Lecture 4.docx

Yesterday we ended up talking about the trisection of authentic Christian experience with our three dimensional figure in two dimensions. God is light flows out in lived Christian experience in a doctrinal dimension and in a... ethical direction and in a relational direction. So I would like to unde...

Yesterday we ended up talking about the trisection of authentic Christian experience with our three dimensional figure in two dimensions. God is light flows out in lived Christian experience in a doctrinal dimension and in a... ethical direction and in a relational direction. So I would like to underscore that for just a second and rather than beat around the bush I'll I'll just read in what was a summary of what we talked about yesterday. It's in the beginning of my commentary but often you know you write commentary beginnings just like you write introductions to papers. A lot of times you write them at the end of the paper. Actually, after you know what your paper did, then you predict it at the beginning. A third area of the epistles importance, this is the Juhanan epistles, lies in their implicit trisection of authentic Christian experience. Life in the sun grows out of right belief, not right belief alone. extends to obedient behavior too, but correct behavior even combined with high orthodoxy can be overrated. Who has not encountered the doctrinaire morally scrupulous but hate-filled self-confessed follower of Jesus? Something is missing. And we could turn that little bit. The problem is not necessarily hate-filled people. It's apathetic people. I don't see that many hate-filled, passionate hypocrites in our church. I see a lot of apathetic people that aren't really mobilized and are kind of asleep, going through religious motions. You're trying even to get them to come to church. If you've got a church roll, 50% of your church roll you probably never see at church. That's typical in churches. unless you've recently purged the role or you've got a very new church. But if you've got a church that's ten years old or older, probably on High Attendance Day, if you get 40% of your church membership there, you're probably saying, well, you know, we did pretty well. The Southern Baptists have, what, 16 million people. High Attendance Day is how many? Maybe seven or eight, maximum. Every year, at least they used to have a High Attendance Day in October. 1 John in particular puts a finger on what's missing. True godliness in John's conception consists of a third integral component, deep rooted devotion of the heart to God. This is love. It changes not only our regard for God, but also for people. Recent research shows this to be rooted in doctrine and directed toward action, but still richly and deeply felt. conviction and emotion. Now quoting Matthew Elliott, his book Faithful Feelings, very useful book, Faithful Feelings. When believers are to feel joy, hope and love, then often we're told these things. These are not cold and dry exhortations to be analyzed and broken down into theological constructs. Instead they are meant to foster a healthy and vibrant emotional life in what were often difficult situations. One more paragraph, but it's a very long one. The understanding, experience, and expression of love, so much an emphasis for John, are perhaps the major disconnect between what he writes. And what many of his readers grasp, feel, and live. This is possibly due to true love being so close to the essence of the true God. God is love. Sinful persons will naturally be foreign to the purity, beauty, and transformative force of what is most essential to the God from whom our souls are by nature estranged. Which is the signature Johanine conviction. Johanine Love Darkness. Rather than light. Because their deeds are evil. There are also impediments from the human side due to any number of conditioning factors. To take up one example, if the findings of Baron Cohen are valid, and he is a Cambridge psychiatrist who wrote a book called The Essential Difference, and it was about men and women. And so I'm saying this to you because you're men. Many men tend to excel at abstract understanding and building systems. We have a lot of engineers here, for example. But they struggle with interpersonal relations. Many studies show the average American male does not have one friend. Yeah, a lot of buddies, a lot of acquaintances, but a lot of busy men, especially with children, they don't have a friend. not like they did when they were in the fraternity in college, for example, or maybe, you know, if they played athletics, a lot of times you get friends on teams. You get a family, you get work, you don't have time for that anymore. Sinful males often cannot relate very well with the emotional needs and lives of others. It can be easy for them to suppress, deny, and in the end, never discover the reality of love worthy of the name. This is particularly true, and there may be a few people here who what I'm saying doesn't even register, I feel for you most of all, because I would have been in your shoes until I was in my early 30s. And one of the features of North American existence is broken families. And we were made to be nurtured. by our dad and our mom. And Grace