Lecture 17.docx

I intentionally, I mean this is a good review, but I also was attracted to this review for our sakes because it does go back 101 years. But it reminds us of scholarship in another era and this is the ICC series. Not everything in the ICC is worth having, but you know for academic purposes every ICC...

I intentionally, I mean this is a good review, but I also was attracted to this review for our sakes because it does go back 101 years. But it reminds us of scholarship in another era and this is the ICC series. Not everything in the ICC is worth having, but you know for academic purposes every ICC commentary is worth consulting. If you're doing a term paper on any book, always find the ICC if you can because they're supposed to be the cutting edge scholarly commentary for their time. And there's a lot of stuff in Brooke that it's really good but it got forgotten because fashions and scholarship change. And so sometimes these old timers, they enshrine knowledge that nobody has anymore. And sometimes you can really like get new ideas by going back to these old masters. And it's not it's not homiletical and spiritual and theological. It was the nature of the ICC in these days to be very very empirical and you know backgrounds and Greco-Roman parallels and stuff like that which it's very different from some of the commentaries we get now. Excuse me? International critical commentary. And it was commissioned by T. and T. Clark in Scotland. And you know it was meant to be pan-European. You know back then in the late 19th century all theological scholarship was done in Europe. America was just a derivative of the Europeans. And the Scots, the Scots have always hated the English of course. And the Scots had their, they took their, they spoke English but they took their own direction. They were always interested in European and continental scholarship. So they were looking for scholars that knew German, that knew French, that knew Dutch, that knew the best scholarship on the continent. But then as Brits could articulate that in the English language. And sometimes the scholars, most of the scholars would be English. But they would be English scholars that knew the German scholarly tradition too and could answer some of the, sometimes they're really answering the German critics. So for all kinds of reasons you know they're not only because of the learning but also because of the period pieces that they are. You know they're monuments to a style of scholarship at a place in time that was very important for the formation of biblical scholarship in subsequent decades. So I'm A. Brooks, I'm from ICC London. A. Brooks was a former fellow Dean and Divinity Lecturer at King's College in Cambridge. Prior to his own commentary his major contribution includes the commentary of Origen on St. John's gospel 1896, a text that he revised with critical introduction and indices. The format of this commentary consists of six sections. Introduction to Johannis of Thistle, notes on the first epistle, notes on the second epistle, notes on the third epistle, appendix and indices. The introduction is a substantive part of the commentary as it takes up one-fourth of the commentary. It consists of twelve subsections, the epistle and the gospel, the aim, destination, analysis, the false teachers, literary history, the text, commentary, etc., authorship of the second and third epistle, second epistle, the third epistle and the historical background of the two short epistles. Within the epistle and the gospel section, Brooke addresses the issue of authorship. Rather than simply assuming the traditional position of a singular authorship, Brooke addresses and provides evidence for the traditional view. The evidence includes similar vocabulary, style and content between the two texts. Though variations are found between the two texts, Brooke points out that it is more probable that there was a singular author who varied in his style rather than a copyist who failed in his attempt to duplicate the style of the original author. Within this section, Brooke provides abundant lexical, syntactical, moral and theological connection between the two texts in order to defend a traditional singular authorship view. Brooke defends a priority of the gospel before the epistles. Within his defense, he addresses several conceptual references of the epistle that requires the gospel to be written first. Without the gospel, it would be difficult for the recipient of the epistles to understand John's references. Within his aim section, he states that the main purpose of the letter were not simply to address the false teachers, but rather his chief goal was to edify the children of genuine faith. Though there were strong false teachings among his children, Brooke brings forth the textual proofs such as the nine tests of a genuine believer in order that John ultimately desires to guide the recipients to have a proper attitude towards Christian faith and life. As for destination, Brooke sides with the traditional view of the recipient as the Ephesians. Since there are biblical proofs, Brooke presents extra-biblical evidences found in the early church history in order to support the traditional view. When it comes to analysis sections, Brooke has now offered his firm stance on the particular division of the first epistle. He simply states that the character of the writer's meditation is the real cause of this diversity of arrangement and perhaps the attempt to analyze the epistles should be abandoned as useless. However, the reviewer appreciates that Brooke does present several different outlines that he found to be useful. Each outline presents a different angle in which one may approach the division of the text. Within the false teacher section, he identifies the false teachers for many who held the views of Serentheism with hints of Gnosticism and Judaism. Each of the views is clearly presented with proof texts. This is essentially helpful for those who are not familiar with Serentheism. The reviewer also appreciates the fact that Brooke includes a false ethical view. This is especially important as ethical errors are just as lethal as theological errors. Within the literary history, Brooke traces the history of the