inferential chi. You can also carry this, so I can get it. You know, does it carry it in English? I don't think it quite does. And I don't think in my comment here I said, and as a result, and so. But I think that's the connotation of the chi. And that logic might be implicit in the flow of the discourse. Might be implicit. Even the and, you might pretty easily be able to make the connection in English. but certainly, paraphrastically, you can call attention to the inferential nature of that chi given the flow of the discourse and the subject matter here. Since he laid down his life, as a result, we ought to lay down our lives. Our three, ten, eleven, five, one, two, one, two, ten, five, one, two, three, two, six, ten, five, one, two, three, nine, three, eleven, one, two, one, two, five, nine, three. Anybody want to make a suggestion? Yes, Rich? Doesn't pose an adverb, eight. Yeah. Is there a reason why you have 11 for post? I thought it was more introducing a question than limiting the bird, but I wrestled with it. That's why I see I dropped my bet in my room. Ah, okay. I thought that was a fly speck. No, I was going to do eight hyphen 11, but I was torn on it. So possibly eight. Yeah, you know, I think since you translated howl, right? Yeah. Probably an interrogative adverb. So, good. Alright. And then kind of cross-references. They had a lot listed for this one, so 1st John 2.16, for all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the old school pride of life. And they're nearing, zeroing in on 2 Ba'u there. It's not from the Father, but it's of the world. Nearing in on 2 Cosme. And then, zero on me, 15.7. If there is a poor man with you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns, in your language, for the Lord your God is given to you, you should not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother. The idea of giving to your brothers in need. 1st John 4.20, if someone says, I love God and hates his brother, he is a liar. For the one who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. Lastly, James 15.16. Thank you. If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says so, then go in peace, be warm, and be filled. And yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body. What use is that? Commentary interaction. John Stott mentions concerning the phrase, he agape tute au, that there are two different ways in which it could be understood. He states, the genitive may be objective, love for God, or it may be definitive and qualitative, describing a love like God's love. This, or the divine love. But it is probably subjective and should be translated simply, God's love. I agree with Stott that this is likely referring to God's love rather than a love on econ, same quality or likeness of God's. Lew notes that in the first century, Jewish communities had organized giving, sharing of goods to those among them who were in need. This practice of generosity was carried over into New Testament church. Lew says, it is not the failure to provide for the need of the impoverished member that the author condemns, although that is undoubtedly in view, but the failure in compassion that inspired them. I'm not real comfortable with her mentioning bringing things over like the church was borrowing, but I'm the people of God who always care for one another. And I think she does get at the heart of it, the matter that it's a lack of compassion, not a disattached or giving without affection. Final translation, but whoever has the goods of the world and sees his brother having a need and closes his heart from him, how does the love of God abide him? And then lastly, grounded insight, Stoiafus says of this verse, as life does not dwell in the murderer, verse 15, so love does not dwell in the miser, verse 17. The love for one another that meets the needs of a brother is central to the Christian faith, Christ's faith. Here the word of God asks how a Christian who does not love could be considered a Christian at all. John expects that those who have been loved much by God would, from the overflow of that reservoir of love which they have received, give to all ahead. Since none of us can give to all who have need, then we have to, number one, be alert to the danger of anesthetizing ourselves to this mandate. It helps just a little, if you go back to your cross references, it helps just a little to... note that with Deuteronomy and with James, we are dealing here in a covenantal framework. And by that, I'm referring to what Paul implies in Galatians 6. He's kind of wrapping things up. And he reminds the Galatian churches of what from the very beginning he was concerned that the Gospel not lose sight of. And that was helping those in need. And in Galatians 2 he says, you know, when I ran my Gospel by the pillars, they said, just don't forget the poor. By which I think they were talking about the impoverished. Jewish Christians. And Paul said that was the very thing that I was intent to do. So we shook hands on my gospel. But he says in Galatians 6, he says, do good to all men, especially those of the household of the faith. And what we have often in the church is an indistinguishable, sterile, knowledge that there are poor people everywhere and we can't help all them. Plus we pay a lot of taxes to support, you know, we have stereotypical, you know, welfare queens and stuff like that. And there's some truth to stereotypes. So often there isn't a lot of an attempt to help the needy. Because you can't, I mean, the poor you always have with you, right? You can quote Jesus. go back to your football game. I just want to remind us, I think the Bible does, it does privilege brothers and sisters in the faith. It