Cannon does overcome all kinds of things. But a lot of times we live in a social setting where a lot of times you don't get nurture like you were designed to get. And so you can go in different directions with that. But one of the directions men go in for survival is they just wall themselves off. I walled myself off from what I wasn't getting in the home. And it wasn't until I was in my 30s and actually had a child, which I never wanted. My experience with childhood was such that why would anybody bring somebody into the world? My wife and I had a deal. when we were 19 and 18. We were never going to have kids. Sounded good to me. But then, you know, she got to be 21, 22. What happens? You know, now she wants kids. So I had a decision to make. So I said, okay. But you know, God knows, I didn't feel anything in my soul for a kid. I just had no desire. And so that was one of my prayers, is, you know, my wife's tummy got larger. was that I would feel some urge to care for this thing, whatever it was going to be. That tells you something about my relationship with my father, doesn't it? It wasn't until one night in Scotland, late in the night, like two in the morning. You know in that part of the world like a lot of parts of world you don't heat your house at night it was very very cold and We kept him warm at night with hot water bottles But you know around two or three they get cold then he'd wake up of course He'd be wet and he would need to be fed anyhow but you know I got up because he was in there whimpering and I was hoping to To you know get him back to sleep without you know the feeding and all that sort of thing and I mean I was freezing standing there and He was he was in his crib And he had this little game he would play. He'd wake up at night, and he'd find his pacifier, and he'd flip it. And then he'd go, eh. And then I'd show up. And the third time this happened, I was ready to throw him out the window. This was not a fun game to me. And I stuck that thing in his mouth, and he's maybe... Let's say it was February and he was born in August. So what is that, six, seven months? Stuck it in his mouth. I'm looking at him in the gloom. There's a street light out. We're in the second floor so I can kind of see his face. And from around this pacifier ring, I see the corners of his mouth go up and he's smiling at me. Like, isn't this fun? You know? I love you. You know, and that, what I, what I, what I felt, what I knew in my mind and my heart in that moment was how God feels, God our Father feels when we look at him with gratitude and happiness. But that was the first time in my life that I can honestly say I understood anything about paternal love, the love of a father. It was like I received a blood transfusion or a brain transplant. I mean it changed me just like that. So this is why I say with conviction that a lot of men really struggle for all kinds of reasons. There are a lot of other reasons that the things that can happen to you that shut down you have to shut down your emotional side. One of the other big things you can do is kill yourself. And by about the age that a lot of you guys are, I just was reading a day or two ago, you are I think nine times more likely to kill yourself than women of the same age. Because women are more emotionally adept and they will find outlets for the needs of their souls but a lot of men, they can't find it and they just get so whatever, you know, enraged. frustrated, despondent. It's just not, you know, it's the last great revenge on the system to take your life. So it can be easy for men to suppress, deny, and in the end never discover the reality of love worthy of the name. I want to stress this because we're talking about God is light, we're talking about God is love, we're talking about a religion in which if you don't have love you don't have anything and men by temperament and by experience often struggle mightily with this. They'll struggle mightily with the theological category. That's easy. You know that's abstract. You know we can draw pictures of it. We can write essays about it. But love is not just a theological category. It's not just an imperative. It is a living force. Relationships are real because we're talking about persons. in persons like have force fields. You are someone and I am someone and when they intersect we have a relationship. You're not an idea, you're a person and God is not an idea. He's not just a truth. He is a living person that's why it's so significant when Jesus says, depart from me I never knew you. Because people were treating lordship and treating obedience. as ends in themselves. They were leaving out the fact, you know, God's gotta claim you. You know, someday you're gonna stand before him and there's gonna be that moment. Does he recognize me or not? I did all kinds of things in his name and I wrote essays on theological truths. But do we really have a relationship? For their part, most women, according to Baron Cohen, are superior to most men when it comes to communicating and empathizing, but there are pitfalls and downsides here when love is defined as it is for John, not merely as sinful woman's natural feeling and reflexive action that is doctrinally driven and ethically