books and documents that have echoed influence or directly quoted from the book. By presenting the early church fathers and document usage of the three epistles, Brooke aims to solidify the inclusion of the three epistles in the canonosity. He presents an unbiased presentation of of whether the three epistles were identified as being written by the apostle John. The text presents a listing of the epistle manuscripts that were found. From those listings, Brooke reviews different scholars' perspectives in order to draw out the variation within the manuscript. The commentaries presents Brooke's list of commentaries, articles, and books that were used as references for his personal commentary. This is more of a reference for those who desire to do further studies. The second and third epistle section presents a contextual evidence for the same author for the all three epistles. Brooke simply presents the similarities in style and parallelism in the structure that are found in all three epistles. He presents both internal and external evidence for a singular authorship for all three letters. The reviewer appreciates the fair presentation of the proposing view. The second epistle presents a brief summary of the background of the second epistle. Brooke holds the position that the second epistle was written to instruct a church or family in regards to show in regards to showing hospitality to other Christians from different church. It features a segment on issues issue of whether this letter was written to an individual, yet he concludes that this was written to a church or a family. The third epistle presents a brief summary of the third epistle. Unlike the first and the second epistle, there is no doubt in Brooke's mind that this letter was written to an individual. Brooke recaps and summarizes the content of the letter and also addresses the issue issues in identifying Demetrius in the reference to the second epistle found in verse nine. Historical background of the two epistles recaps the number of controversial introductions that were found in the past history. This section addresses the issue of identification of Demetrius and the identification of the church. With the background and overarching themes set in place, Brooke offers his notes on the three epistles. Notes on first epistle, notes on second epistle, notes on third epistle all offer a balanced blend of both exegesis and exposition. The reviewer enjoys how Brooke is technical but not too technical. Brooke mentions in his introduction that he found Roth's commentary to be most illuminating book, which was written on the first epistle because Roth's tendency to edify gave him the sympathetic insight into the meaning and the aim of the writer. In a like manner, the reviewer believes Brooke has followed in Roth's footsteps to offer not only insight into grammar but also in the author's sympathetic intent. With the appendix, Brooke offers old Latin versions. This is helpful for those who desire to use Latin versions to see or research on how much of the epistle can be recovered. In this section includes general indices, author and the works, Greek words and phrases, words used in the epistles, words used in the gospel but not in the epistles. This is also a quick reference for the further studies. A useful feature in the indices is Greek words used in the epistles. Brooke lists out the words used in the epistles with number of times it was used in all parts of the scriptures. Students of the Joannin epistles should definitely have Brooke's commentary as a reference. His extensive treatment on the authorship should be able to equip any reader that is interested in the authorship of the Joannin epistles. Brooke's well-organized and straightforward notes on the three epistles should be a quick reference for any pastor or teachers who are preaching or teaching through these epistles. And would you agree that it might be helpful for a term paper? Oh yeah, most definitely. It was like one of the most thorough introductions that we saw. This is just a brief recap of his stance, especially when we're trying to defend the traditional idea. It seems like just a traditional guy. Any question for Henry? But the one only thing was that he really doesn't have an outline. He just offers his notes. He doesn't have like a division, even though he mentions it, but he doesn't really use it for himself. It seems like just kind of like list out his notes. Okay, thank you. Once relatively neglected, the Joannin epistles have been the subject of an astonishing array of substantial studies since the early 1980s. Now I wrote this review in the late 90s, and it's only gotten worse since then. Commentaries are commentary-like monographs. They flow from the pens of Raymond Brown, Fleming, Jensen, Gert, Schoenach, Pierre, Bonnard, Kenneth, Grayson, Stephen, Smalley, Johnstott, Edmund Hebert, Judith, Lew, Rudolf Schnakenberg, Mayon, May, Thomas, and Dietrich Roussem in the list is not exhaustive. I bet it's the next thing I say. Furthermore, there was no dearth of older commentaries in the first place. Is there really any need for more? In theory, the answer would seem to be no, but in fact both Burge and Strucker have provided studies that interpret John's letters in more effective ways than their predecessors, at least in certain respects. Burge's study may be regarded as a North American equivalent of Stott's Tyndale commentary that we've been using. He shares Stott's general theological outlook and concern for practical application by believers. Also like Stott, Burge is not trying to replace Marshall's longer, more academic commentary, which is still the standard evangelical work or was in the late 90s. Both Burge and Stott seek to combine the fruits of scholarship with pastoral wisdom to produce books that will help pastors and serious lay readers grasp the text's meaning in its own milieu as well as its significance for life today. Burge falls short of Stott's standard at times in the areas of literary grace and pastoral wisdom, but this is a weak criticism. How many anywhere can match Stott's expository gifts informed by years of pastoral dedication? Burge excels Stott in cognizance of more recent Johannian studies and immediate applicability