doesn't say you shouldn't help everybody, but we can't help everybody, but we have a special obligation to be trying to do right by those who are in the faith who have physical needs. And even there, of course, we can't help everybody, but... all congregations can do some things, you know, internally and locally, and it's easier just not to get into it. Because it's very messy. And you know, there are so many panhandlers, aren't there? There are always people that want to get something from the church. And if they find out your church does give things to people, it's going to get a lot worse. But there are ways to do it, and I'm just throwing it out there. I mean, some of you maybe have devised good ways in your congregations. When you study why you know, denographically certain age groups like below 30 or 35, now fewer and fewer of them go to church, one of the things they'll say is, well, the church doesn't really do anything to address social needs. Now, that's an unfair stereotype for many churches, but for a lot of churches, it's exactly true. you know, churches, they run a formal religious operation, but they really don't necessarily engage the world much in these kinds of dimensions. So rather than just say, yeah, it does talk about this, but I mean, how many millions of needy poor are there just in this valley? So let's just go back to our worship services. We often can do things internally and that often does become a means of renewal for people. It gives some people in the church something to do. And a lot of people, that's the best thing you can do for them is turn them loose on some kind of a project that they can make a difference in the world and it makes their faith in God seem real to them. Next verse. I think I heard which one mentioned the transition from brother plural to brother singular in this verse. And I think which one of them said it, but they said essentially it's the brother singular as though the proximity was closer. Not brothers in general, but a specific person whom you knew had a specific meaning. So I thought it was interesting, but wasn't sure. You're saying plural in the previous verse, right? Yes, and then it changes to singular in this verse. I didn't know I was stuck with that. I think there's something to that. That in the writer's mind, he's shifting just a little bit down to a specific potential situation of a need to give. You know, a particular person at your door, so to speak. The numbers for 318 are 2, 8, 2, 5, 1, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. 5 2 8-10 1 2 10 9 2 10 2 If I don't see a hand, we'll just go on. Cross-reference. There's one especially marked in the next slide, James 1.22, but prove yourselves doers of the word and not merely hearers who delude themselves. That was the only cross-reference offered. and then commentary and interaction. In summarizing this section, 311 through 18, and what it teaches concerning love, Stock writes, love characterizes the church whose prototype is Christ. It originates with God issues in self-sacrifice and is evidence of eternal life. Luke notes, the author turns to his readers, addressing them again as those in need of instruction, children, but continuing the inclusive first-person exhortation. Both Luke, Astat, and Luke agree that true love does not stop with words, but rather is carried out both in what we do and in all truth. And final translation. Little children, let us not love in word nor in tongue, but in work and truth. And by virtue of the date of case and the article, you wouldn't have to have the italics there. For in? Yeah. This is an example of a writer probably switching up his usage just to avoid sounding pedantic. If you put N there twice then it's sort of like it's clunky. So it's just a little low level Johannine elegance. John is not concerned with rhetorical eloquence like say Hebrews or 1 Peter. But you appreciate it when you get it that he's going to use the date of respect or whatever here and then he's going to put the preposition in the second time to switch it up a little bit. Grounded insight, for a symbol of truth as this verse presents, it is extremely difficult to put into practice. Far too often we are quick to speak and slow to do. We may tell someone how much we love them and care about them, yet our actions can reveal a very different truth concerning us. Love is not just to be pronounced, but it is also to be carried out in accordance with all truth. We cannot love someone with actions that are not done in accordance with truth. Actionless love ought not to be found in our thoughts. Now, Daniel, in your insight, which is good, and also in Lou and Stott's comments, I think they all also leave out... the affection component, the compassion that I think optimally drives this. So just to observe, it's easy to leave out that component. I'm not saying you should be panantic about always mentioning it, but... We've only got this week to look at 1 John. I think without 1 John you just got an XY Christianity. And we need a Z coordinate Christianity. And I can remember what I'm going to say, so I'll call on you. What's your hand? Excuse me. So I agree with the emphasis on affection and such, but why do you think maybe John doesn't add that as a third category here? Let us not love a word and tongue, but a deed and truth and affection or an emotion. If that component is so key to what he's trying to say, does that just assume when he says love? Or why not add that in as a trend to fill in that third category? It's a good question. And I think the answer is, it's what love means. and then there's how love is expressed. But whichever one you want to camp on and talk about the importance