regulated in very rigorous ways. more readily embraced by women, but you know it has to be purified. It has to be channeled. It has to have the right origins and the right motivations. In other words, it has to be infused with God. Heartfelt empathy, whether in a woman or a man, can blur the unwelcome rough edges of truth. Women and men alike face a lifetime of challenge and come into grips with the implications of justice. Simple. but in reality sophisticated and elegant religious psychology with the tripartite interplay of sublime elements, doctrine, ethics, and relationality. For each in itself is finally beyond full human grasp. Yet John enjoins all three on Christ's followers just as he vests the gospel message with the capacity to produce all three of these things. So that's part of the demand of the week. That we keep that image of Jesus, that eschatological image that he gives of that day. And grow in these days in our grasp of what walking in the light means. In these three dimensions. Now I'm getting closer to praying, okay, so don't despair, we're getting there. This is a devotional. But I just want to remind us of the first John challenge. And so you know we're challenged. But who are we? Well, reading the cards and thank you for the cards you filled out yesterday. I have now read through them all. I need to read through them three or four more times. But, you know, it's no surprise here at the Master Seminary, most of us have pastoral experience, many of you have pastoral positions, most of us have pastoral designs, and that's good. And someone from somewhere else in the cosmos emailed me recently, and If you've pastored, you'll relate to this. This just reminds us of the task we're called to. Assuming she is up to receiving visitors, I plan to see, and I'll change the names here, I plan to see Helen late this morning. So this is actually going on today in another part of the country. She is fading fast. Her husband told me Sunday night that hospice delivered a hospital bed a few days ago. That's to the home of this woman. Helen loves it. She loves the bed they delivered. It'll be her deathbed. She no longer attempts to sit up in her armchair. This is the woman who sat at the piano at church 15 days ago. And she played for two major concerts. at the church and that was probably her last public appearance. The hospice nurse told her that once a patient stops receiving nourishment they usually don't last more than 10 days. It's been a lot longer than that since she has consistently been able to keep food down. Like the rest of my flock, I mourn her already. That is the terrible thing about cancer. We mourn the victim twice. And of course it means that the dying mourn their own death as well. Prayers are continually offered before the face of a God who remains silent. And this is just a frank admission of a pastor who has had a congregation praying and hoping all things for several months but nothing is deterring the cancer. I struggle to find the right words and then the pastor offers this short poem if you call it that. Summer is gone, the days grow short, beauty defies the frost but the leaf still falls. So we're called to be compassionate, be assuring, have the the fortitude to lead others in the face of things like this and to be a comfort to the woman herself and to her husband. By the way they have a mentally and physically challenged child who is well into adulthood and he requires 24-7 care. That's one of the reasons the husband is probably a little older than I am. He's just not sure how it's going to work. It's going to be very difficult because they've always been able to. juggle his care. And then we're sitting in an academy because you know this you get degrees here this is a state accredited place you get an MDiv, you get whatever degree you get it's good. But I'm reminded of Leon Morris's commentary on the Gospel of John, which is a fine commentary and he comments there He quotes a poem by John Masefield from back in the 30s. And it illustrates light and darkness and people's response to it. And then what happens when we get academic training? And the poem runs like this. The trained mind outs the upright. Soul. In other words, throws it out. The trained mind outs the upright soul. As Jesus said, the trained mind might being wiser than the sons of light. A statement where Jesus talks about the sons of this world are shrewder than the sons of the age to come. But trained man's minds are spread so thin they let all sorts of darkness in. whatever a light man find they doubt it they love not light but talk about it meaning either they love to talk about the light they don't really love this like the talk or they just do talk they don't love light they just talk so let us pray Lord, first of all our hearts go out to this woman today and her husband and their son. And there are probably even pastoral leaders in this room who have similar situations. Lord, we acknowledge that you've called your people to rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep. So we pray for your fortitude for your people in every place in this hour and especially for those on pads of affliction. and on beds of impending death. Thank you for giving this woman a