to the North American scene. He has written an excellent study for individual study, for adult education in churches, and for English Bible classes in colleges or seminary. Burge regards all three epistles written by John, who also wrote the gospel traditionally associated with his name. He thinks, however, that the final version of the gospel is the result of editing of an earlier draft by John's followers after his death. The epistles were written about AD 7090 in the general vicinity of Ephesus. First, John is the author's full broadside against his opponents, while two and three John are personal notes that either accompanied first John or were sent separately to another destination. There's little in Burge's introductory sections that is far removed from traditional treatment of the relevant data, though at certain points lack of demarcation of his own views from far more critical ones may not always be sufficient for the needs of some readers, which is to say could be a little subversive, you know, at the college or lay level because he buys into critical views with his language more than might be healthy. From this foundation, Burge treats each literary division of the letters in sequence. The format is NIV translation of a passage, original meaning, which is exegesis and exposition, bridging context, finding points of contact between the ancient setting and today, and contemporary significance, applying John's message to modern issues or concerns. For the record of these pages throughout the commentary, 48 percent of the commentary is exegesis, 14 is devoted to erecting bridges, and 38 percent to application. So this truly is an application commentary compared to most as its title promises. As a result, it's quite interesting to read. I mean, let's face it, applying it is always more interesting than the exegesis itself or usually. Assuming the application is sound, this means that Burge communicates John's message effectively, far more effectively than if he dwelt at greater length on the next position, which can easily become boring to non-specialists. The main liability lies in how quickly these applications will come to sound out of date. Who else read Burge? Just one. Did you notice that at all that it felt kind of old? Especially when he's talking about controversies in the PC USA that, you know, as far as I was concerned, like, are just kind of older stuff that, okay, we know about that already. Maybe 10 years from now, you know, it wouldn't be as helpful to another reader. Yeah, and if this was published in 96, he probably was writing already in 91 or 92 and drawing practical applications from things of the 80s and early 90s. So that's the downside of application commentaries. They really go out of date quickly. And I say that in part, you know, when you're buying commentaries, most of you only have so much money despite being Californians, and I know you're well-to-do in general, but there could be a poor student here somewhere. You know, you really got to spend your money wisely. Well, while Burge is authored a well-informed but semi-popular, I wish it wouldn't do that, semi-popular manual of John's Meaning and Message, Strucker, there you can see his dates, a student of Rudolf Bultmann and former New Testament professor at Gertingen, contributes a critical commentary in the strict sense. By rough estimate, there are more words in the footnotes than the exegesis and exposition itself. No scholarly stone or even pebble appears to be left unturned. I think in part because he had a lot of graduate students and they were writing footnotes for him. Here's a wealth of discussion of both primary and secondary sources. As is usual for volumes in the Hermann I.S. series, knowledge of Greek is required to make sense of the discussion. Strucker seeks critical readers who are open-minded enough to question traditional positions. That should be kind of a red flag. You're not critical unless you reject the tradition. This warning is salutary. I mean, it's a good thing he warns us because traditional positions are not merely questioned but consistently put to flight with no mercy and few exceptions. The apostle John wrote none of the canonical documents bearing his name. Instead, a Johannian school produced them. The authority of John, the son of Zebedee, was transferred to the founder of the Johannian school. Within this loosely defined school, different authors, among them possibly Papias's Presbyterus, different authors are responsible for 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and the Gospel John respectively. There were at least three Johns or non-Johns. Moreover, 2 and 3 John were written first, around 100, and possibly as late as about 130, with 1 John coming later and the Gospel later still. What about p. 52, containing portions of John 18 and dating to 8125, and of course that dating by paleographers is plus or minus 25 years, and Papyrus Edgerton 2, containing Johannian sounding Gospel fragments and dating to the mid-second century. These early dates, quote, should be relegated to the realm of the creation of pious legends, unquote. So, you know, when you look at Metzger, if anything, they say p. 52, 8125, plus or minus 25 years. Strecker is saying that's a pious legend. This directly contradicts the conclusions of Kurt and Barbara Allant, among many others, and it may be the first time they have ever been accused of creating pious legends about early Christianity. Strecker cites research suggesting that both of these renowned Papyri ought to be dated around the year 200 or in the third century. In other words, by Strecker's reckoning, we are not all that far from returning to the same date for John's Gospel prescribed by F. C. Bauer in the Tubigin School. And F. C. Bauer placed John around AD 180 to 200, and he did so because the Christology was so, he said, highly developed that it would have taken 150 years or more for, you know, the legends of Jesus and the mythology of his reputation to go to the point that somebody could make up stories about him where he's saying, I and the Father are one. You know, in Bauer's thinking, that's a fantasy that took a couple centuries to develop, and Strecker is saying the same thing on textual grounds. Whether