of, I mean you can't overrate any of them, but you can by exclusion eliminate one or two of the others but still appear to have the whole package. And what I'm saying is from start to finish, John has learned the whole package. And that's why he keeps oscillating. It's like a rolling blackout. It's a rolling light up. He keeps coming back to all three of these things from different angles. And every time he's talking about one of them, the other two are present in his mind. But I think just by conditioning and because of the flesh and also how we think about these things, I mean I'm going to guess at Masters we're strongest on the doctrine. I think that's the emphasis, also in my tradition. We stress the doctrine. And that's very, very defensible and very understandable and very necessary in pastoring, especially when you think of the didactic side. I mean, the two poles of pastoral duty in the New Testament are teaching and overseeing. Those are the two things. And by oversee, I mean the nurture, the discipline, the intercession. Everything that has to be administered or executed for the care of souls. It's also ruling. It's leading. It's epitomized in 1 Timothy 2.12. I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority. It's not talking about women teaching. It's about women being pastors. And having... that total package. No, we need women who educate. And we also need women who lead and administer. Most churches are administered by women through the office. And pastors would collapse if they didn't have good administrators who are leading in the work of the church. But the buck stops with the pastor and he's got the oversight along with the teaching ministers. So you can't over-stress doctrine. Doctrine is absolutely critical. Understandably, it's what a pastor can be preoccupied with. You can't do good teaching unless you get obsessive about study and learning. Learning languages helps us be obsessive in redemptive ways. That's one reason we do it. But at the same time, if we get fat and lazy and we're not doing what we teach, then we've got an ethical problem. and if we're hard-hearted and flinty and doctrinaire, then we're pharisaical. You know, we don't have the heart that animated Jesus. I think John had learned the heart. That's why he was called the disciple whom Jesus loved with the implication that he understood love in ways that other disciples may not have. And that the church continually needs to be reminded of. If I can come back and this, you know, what I was going to say before your hand, was this is where I have found my marriage to be invaluable because my wife has a lot more compassion than I do. And many psychological studies have said what men, just on a steady run, what men excel in is systematizing things. That's what men excel in. And what women excel in is empathizing. That's why women are they're thinking about ten things at once. They're putting things, they multitask just by nature. We do it and usually we do it all bad. But women are often connected to things and relationships in ways that are kind of foreign to us. But I can't tell you the number of times that I've seen my way through a situation by running something by my wife and she's got an emotional capacity which helps me see into a situation what I would not have seen. And helps me to see this is either something I should get involved in or maybe this is something I shouldn't get involved in. Because along with that empathy, you know a lot of times she recognizes things in people that I don't see, especially in men. She's got a word, creep. And for about ten years I really didn't know what she meant by creep. But it's basically a lecherous man. A man who she as a woman feels, you know, this guy like eyes women. And he may be a deacon in the church, as over the years. She would say to me, either that guy's a creep or he gives me the creeps. That means the same thing. You will run into church leaders who make women uncomfortable. And you might not see it as a guy, but your wife may. So that's a more emotional thing. And more broadly, I think there are lots of situations where we as men are called to compassion, and our wives can help us in that. I'm not saying only your wife can help you. There are a lot of other means. But the first means is to realize this is a category we need to work on. And I think that's one thing First John. It's one reason I've returned to it in a way so I'm always kind of living with one foot in the Johanian letters And in the gospel of John because John talks in you know the Jesus that we encounter in John Maybe it should be put like that once in a while because it's not John it's Jesus And even the cross reference I it's kind of diabolical how much they will always gravitate away from Jesus sometimes in these cross references I said always and sometimes. Why do you call me Lord, Lord and not do what I say? If you know these things blessed are you if you do them. There's just two examples off the top of my head of Jesus who's a little earlier than James. This was a great theme in Jesus' teaching. Why do you call me Lord? Why do you say you you're my follower but you don't do what I say? I mentioned yesterday Matthew 23 his his rap on the Pharisees. Everything the Pharisees teach you do. Those are verses most people don't know in the Bible. Jesus told the people to do what the Pharisees do or what they teach, excuse me, but he said don't do what they do because they teach but they don't do it. So this was a real problem in and around Jesus. So little children, let us not love in word or in tongue. But in work and truth. And you can look at translations to see how you can finesse those words. To love in