sense of joy and security in your good hands. We pray that in her grief and in her sorrow that you would give her the grace to radiate your light and love to those around her, even to her dying breath. Lord, we confess. our neediness as humans and as men and we thank you for the transforming force and light of the gospel we thank you for the work of Christ on our behalf we thank you for your call to walk in your light and we thank you that you make all things new our knowledge our behavior our affections Lord you Raise Jesus from the dead and you can give life to our mortal bodies. And so we take great comfort in that today. We thank you for your promise to be with your people always even to the end of the age and to be present where two or three have gathered in your name. And we ask that your kingdom purposes would be furthered in this class today and be aware on these premises here at the Master Seminary. and we pray that your good purposes would be powerfully extended in our own lives, in our own relations, in our own families. And we thank you for receiving our prayers and we commend ourselves into your hands now. In Jesus' name, Amen. 1, 5, 9, 3, 5, 5, 8. 3, 5, 10, 3, 8, 5. Do we have any proposals or improvements? They'll be bashful. Yes? You want your leg on to be a participle. It'll be a 6. You don't have to, everybody can correct it on their pages. Any others? Both the kathos and the hutos, and yesterday we had a host without the kath on it, they can be synonymous. The more words that follow kathos or hutos, the more you might want to label it either a 10 or an 8-10. In other words, that's often a word that's kind of a hybrid word. And there are words we'll see more and more from where we give them two numbers, a something dash something. For example, a lot of times adjectives are used as nouns. We call it a substantive. So if you have an adjective like evil and it's translated the evil one, then that's going to be a 4-2. So it's fine to put 8 here because like or as is an adverb. But you've got the one who says he abides in him ought as that one walked also himself. So to walk, obviously, Kathos is joining things. So you could have also called it a ten or an eight dash ten. The preliminary translation. That's a quick hand here, yes. Are there two infinitives that would be sevens? Menane and peripatane? Yes. So menane is not a five, it's a seven. And peripatane is a seven. So infinitives are verbals. They're verbal nouns. But they're not verbs. That's why we have five, six, seven. We don't lump all the verbals into one. We break them. out. And he did, you know, he parsed it present active infinitive. So we won't arrest him, but you should put a seven up there. He that says he abided him, or just as he walked even himself also should walk. Obviously, do I go through the unfamiliar vocabulary? No, just go to your cross-reference and beyond. Cross-reference is John 13, 15. This shares the same concept of even as I have done, you should do also. The commentary, Stott observes both that it is not enough for the believer to merely obey. He must walk as Jesus did and that, quote, the name Jesus is missing from this sentence, but he says the NIV is surely right to add it. For in this letter the pronouns ikinos and oft and autos refer to Jesus. And Lewis states that this quote and new introduction makes a strongly worded call to appropriate behaviour, the style is switched from reasoning and reflection to prescription. The final translation, the one that says he abides in him or himself to walk in the same manner as he walked. A granted insight, as believers we should look intently... Can you move your sheet up, please? As believers we should look intently at how our Lord calls us to walk in him, following the example he set for us in scripture so that it complements the abiding in him that we so earnestly desire and seek to maintain. Abiding is to be an ongoing and lasting statement issued to believers in the judgment of the dead. So, is this the first time we've heard about a biting in John's Gospel? Alright, excuse me, in John's Epistle? I think it is. It seems to be something that he almost presupposes people are going to know. And my suspicion would be that perhaps... 1 John is written to churches that John had nurtured pastorly and this is the John who wrote the gospel. And I think John 13-17 probably gives us a good distillation of sort of the peak recollection, the peak application of the life and teachings of Jesus for John the apostle. And there's a good chance he kind of... He imprinted that on congregations that he taught in. And so, you know, that might explain why he can, how he can just bring in this abiding idea with really no introduction, no, no preliminaries. It might be because it's something that in the Johannine churches, just like in Paul's churches, it was being in Christ. In the Johannine nomenclature, it was abiding in Christ. There's not a big difference. They amount to the same thing. There's just a different way of looking at matters. But that might explain why he can just assume abiding. And also why he can move effortlessly, as Lew notes, to prescription. And I just want to add there that when you go back to 1.5, God is light, and in him is no darkness at all, he immediately... then goes into what amount to imperatives. I mean they are implicit imperatives when he says if we say this, you know, we're in the darkness. In other words, God is light. You better wake up if you're doing X, Y, and Z or saying A, B, C. So there's a veiled imperative already moving from the indicative of the character of God. So I would dispute a little bit her saying that this is like something new. It's already been in the air because God being who He is, that brings with it, implicitly, a call for us to conform ourselves to Him. Okay, verse 7. Zephaniah? So I have 4, 10, 2, 4, 5, 3, 10, 2, 4, 3, 5, 9, 2. 