Strecker achieves his stated goal of moving beyond scholarly discussion to aid the church's preaching depends on how compatible his deconstruction of early Christian history is with the historical understanding and theology of those who seek guidance for Gospel proclamation from his commentary. The value of Strecker's exegetical discussion and 19 detailed excurses should not be underestimated, however questionable his position on introductory questions. And I think if you look at my commentary, one of the things when I look at commentaries, I always look at the index. If it doesn't have indexes, I probably won't buy the commentary because it's not going to be that useful to me. But one of the helpful indexes in a commentary, just to get a feel for the commentary, look at the author index and see who the commentary writer interacts with the most. And I believe I have more references to Strecker than any other person I interact with in the commentary. And in part is because he's so thorough, it's kind of like you were saying about Brook. He's so thorough and of course when I was writing, I mean I was doing my search in 96, Strecker was a lot of help and a good foil. I mean a lot of times he and I were not looking at things the same way, but that meant he was seeing things I wasn't seeing. So you know I found a lot of help in Strecker. His exploration of the many disputed passages in the John and the Epistles is invariably informative and stimulating. His redaction critical approach is less difficult to follow than for example Raymond Brown's complicated and shifting theory of a burgeoning, often warring, Johaning community. So you know Brown didn't go in for, excuse me, Strecker didn't follow Brown. It should be pointed out however that Strecker, again reflecting Tubigin School tendencies, sees polemics not faith or love or ethics or even Christology to be at the center of John's Epistles. So the major historical explanation for John, it's about polemics. The lengthy footnotes are a cornucopia of learning. I need to look that up. This is a must-have commentary for any teacher or preacher whose learning and mystery calls for familiarity with the most rigorous, though not always the most accurate, scholarship on the Johaning Epistles. This is not the place to attempt interaction with numerous specific points of Strecker's ecogesis. There is admittedly a great deal with which to interact. One example, Strecker claims that 1st John's view of being born of God is not to be understood against analogies from other New Testament books and from Old Testament background. It rather refers to baptism and the born of God idea comes from Hellenistic religions via the syncretism of the Johanian school, which he calls elsewhere the Hellenistic syncretistic ideas transmitted within the Johanian school. It's clear that the history of religion spirit of Boltmann is alive and well in the work of Strecker, his disciple, more alive it seems than any sure recollection of Jesus of Nazareth was in the community that spun off the document we call 1st John. So we might think, you know, being born of God, this morning we're talking about that. We'll talk about more in the next section. You're always tempted to think about Nicodemus and Jesus. You know, get over it. It's Hellenistic mystery religions. It doesn't have anything to do with Jesus or being born from above in the Jewish Christian sense. What should be pointed out in summing up such a formerly learned commentary? One no doubt destined for prominence in coming decades is the very traditional nature of its findings. All right, so now, you know, think outside the box on critical and traditional. It is right in line with its historical critical predecessors and distinguishes itself more by the comprehensiveness of its discussion and up-to-date-ness of its bibliography than by any fundamentally new findings. This is understandable. After 200 years of skepticism applied to all evidences of Christian origins, the stock of new theories that promise to enlighten or even offer any shock value is pretty much exhausted. And as I wrote this, the Jesus seminar was rapidly discovering and exploiting even these. Few could do a better job than Strecker of breathing life into the old bones of his school of thought applied to John C. Pistols, but he is fighting a very steep uphill battle. This is not all, in other words, he's saying, okay, I'm going to be critical. You got to doubt the tradition. But actually, that way of thinking about John C. Pistols isn't critical in the 70s and the 80s and the 90s. People have been doing that for 200 years and trying to come up with new critical objections to the tradition. And there's really not a lot new and critical, except his doubting of the dating of manuscripts. That's kind of new. But I don't know anybody that's really followed him in that. This is not only because the modernist positivism of his historiography is rapidly being jettisoned by academics more enamored of postmodernism than of his classic continental historical criticism. Or more committed to sociologically informed hermeneutics. I mean, this would describe Witherington. Witherington just goes around Strecker. He doesn't contend with him. He just goes, you know, we're doing something different than Strecker. It's because ministers and scholars of various persuasions, Burge is an example, are realizing, not just on credo but also on documentary grounds, that there is no compelling reason to share Strecker's apparent optimism that his conjectural reconstruction of a second century milieu producing the Johnian corpus is compelling. More first century and patristic data are accounted for on the theory that the apostle John was with Jesus and wrote later a gospel and three extant epistles. So from a critical, a truly critical point of view, you're better off taking the tradition seriously than you are taking Strecker seriously. Who wants to say that there's no truth in the tradition, there's only truth in the reaction against the tradition. Strecker still arrives at observations and reflections of importance, but treatments like those of Burge and Stott, Marshall and Bruce, Wesket and Law, who has tests in his title, and even Luther and Calvin and