tongue, that can sound a little strange. So in your published translation you might tweak that a little. But we get the idea. Talk. Number 319 9 9 9 9 3, 5, 10, 9, 1, 2, 5, 10, 9, 3, 5, 1, 2, and 3. And you've got TASCARDIAS in there for what reason? This version gave in the plural, whereas the version we have in front of us gave TASCARDIAS. So just to match it. And what kind of preposition is empress then? It's improper. See? Everybody knows that, improper preposition. Good. Ross Jarvis. I'm always wondering if the people on the back row, if they listen at all. And in this case somebody did. My cross reference comes from John 18.37. Pilate therefore said to him, and him is Jesus, So you are a king, Jesus answered, you say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born. For this I have come into the world to bear witness to the truth. To everyone who is of the truth, here's my voice. And I think the connection there is the of the truth. Stop lines in the reader, contacts in the letters, teaching on assurance helps make sense in the verse. He makes sense of the phrase, this is how, not pointing forward to what he's about to say, but backwards to previous section on loving brothers in Christ. And so God is still rooted in this whole mentality as this is how we know, this is how we know the truth, going backwards to this whole idea of, well, love has to be what encompasses everything we're doing. And so rather than that, pointing forward, that was his view on it. He explains, love is the final objective test of our Christian profession. Its existence in anyone is evidence of new birth and of the involving spirit and shows itself with actions. His basic message is the assurance that persuades our heart to have confidence in the future before God is based on how we love other children of God in the present. So there's an eschatological dimension of future assurance based on present reality of love for the brethren. Lew also believes that this is how it points backwards to the preceding section. Kind of takes it on a wider scale between that dualism between hatred and love. She does note that John is most likely writing to not a presumptuous Christian who's trying to prove their case, but more of someone who will be filled with anxiety over where they really stand before the Lord and whose mind their heart might condemn them. And they need assurance that that eschatological reality of God's coming shouldn't be something feared. Bye. We will be back. Final translation. Thanks for watching. Bye. By this we know we're of the truth, and before him our hearts will be convinced. Grounded Insight. The Bible is clear on the point that only God knows and sees the human heart. No matter how good an act we can put on, no human can give us the assurance that the testimony of the Spirit of God can give to those who are born again. With the prior section on genuine love for our brothers and sisters in the Lord as a benchmark for our assurance, this verse can be a great encouragement or a serious warning. If a person has the Spirit of God in them, then introspection into the life of a Christian will convince one that they do truly and actively love others. If a person lacks the Spirit of God, the lack of loving deeds will be self-evident, and they are not responding to the inner conviction to love others because they can't. They don't have the spiritual power to do so. They don't have the proof of the Spirit for love to take action in their life. Thank you. First 20. Okay. Ten ten five three one two ten Oh, no, that's a four. Four five one two one two three ten five four two Go ahead. I was just gonna say Mayzone. Yes, it's an adjective. What's the name it all come from? It translated a greater, right? Yes. That means it's a comparative? I'll leave you with that. So what's the absolute form? I don't know. Anybody? Mega? Oh, okay. What's the superlative? Megastas. Mega-Main Zone-Megastas. It makes just as much sense as good, better, best. Figure that out morphologically. It makes no sense at all. So, Mega-Main Zone-Megastas. Don't feel as bad that I didn't know that. No reason you should have. And now a few people will note it and I'll never forget it. Cross-reference analysis. One other thing, just so you know. In Hellenistic Greek, Main Zone, the comparative is often used for the superlative. First Corinthians 13, 13. Now there are Biden, fate, hope, and love. These three. But we translate the greatest of these as love. And Raphael is looking it up. Can you confirm that's Main Zone there? No, I mean, right in the middle. He's doing some day trading there. Pay his tuition. When you do look it up, you can know. It is Main Zone. The comparative can be used for the superlative. The only cross-reference listed was John 21, 17, and he said to him the third time, Simon, son of John, do you love me? Fear was grieved because he had said to him the third time, do you love me? And he said to him, Lord, you know all things, you know that I love you. He said to him, tend my sheep. Tend me sheep, is that what it was? Great. And it was just copy-paste. I just thought it was interesting to note that right after that section of their interaction, it says that he looked behind and saw the one that had been following them, the one who had leaned on Jesus in the upper room. And so there is the dynamic that John would have been present for that interaction between Jesus and Peter. And just wondered in speculation, if there was then that connection in John's mind between that interaction that Jesus and Peter had, talking about connecting this idea of him knowing the heart, but over the issue of love, if that's what it really came down to, was despite Peter's