1, 2, 1, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 5. Okay, your agape toy, that's a good example. That isn't an adjective when you look it up, but when you use it in the sentence, it's not an adjective, is it? It's evocative, right? So he's using that to address people. He's naming people with that. And one definition of a noun is a person. These are people. So this is a 4-2. And then the ook, that's not a conjunction, that's an adverb. Or some of you were calling it 11 because in your grammar it was called a particle and that's okay. So ook is 8 or 11. Commandment new, I give to you. But commandment old, which, 3, 8, 9, 2, 1, 2, 1, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3. Any other questions about the numbers? Okay, and what's unusual about echete? First of all, what tense is echete? Let me get my hit list out here. Robert Bennett, what tense is echete? Where's Robert? What tense is echete? Present. Okay, you got five or six more choices. Oh, eric. You got perfect. Imperfect. I was stuttering. Sorry, that's where I meant to go. Of course. And especially by the time you got down to here, you could see what is. But tell me Robert, if that is correct and it is echo. is the root, imperfects are not supposed to change their stem, are they? No. So, are you sure it's an imperfect? Are you sure of anything right now? No. Can anybody explain what's going on with an imperfect that has changed the stem? Would it be a, I think, amalgamation with the two epsilons combining? You're trying to give a rational explanation. And in this case that's not going to work. It's irregular. In other words, there's no explanation for it. It's just the way that echo formed its imperfect. I'm sorry. Remember what you learn in first year Greek grammar when you're taught, say, imperfects do not change their stem. You're going to love them. So that's a declarative statement. All declarative statements in first year Greek are true about 90 percent of the time. Okay, because there are almost always exceptions. So if you have trouble parsing that, don't feel bad. It's just, you know, it's something you wouldn't learn. Unless you had gotten fooled by it maybe four or five times and then eventually it sinks in and you never get fooled again. So take us to your cross-arbens analysis and move your sheet way up so we can see it. Wait even further. Okay. For a cross-reference analysis I have 2 John 5-6 which speaks about how this amamut, which is really, it's old, it's not something really new. And 1 John chapter 2 verse 24 is a reference to anyone who doesn't keep God's amamut as a liar. Go to your commentary. Commentary interaction I read Scott and he's basically what I got out of it is brotherly love is part of the original message which had come to the professing believer. He did not make it up himself as the heretics suggested but it is as old as the gospel itself. Okay. My final translation, beloved, I do not write any new commandment to you but an old commandment, which you have heard from the beginning, which you have from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which you heard from my insight. Loving others is the second greatest commandment which we find in Matthew 22, 39. Therefore, it should be taken seriously. Also, Christ loved rebel sinners and we should love others too. He modeled love for us. Any questions for our authority on verse 7? Okay, verse eight. Eight, two, four, five, three, three, five, four, nine, three, ten, nine, three, ten, one, two, five, ten, one, two, one, four, eight, five. Any objections or proposals for improvements? Seeing none, cross reference. John 8 12, this verse references Jesus stating that he is the light of the world that follows the people of not being darkness. Commentary, stop remarks that quote that true light which is already shining is Jesus Christ with whom light came into the world. He also points out that in the same way that Christ is the true vine and the true bread is also the true light. Final translation. Again, writing a new commandment to you which is true in him and in you because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. grounded inside, the darkness is passing away as a result of the shining light which is Jesus Christ the Lord. The double usage of the word true emphasizes the truthfulness and deity and promises. And is that original to you or did you get that from someone somebody? I saw it there in the text of the two truths and um and remembered Lord Lloyd and I've still got his right there maybe. Well so Whenever you have repetition, I