Matthew Henry and Henry Alford retain equal importance precisely for the Strecker's stated goal of uniting truth with the ministry of proclamation. So for preaching, you'll probably find some help in Strecker, but you're going to find help in these other commentaries too that don't more or less trash the tradition. Any question about Strecker? Has anybody ever looked at Strecker? He's out there. Three, five, six, three, four, five, three, two, three, four, five, six, three, two, two, two, two, of Crotas. Double that. It's a when word. Adverbs are when, where, how, and this is a when. Commentary and grammar for the direction. Lou Roach, um, God's love not only preceded any human responsive love, but is absolute. God's love belongs to God like nature is the source and count of all. As throughout the section, however, God's love is not a general or unfocused concern, it is specific in time and direction. It is for us. Stott, which was an interesting contrast, said God's love was primary, all true love is a response to his initiative. Both commentators recognize the clear claim that it is not man but God that is the initiator, but Stott adds that agape, agape, God-like love on the other hand does not reside in our full of nature. Our very capacity to love, whether the object of our love be God or our neighbor, is entirely due to his prior love for us and in us. Stott therefore distinguishes this as a specific type of love where Lou doesn't make this distinction. There is then a contrast between the focus of Stott and Lou. Lou focuses on the love for us where Stott is discussing a God-like love which is inherently selfless and there it is a self-important distinction. We need you to raise your text somewhat. Thank you. Final translation is we love because he first loved us. There is nothing in man to naturally cause him to love the biblical sense. It is only because God initiated a relationship with us that we can love the selfless matter at all and therefore everyone loving has been born of God and knows God as it says in the book of Genesis. Thank you. Okay, first 20. Numbers are 10, 3, 5, 10, 5, 1, 2, 10, 1, 2, 3, 5, 2, 5, 1, 10, 8, 10, 6, 1, 2, 3, 5, 1, 2, 3, 11, 5, 11, 5. Agapan, 7. Agapan, an infinitive, 7. Any other number augmentations? Okay, commentary. Commentary. Okay, Lou says this is the first time the letter has spoken explicitly of someone loving God although it is implicit in at least some appearances of the ambiguous love of God. In 14 it had been denied that love was determined by our love, our prior love of God, but that such love was possible was not denied. Here it is expected that believers do love God and in principle they are right to say that they do so. Stott says if how a person behaves contradicts what he says he is a liar. To claim to know God and have fellowship with God while we walk in the darkness and disobedience is to lie. To claim to possess the father while denying the deity of the son is to lie. To claim to love God while hating our brother is also to lie. These are the three black lies of the letter, moral, doctrinal, and social. We may insist that we are Christian, but habitual sin, denial of Christ, or selfish hatred will expose us as liars. Only holiness, faith, and love can prove the truth of our claim to know, possess, and love God. Stott's comics bring out the pastoral element in this verse that is one of the three claims which have contradicted and exposed the reality of what we believe. My final translation, if anyone says I love God and hates his brother he is a liar for the one not loving his brother whom he has seen is not able to love God whom he has not seen. The grounded insight. John is making an argument from the lesser to the greater because we live in a material world with material sense of deception. We rely on these for our relationships. It is therefore much easier to love someone we have seen than someone we have not seen. Therefore, if we can only love, sorry, therefore, if we can only love if we've been born of God and no God has been a servant of Satan, then a lack of love for our brother clearly demonstrates that we don't know God, haven't been born of God, and therefore have no love for God. Okay, I like you, it may be hard to mistake the Hati in verse one if anyone says Hati Agapotanthayan. The Hati there is clearly the quotation mark. So you can't say that I love God. I mean that doesn't, you've got to put your quotation marks in there. Right, if you have to say, and if anyone says he loves God, you have to be third person in order to avoid the quotation marks. Okay, verse 21. Number's up. 10, 3, 1, 2, 5, 9, 3, 10, 1, 6-2, 1, 2, 5, 10, 1, 2, 3. 8 on the, I mean 10 on the kai, 10 or 8. This is an example of a henna, not being in order of that, but basically being an equivalent to Hati. Okay. Lou said it is also unlikely that anyone would have understood such love along the lines of later developments in Christian thought, when love of God comes to be deeply personal, and in an almost mystical experience, which conceptually might isolate them from an action. This goes to the point, thank you. Yet the author doesn't visage a danger of separating responses to God from responses to one's fellow believer, who recognizes that the love spoken of here is not the individualist of love of the 20th century church. While she doesn't explicitly say what love, this love was, she does recognize that it's not separate from our believers. Similarly, Stock says the folly of the liar's position is seen not only in its inherent inconsistency, but in the fact that love for God and love for our brother formed one single commandment. If Jesus, sorry, Jesus himself taught this, it was he who united Deuteronomy 6.4 and Leviticus 19.18 and then declared that all the law and the prophets hung a problem, so we may not separate what Jesus has joined. Besides, if we love God, we shall keep his commandments, and his command is to love our neighbor as ourselves. My final translation there was, and we have this commandment from him, that the one loving God should also love his brother. My own insight is having a right relationship with the Lord results in a right relationship with mankind. How much more those who love the Lord. John summarizes