three denials, Jesus was using that three question dynamic to perhaps clear him and absolve him of that denial and say, you know, I love you Lord. And then for him to finally say that, for Peter maybe to get over that and not be stuck in that. I did see that in John 2, 24, 25, the similar Jesus knowing the heart, or that John talks about in 1 John, in John 2, 24, 25, that was right after he does the wedding, the miracle. And he says, he knows what's in the heart of everyone. Even those that were believing on him, he didn't entrust him to them. So you have, you know, he knows the heart of those who do really love him. And in Peter, he could draw that out. But yet in John 2, for those who were believing in him, had this interest in him, he wasn't entrusting themselves over to him because he knew it was in the heart of man. Adam, the only way you're gonna get through this is reading it. Sorry. Commentary on grammar interactions. It's too good not to read. Stock makes an illustration to portray this verse in a helpful manner. He says there are three actors in the spiritual drama. It is like a trial with our heart as the accuser, ourselves as the defendant, and God as the judge. He takes a picture of us standing outside of our condemning heart and deferring to the judge to give a true and just pardon to the guilt that can rack our conscience, for better or for worse. Either way, the pardon comes not from within our hearts, but from the just verdict of God based on the truth of the decision of the cross to forgive sinners through Christ. Stock goes on to add, we can therefore, appeal from our conscience to God who is greater and more knowledgeable. Lute does not seem to differ in noting that the omniscience of God's knowledge in his children is meant to comfort rather than condemn. However, she does add that, within the biblical tradition that God searches the heart and knows what's hidden from other people, there can also be grounds for warning and judgment. Final translation, that if our hearts should condemn us, God is greater than our heart and knows everything. Can you, is it possible for you to back up and take the last half of 19 and tell us how you translated the last half of 19 and segue into 20 with that? Yes. The dot is greater than our heart and knows everything. So that was where I ended with it. Oh, going back to 19, I'm sorry. So the end of 19. We know that we are of the truth. Before our hearts were weak and convinced. It's also you could use persuaded. And so that then connecting that to. So you don't mean for the depth there to be an upper case. You're not starting a new sentence? I know I didn't mean to do that. Well, I did it typing. It's probably my tendency to capitalize on new sentences, but no, I wouldn't. OK, so there's three dots in the lowercase t there in reality. It looks like you're starting a new sentence. But what you're saying is, going back to 19, is that this is what our heart, this is what we're persuaded of. Yes, our hearts are persuaded. That if our heart should condemn us, God is greater than our heart and knows everything. Yeah, I think it keeps building because I think even at the moment of 19, how do we know we're of the truth? Well then that goes back to the whole section on love, that we were convinced in the way that we love other people. That we're not just in word and deed, but in actual action in our life. And so that builds into, so that's how we know we're of the truth. I would agree with Scott that he does point backwards. He says, so before him then, our hearts can be convinced, leading into this, that if our hearts should condemn us, God is greater than our heart. And I think I like how Scott then says, picture the courtroom where even if your heart's standing outside of you condemning you, you go to the judge. Because you know he sees everything. He knows your heart. And I think that's assurance for the true believer. These are difficult verses to translate and they're difficult to understand. So, great insight. Building off the truth from verse 19, the true child of God continues to receive more encouragement to have sureties. Not just in the way he or she loves others to prove the true spirit and more proof, but in the case the heart is still condemning until guilty, and appeal goes to the highest court for pardon. God the perfect judge because he knows our case in and out, and there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Case closed. 2, 10, 1, 2, 11, 5, 3, 4, 2, 5, 9, 12. Here, I don't think you need to make R a C on the 4-2. I think it's just a 2. Okay. The balance. Cross-Harpens analysis, I went with the one that was the, had the explanation point by Hebrews 4.16, mainly draw that one out. Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace. Is it the same word in Hebrews, parisian? Yes. Okay. So that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. And you have to look back before verse 16 to see it in verse 14 and 15. That drawing near with confidence comes from that we have a great high priest who has gone before us, understands us, bestows upon us the mercy and grace of one who's been through the trials of life and yet did not sin. The other verses that were listed, Cross-Harpens, 1 John 2.28, 4.17, 5.14, and Revelation 5.1 basically just mentions, I saw him at the throne, but it didn't really have any kind of real contextual connection to what was going on here. Commentary, Stott points out that the emphasis has now shifted from the condemning heart of verse 20 to the heart that is not plagued by condemnation. Instead, the untroubled heart brings a communion with God which is free and unrestricted confidence. Lou elaborates slightly more on this