mean that's one of the things you look for in terms of what's the writer emphasizing. If he emphasizes something. I mean the classic Hebraic pattern is there's consecutive words. Like holy, holy, holy. In California you'd say, incredibly holy. But the Hebrews just repeated the same word over and over again. And by the way, incredibly, very rarely should be used in a term paper. It's slang. And incredibly literally means implausibly or not believably. In other words, you shouldn't believe this. So if you say this is an incredibly good commentary. You're almost saying the opposite of what you mean to say. So just say this is an excellent commentary or something like that. So there's a tension here. It's an old commandment. Nothing new about it. Because the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. And God has always been a covenant God. He's always been a God. At the core of whom? His relation. and compassion and love. He's slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. That's repeated, I don't know, ten times in the Old Testament. God of Chesed. But it's a new commandment. Because what before was dim has now been shown brilliantly. And we could say Aslan is on the move. the darkness is passing away, especially with the onset of the resurrection and its aftermath. Now we see definitively that the last enemy has been defeated. We are already more than conquerors. So the darkness is being beat back and the true light is already shining. And of course... Several of you mentioned commentaries where there are excurses on light, whether it's Cruz or Brown or Schnockenberg. But one of the places these excurses often go, if they move outside of John, is a place like the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus says to his disciples, you know, let your light so shine. And this is a derivative light. There isn't any light. Worthy of spreading from ourselves as sinners, but as followers of Christ, we become the salt of the earth and we become the light of the world. We're a city set on the hill as the people of God. So there's a lot in these verses. New commandment and truth and passing of the darkness and the light already shining. The already yet eschatology of the New Testament is right in this verse. Yes? So as you're talking, you're thinking about verse 6 where he says we ought to walk. That word, I can't think of what the word is in form, but does it carry the idea that we owe? Because we abide in him, we owe to walk like him in this sense? Or is it ought like we shouldn't walk? I just, you know, when I was looking at that, this verse 6 carried the idea that the one who says that he bides in him ought to walk as he is walked out, so it says, owes to walk like he walks. I mean, there's a part of that he's abiding in us. You know, it's relational. And so, with what you're saying there out of A, you know, the carrying one. Yeah, there is a natural outflow. Several people in the cards grasping for something to come up with for the most remarkable thing you ever saw. And suspecting that maybe somehow your wife would find out what you put, you said, Oh, my wife coming down the aisle. That's the most remarkable thing I ever saw. And I hope that really was true. But you know, when you are in that state of infatuation with a woman, it changes your behavior. You know, and you ought to act like you love her if you do, but it's not an ought thing for you, at least in that zone of your relationship, because a vibrant marital relationship carries with it a willingness on both parties' parts to go the second mile in thinking about the other and caring for the other. And that's... what the message of Jesus does to people. It brings them into a communion with God and as the darkness of our self-preoccupation gets beat back we more and more delight to do the will of God. You know it's not an ought thing. The indicative takes care of the imperative. And that's the holy grail of pastoral instruction. It's when your teaching is being taken in by people who have a walk of integrity with the Lord such that as they grow in their understanding, it's automatically shaping their behavior and it's magnifying their affections. Then, doctrinal teaching can be very, very powerful. That's how it's designed to work. That's why Jesus did so much doctrinal teaching. Because I think on good days, his disciples were tracking and they were being transformed ethically and relationally by means of the renewing of their minds. Our minds are the primary means God uses. to change our hands and our hearts. You can't, you know, any separation of those three is somewhat artificial, but it is true. That, you know, whether you talk about gospel proclamation or whether you talk about discipleship, the mind is critical. And teaching is primarily a didactic and a rational enterprise. But Christian teaching done in the context of relationship with God, confession of our sin, dependence on God, abiding in Christ, the practice of obedience to His commands and learning how good those are. Oh, how I love thy law, O Lord. Blessed is the man who meditates on the law, Lord. He delights in his will. Then these things hang together in kind of a seamless way. And so the ought is almost in quotation marks. It may be there because of the background of people that are claiming things that are bogus. And he's saying, we owe God better than something, like we're seeing go on here. Next verse. I have one. 11, 9, 1, 2. 