this section of loving our brothers by reminding us that we're reminding us readers rather than it is imperative, not optional, to love our brother and that is co-relative with loving God. We're going to find your weak spot somewhere. It's a matter of time. I've got my numbers. Okay, numbers. Take a little bit of liberty on the double underlined underlies. Yeah, you just see, well, you're supposed to double underline verbs and single underline non-undersubjects, but here we have double underlining underparticipals just for variety's sake. It's creativity. It's divine creativity coming through here. I think that's my question. Anyway, numbers up. Four, one, six dash two, ten, two, five, one, two, nine, one, two, five, ten, four, one, six dash two, one, six dash two, five, ten, one, six dash two, nine, three. I think we're good. All right. So Stop said the combination of the present tense, hotness du on, and the perfect is important. It shows clearly that believing is the consequence, not the cause of the new birth. Our present continuing activity of believing is the result and therefore the evidence of our past experience of new birth by which we become and remain God's children. This new birth, which brings us into believing recognition of the eternal Son, also involved us in a loving relationship with the Father and his other children. Whoever has been begotten of God naturally loves him who begat him. And this is to be understood in the sentence. And everyone who loves the Father loves his child as well. Here is the universal self-evident principle. And John implies that what is true of the human family was also true of the divine society. So our translation, everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born from God and everyone loving him who begets also loves the one having been born of him. Just just a slight, I just want to point out that when you translate without the who, everyone who, or if it were to be impersonal in that, you're giving the impression more that it's an adverbial participle and it is an antitypal participle or perhaps substantival. So I, you know, here the difference is negligible enough that I'm not saying you should correct it, but you may be on slightly safer ground. I mean, did you do the same thing in your preliminary translation? Because when you see that article there, you know, your default should be everyone who believes rather than everyone believing because it's not adverbial. My grounded insight, believing that Jesus is the Messiah initiates a supernatural love and affection for others who share this belief. It is as natural as love within a family and as a living. And also, just note, believing is the consequence, not the cause of the new birth. Now this indicates that Stott is a 39 article Anglican. All right, the 39 articles of the Anglican Church are Calvinistic. And in our day and age, you know, most Episcopals in North America, you know, they are not worried about the 39 articles. But traditionally, in British Anglicanism, there's always been a very strong reformed strain. And that's why, you know, you're apt to find some British commentators who make you, if you're reformed, they make you feel very good in your Calvinistic outlook. Because this is a classic case of somebody, you know, if I asked on the basis of that, does this writer think faith precedes grace or grace precedes faith? He would say grace precedes faith. Because it's the work of God through the Word of God that causes a rebirth in connection with our believing. So our believing is necessary to be saved, but our believing is not sufficient. We're saved by grace through faith. We're not saved by faith through grace. So, you know, this is something for your theology class primarily. And if you don't happen to agree with this, then, you know, it's a free country. But this is what he's saying. And if you try to read John as a decisionist writer, and I'm talking now about the Gospel and 1 John in particular, John very much affirms the necessity of faith, but he also makes it very clear that people who become children of God, as many as received him, to them he's given the exeusia to become children of God. To those who are not born in the world, to those who are not born in the to those who are born, not of the flesh or the will of man, and I'm paraphrasing here, but of the will of God. So he doesn't deny, in fact, you know, he heightens the importance of human believing, but he grounds human believing in this mysterious love or grace of God. And we saw it also yesterday, the reason people didn't hear his words is not because they didn't believe, it's because they weren't born of God. Now if they would have received his words, they could have been born of God, but they weren't going to because they weren't. Now maybe that's Jesus being a little hyperbolic, but it's a basic orientation in how you read John. How dependent are sinners on the work of the grace of God to be brought into the kingdom? You know, how much hope should they put in their own decision and in the efficacy of their own faith? And John, it's fair to say, doesn't put any efficacy, he doesn't attach efficacy to human faith. Necessity, yes. Efficacy, no. There was a hand over here somewhere. Hi, Rich. You're so friendly. You make me feel part of this group. You're reaching out to me all the time. They're calling security because you're asking so many questions. They are trying to get you out of the room. I'm going to read the name of the exaltation. How do we know that that participle refers to children of God as in believers as opposed to Jesus being the one who is born of God as well? There is a discussion on that. I'm sure that I made a definitive pronouncement. And let me, it's probably just in one paragraph somewhere short of a miracle in the next few seconds. I know I discussed that somewhere. It's a judgment call on the part of the translator. And in those cases, you know, if you're questioning how do we know, well, we don't know. It's just a decision that we make one way or the other in our translation according to the weight of the totality of the factors that we think are, that come to bear on how we understand that particular participle. And I'm pretty sure I've got a line or two