verse, catching the attention drawing beloved, which distinguishes it initially from the prior verse. Rather than reassurance needed, Lou sees this verse as confidence and approaching similar to that of the free citizen who had the right to be heard and who could expect a response. This boldness is best embodied in the confident expectation of response to requests. Lou also connects the eschatological dimension of this future confidence to the same word used in 2.28 regarding confidence to awake the return of Jesus Christ. Just a footnote. In your cross reference. It's always dangerous to question God. It's always dangerous to question a cross reference. Not that they can't make a typo. But I think generally, if I'm not mistaken. When the cross reference to Revelation, it's going to be A-P-O-C. Apoc. Apocalypse. OK. And this is R, which makes you think of Revelation. Yeah. But it also could make you think of Romans. Ah. It says Romans 5, 1S. That's good. which is the equivalent for the Latin F. One period would mean diverse efforts. So it's referring to Romans 5, 1, and 2. Gotcha. That's good. That's what he's talking about. So I just got lucky that Revelation 5, 1 has something about Throne. And I made the connection in my brain, but it's not there at all. It's even a better connection, I think, than Romans 5, 1, and 2. Yeah. Yeah. It would have been like the guy that had to find that one that had nothing to do with it the other day. So that's the one that at least led me down the rapid troat that I was in. Help. The final translation. We love it. If our hearts does not condemn us, we have confidence before God. Grounded insight, it seems fitting that John reserves this warm beloved until after all that preceded rather than lead in with it. He reinforces his tone of Muster chapter 3 which is one of self-examination to be sure of right living in light of commands to act in purity, avoid sinning, practice righteousness, love one another, and have compassion to others. The final thought then moves the reader to the point of true confidence, not false bravado of those who are deceived into thinking they have got it figured out and earn this forgiveness based on works. We do not need to pursue love to others as long as they believe the right things. True confidence comes when you do not have to convince yourself that you are good, it's when God's grace is evident in your life by your actions. Yeah, there's a lot in here about affection. This whole thing about the heart. I'm not sure what all it means. And I think you're right. We've done a good job of portraying it. But there are some, in my mind, there are some loose ends here. I don't understand quite how it's all working. I think John understood it. I think maybe in five or 10 years, maybe I'll get a better grasp on it. But certainly, there's something affective going on here. There's something beyond a medical metric and an ethical metric. Although I don't deny it's when God's grace is evident in your life by your actions. But he talks here about something that transcends actions. Because it has to do with a living assurance and something he's calling heart, which has to do with what we call the affective. It's the Z-cord. It was the faculty that God had given us to comprehend Him and to resonate with Him. Could you speak to the textual variant in verse 20? This is verse 320. Yes. And then whether or not that should be a double use of ha-ti or if it's ha and then ti. You address it as a footnote in your commentary. Yes, and that's why I've got this up here because it's extremely, it's a nuanced issue. And what I have said is to overcome the difficulty of the apparent repetition of ha-ti. Some commenters propose that 320 open with a ha-ti. Instead, this would take the first ha-ti as the neuter of hastis, and a-an is equivalent to an, as frequently happens in koine. But the more difficult reading with the doubled ha-ti supported by almost all extent manuscripts is more likely original. It's more difficult grammatically, and it makes it harder to translate. But this is a case where we think it's more likely that John wrote or dictated the more difficult usage, than that he made it easier, and then later manuscripts came along and made it harder. So it's one of the complexities of this verse, or this packet of verses. And it shows you that the native Greek speakers struggled. To make sense of it. I think in part because the content of it is elusive. I've encountered this in a scholar that I've done a lot of work in, Adolf Schlatter. And he was a great thinker. and he was in the German university system and he wrote extensively and profoundly, but people often found his writings opaque and often misconstrued what he said or simply didn't grasp it. And one of the reasons is so many of his... contemporaries denied Trinitarian Christianity. And so they didn't really track with what he was saying. So it was easy either to ignore it or to minimize its weightiness because it just didn't impress them. They didn't get it. And I think this is a part of John that it's easy to kind of muddle through because if you don't really... have a heart for what he's talking about. It just sounds kind of like he's spinning his wheels a little bit. And we're glad when he gets back on track and talks about stuff that's not so, I don't know, so mushy. So, you know, you have to go to other critical commentaries if you want. Go to Brooks' commentary. Go to Keener, go to other commentators, excuse me, Keener, not, I'm thinking about Gospel of John. Go to Brook in the Epistles of John. Go to Strecker in the Hermannia series. And you know, try to find longer discussions if my discussion doesn't satisfy you.