7, 10, 1, 2. 3, 11, 9, 1, 2, 5, 10, and 8. Okay, let's see if Shane Watkins has any proposals for improvements. Shane? You're not Shane, are you? I'm Rich. You're Rich. Are you here Shane? Is Michael White here? Okay. And Rich, I'll come back to you. Okay? The leg on is a participle. Yeah, we want that leg on to be a participle. That's right. And what else Michael? Uh, a9 is an infinitive. Oh that is 7, never mind. Yeah, he's got a... Went through quick and I missed my own numbers. Yes, you fly through those with your numbers. And miss own is a participle. Okay, yeah, miss own just like leg own is a 6. Anything else Mike? Is heos a conjunction? Heos technically and Zeff and I, you know, we're not faulting you here. None of this is easy. Heos is a preposition here. There are two kinds of prepositions. I don't know if you get this in your grammars or not. Anybody know what they are? Two kinds of prepositions. Not good and evil. Not light and dark. Proper and improper. Proper prepositions are the ones you normally learn in first year grammar like apah, ek, ace, huper. And proper prepositions are called that. For reasons I'm not sure, except they have certain qualities. And one of the qualities is you can combine them with verbs. And then we call them what kind of verbs? A verb that's formed by combining with a preposition is called a compound verb. So any preposition that you can use with a verb, like ek-peruami, all right? That's called a compound verb. But there are something like about 15 proper prepositions, give or take two or three, I forget the exact number. But there are about 42 or 43 improper prepositions, and heos is one of them. And the two major qualities of improper prepositions are, number one, they can't be combined with verbs. Number two... They may function as a preposition or they may function as an adverb. In this case since it has an object, RT, that is functioning as the object of the preposition, haos, until now. So you want that 10 to be a 9 in this case. It seems so simple. What could be hard about parts of speech? And 1 John is so simple. Right? Okay, your cross arms analysis. And please move your sheet up so that everybody and their brother can see it. That's a little too far. There we go. 1 John 2.11 basically speaks about anyone who hates his brothers in darkness. 1 John 3.10 Children of God practices righteousness, not unrighteousness. Verse 15 of the same chapter. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer. And verse John chapter 4 verse 4. If you love God, you cannot hate your good brother. And for my commentary interaction, stated that true Christians who knows God and walks in the light both obeys and loves his brother. Genuine faith is seen by his relation to God and others. From John Stott. OK, so that's from Stott. If you're wondering where that's from. And just a very significant point of punctuation. The true Christian comma. Okay, now if you're gonna use a comma, and if you're gonna introduce a parenthetical expression, the reader has to know where that expression's gonna end. I'd say the majority of your papers I'm reading, I don't know if this is supposed to be something they're dropping out of the California school system or something. The true Christian comma, who knows God and walks in the light, comma. Otherwise, the reader is looking for this to stop and you go all the way to the end of the sentence and you don't have a sentence until you go back in your mind and you repunctuate it. Did you do this final translation? It wasn't your wife? Okay. Because here you did it right. He who says he is in the light, comma, but hates his brother, comma, is in the darkness. Now in both cases, You could push grammar and just leave the commas out. If you leave the commas out, it's not a problem to read it. You've got to think a little harder. But the basic point is, when you have a parenthesis, either two commas or no commas. Do not use one comma for a parenthetical expression, because you'll sabotage your sentence. And if you're on church staff... and you're writing, then all the ladies on the staff who probably know grammar, they look at that and they go, where's he going to school? He can't even write a sentence. So, some of you see, and what I gave back to you, and somebody emailed and said, gee, I can't believe all the typos. Just refresh your commitment to excellence in expression. Just note that only you're going to see. Well, even then it's good to be fastidious about this. But if anybody else is going to see it, it's really important. All right, tell us your translation. It says he is in a light combo that hates his brother combo. He's in darkness until now. I like that, actually. And then grounded inside, you cannot say you walk in the light and you do not love others. It is a contradiction. Light cannot equal hatred of others. To be in the light is to love fellow human beings. And you're okay with translating chi as but? I thought chi meant and. I was used to it. I mean both, right? Does anybody want