in here that explain why I take it. I mean, I translate everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God and everyone who loves the one who grants spiritual rebirth loves also the person to whom he grants it. So the reason I'm sure, I think, that I took it that way is because contextually he's talking about loving the children of God. The very next verse, he's talking about loving the children of God. And the prior verses are talking about the necessity for love of one another. And so the issue is not whether we love Christ or not here. The issue is whether we're loving one another or not. So that would seem to fit best in the flow of the discourse to relate that to the love of the individual brother or sister around us. But admittedly, you could make an argument, and I'm sure there are some commentators who take it as referring to Christ. Well, I'm not sure always, but certainly that's the prominent emphasis in this passage. Yes? Several translations take the translation of the Him who begets or Him who provides spiritual birth, and they just translate the Father. Is that a little too... Did you give an example? So, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of Him, in the second half of the verse there. So taking that participle and saying the one who gives begets and just making that the title of the Father as if it was a tear or something? Yeah. Well, that wouldn't be my cup of tea because I just, you know, I don't see why. It makes it simpler, you know, it streamlines it, and it's not a false statement. But I don't like the translation philosophy that informs it. Now, you know, I said the one who grants whatever new birth or something. So I didn't stick... The reason I went with grants, because I think begetting doesn't make a lot of sense to a lot of people anymore. So I wanted to avoid the archaic language that no one understands, but I wouldn't... My first reaction wouldn't be to go to Father there. Next verse. Unless you gave us your insight already, right? Okay. Yes. Okay. Fives to two. Numbers are nine, three, five, ten, five, one, two, one, two, ten, one, two, five, ten, one, two, three, five. Okay. And your ten there, your hatan, somebody's going to say an eight dash ten, and that's fine. You know, it's a when conjunction. It is a conjunction, but it's also a when conjunction. So if you want to call it an eight dash ten, then you've covered your bases. Okay. Lucy, the logic of the preceding statement suggests that love shows that a believer's hopes confirm love for God. Instead, the opposite is stated. Love for God confirms, as we know, that we show love for those who also are children. Love provides the context where, when, such love is exercised. The effect is to set love for God at the center from which all else radiates. Stop says it is as impossible to love the children of God as such without loving God as it is to love God without loving his children. A family relationship unites the two loves. Love for God has a second and escapeable consequence, namely obedience. If we truly love God, we not only love his children, but we also find ourselves carrying out his commands. Love for the children of God flows out from a love for God, and therefore if we are obedient to him, we will be loving his children. My final translation I wrote, in this we know that we love the children of God when we love God and do his commandments. And my ground insight, I wrote knowing God results in both love and obedience. Rather than being two-if, obedience includes the elements required to be demonstrating love to other believers. The change that occurs in the heart of the believer flows into every part of the life of the believer and affects every relationship we have. If we are obedient to God in general, love for the children of God will be evident. We are not obedient, neither will we love the brotherhoods because we demonstrate that we are not born to God, and we don't know that. Okay, you have one more verse? That's it. Wow. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I will conclude by being open to a question if somebody has a question. Except for Rich, you've exhausted your questions for today. Yes? What would you pick is your favorite part of the first John and Paul? My favorite part of the first John and Paul. This reminds me, you know, tomorrow is going to be kind of a summative day and for the riches and the other pastors here. I am going to be asking you what you think the most important, uh, you know, lesson to be learned from first John is or application of first John is or should be in ministry today. Now, you know, we'll have the hourglass on you. But, you know, give us five minutes or one minute or three minutes. Reflect, and you know, some of you are here, your alumni, that I'm thinking of you primarily, but there are some of you who are here in full-time ministry. And you've got a lot of pastoral experience. So that's what I'm, you know, I'm going to be asking that question tomorrow. Some of you can get, help those of us who are here in younger and less experienced in ministry, help us to project out where some of this might profitably lead or what we could do with it along those lines. Your question one more time. My favorite passage. Yeah, I mean, it's really got his light. And I find first John to be so contextually imperialistic. It's trying to wedge itself into any situation of ministry or spiritual growth or understanding where you care to, you know, remember where John might be relevant. There's a lot in John to bring to bear. I mean, how do you get out of faith, obedience, and love? I mean, there's nothing in Christian life or ministry that John doesn't impinge on in serious ways. Now, I wouldn't want to just become a first John freak, you know, and become reductionistic in relating everything to first John. And that's where the whole council of God's important. It's why it's important to preach expository through the Bible. I like the common lectionary. I like the discipline that it instills of having four different sets of readings before God's people every week and encourages pastors to preach for various parts of the Bible and educates the people in all the Bible. But sometimes when we go to seminary, we're impacted by a certain book because we took a class in it and it informs everything we do, at least for a period in our life, or maybe in a certain domain of our life, that book becomes sort of life-changing. And I don't have any doubts that I think what first John did for me at an early stage is it knocked me off balance and I never really recovered, you know, because he keeps moving you away from phony assurance. And no matter what you think you're getting a hang of now, he says, well, what about this? Okay, I got that. Well, what about this? And that's great because it keeps encouraging us to seek the Lord and to do so Christologically, not just generically, you know, seeking the Creator or something, but you know, the Christ who is the propitiation for our sins. So I don't have a favorite passage in it. In the commentary, I do stress, you know, in this section, the Fides Quae and the Fides Qua. Is that familiar language to you? And if you got the commentary, it's a little bit different. I think it's a little bit more complicated than the commentary, but I think it's a little bit and the Fides Qua. Is that familiar language to you? And if you got the commentary, you know, I, you know, encourage you just to look at those portions and just remind yourself that when we talk about Christian faith, we can either talk about believing, you know, the human act and experience of believing. And I have found over the years that in North American evangelical traditions, people are very strong on believing and on the importance of believing and on the assurance of believing. And so much so that for a time when I was ministering in different kinds of churches, I would often ask in adult ed classes, how do you know you're saved? And the answer would invariably start with the word I. Now I believed, I accepted Christ, I committed my life to Christ, you know, and that's what the theologians have called Fides Quae, Q-U-A, credit tour, where faith is the experience of believing. That's what faith is. But particularly in the part of 1st John that we've been nibbling on and that we're going to wade into, he talks about the other aspect of faith or talks about faith from the other aspect. And the Fides and the credit tour are the same, but the word that links is different, quae. And the effect of Fides Quae credit tour is faith as that which is believed. So think, say, Apostles Creed or think of the Second Philadelphia Confession or you know, whatever, however you would want to characterize the body of belief, especially apart from which you don't have any quae. Unless you believe that really all that you need is faith. Now that would be absurd for me to, you know, wonder about with you at Masters because you're learning the substance of Christian belief, but I can tell you lots of people in lots of churches, they couldn't tell you what they believe. Not in any rigorous or organized and and maybe not even in a way that would satisfy you as a pastor, counseling them that they know Christ. And it might be just because they're confused that day or you know they're intimidated by your question, but it might very well be as many people that I've counseled over the years, and I would even say people very near and dear to me. What they really heard in church was that if they would go forward, God will save them. So in terms of a fetus quae, in terms of something in which they place their faith, that's pretty much it. If I go forward, I won't go to hell. And that's the extent of, and that's why when you say, how do you know you're saved? This is because I I believed. But he said, well now explain to me this faith you have. Nothing is ilch. Then if you feed on it, well do you believe that Jesus, oh yeah, yeah, that's it. If you help them, but basically it's faith in faith and then go to church to you know kind of give some form to it. And when we study John here, we're just reminded of the substance of the content of the Christian faith. It is that in which faith is put. And that's the in which faith is placed. And I know we've been talking about these three axes this week. In some ways that can kind of give us new light inside it and so to speak ammunition for our own reading of the Bible and possibly for our teaching and preaching. And so if you say, how do I use this? Where do I go with this? And you know that's a good question. We'll deal with it now. But there's something much more fundamental and basic that would revolutionize a lot of folks in church. You know if they simply could gently be nudged in the direction of understanding what has brought a lot of you to seminary and what is renewing a lot of you as you're here. You're starting to understand the depth of Christian teaching. That's the Thea's Quay. And it's revolutionizing your experience of believing. And if only we could be used by God for more people in churches to begin to seek the God whom we discover through the study of the Quay. So that when people read the Bible, it would be opening up new vistas into what we systematize and talk about in theology. Of course in the end it partakes of God. It's not just propositions about God. But you know we are rational beings and as I've said a lot of times this week, we learn through teaching and we learn through learning and that's a means of grace. We're called to make disciples and to be disciples. And that's not first of all about loving and obeying. It's about understanding. We got to take things in. We got to be taught. So I do love this part of 1st John, Daryl, because it's labeled in my commentary. This is where John explicitly talks about believing but he also talks about that in which faith is placed. And I think some commentaries are very weak because they don't make a strong distinction between those things. They basically collapse. Not only, we were talking about collapsing love into duty, but it's possible to collapse love and duty just into believing. Since faith is so important, and if you don't stress the quay, you really don't need anything but believing. And so now you get the easy believism that we sometimes hear about or Bonhoeffer's cheap grace where people just sort of nod a sense and think, well I'm a Christian because I assent to whatever it is, all that is. I believe it.