to cross that in your studies? Any discussion of this? I think Aiken, some of you reviewed Aiken, I think Aiken says there are no adversative kais in 1 John. So this is a point of dispute among interpreters, whether the kai here, number one, does mean but, and whether it can mean that. Because you see in this verse. Not in this verse. Where do we see the Adversative? Where do we see Allah? We saw it in verse 7. Beloved, I do not write a new commandment, Allah, but an old commandment. But I agree with you, Zephaniah, that here it makes the most sense to take it as an Adversative. All right, we've got five minutes. Yes. My final translation, I put is as italicized, because it's by implication, right? There's no three-word in there that you can translate as is. So I just applied it in there, but it is as italicized. I'm not sure if that's okay. Well, it's borderline. You're being very, very honest there. But because you have an infinitive of ame here, you can bring in the idea of isness from the isness over here. So it would be a little, it's pedantic for him to repeat it. He doesn't really need to repeat it. And so I wouldn't think you would need to italicize it for truth of advertising purposes. Yes. I think Esten is in the last phrase. Esten where? I think Esten is in that last phrase. Should I go back up? Yeah, put your sheet back up there. and show us the Greek. There we go. You do put it there. However, if you're looking at a Nestle-Allant text... It's not there. Okay. So, remember, I posted this for you so you could download it and you could use it. This is a Greek text that's in the public domain. Alright. And it's not the same as the Nestle-Allant text. If I put the Nestle-Allant text and you were all downloading it, I'd be in jail now. And some prosecutor would be rich. You can look at the apparatus in a critical edition and you can see some manuscripts leave out the estin. And the Byzantine family had it in. Tregellus is more like the Texas Receptus than Nestle-Allant at some points. So some manuscripts had the estin in there. Yes? No, I'm using 27. This is verse 9, right? Okay, yes, there it is. N te scotia esten heos rt. So it's here too. Well, there are those cases where Tregalus and NA27 diverge. Anyway, change your italic to regular font. We really applaud your honesty. And your lack of willingness to add to the Word of God. Numbers of 1, 5, 1, 2, 3, 10, 9, 2, 5, 10, 2, 9, 3, 1, 5. And where is Michael Beck? Wait, no, we're going to let Rich... We'll let you do this since you volunteered last time. Okay, Q10, isn't Agapul a participle? That's you, well you have to save yourself there, huh? There we go, yeah. So change that, change that five to a six. Anything else? And then the N in Nto-Poti-Mene, N, shouldn't that be a nine, a preposition? I think you're right there. So, well, I see a nine floating around there. 3, 9, 1, 2. It should be. Oh, 2 is 3. 9, 1, 2. 5. Anything else? Let's see. 3, 9, 3. Luke? Look at the, at the end, who gets three? Is that supposed to be an eight or an eleven? We think you're right there, yes. It's definitely not an article. Did you see that, Matthew? Second last word? Yeah. You've got an article there, but you want that to be either an eight or an eleven. Thank you, Rich. Cross reference. The Assam 119 by 165 states that, Nothing makes them, the one who loves his law, stumble. The Cometary Stop remarks that the believer who is marked by walking in the light has nothing in him that causes one to stumble. He also states that our view of man is skewed by our hatred and his love that sets us straight. Final translation. He who loves his brother abides in the light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. Do you mean here, and it is love that sets us straight? Don't you mean? Because otherwise you're saying our view of man is skewed by our hatred and it's love. I've got stuff right here. Go ahead and look and I'll take over your presentation. Final translation. He who loves his brother abides in the light. And there is no cause for stumbling in him. Notice the one who loves his brother, ento fotimene. It's a little emphatic, stressing. In the light walks. He doesn't fall prey to the dangers that the previous verses, and especially verse 9, that they refer to. The one who claims, as somebody was saying a minute ago, the one who claims to walk in the light, but hates his brother. The truth is in him, the one who loves his brother in the light of eyes. The result of being in Christ who is the light means that we are free from the grip of darkness and able to love our brother and avoid living lives that would cause others to be offended and to stumble. It is love that sees straight. It makes us balance out love that sees straight. When I was doing this one morning I probably wasn't seeing straight. He also states that our view of man is skewed by our hatred and so should it be it is love? Okay, that's very, very important. It is love that sees straight. So not set us straight. You see how scribal errors enter into manuscripts? Yes? Do you know what I'm referring to? Yes, because the subject for estin is not stated. And so the nearest antecedent that could considerably be the subject of estin would be light. But it just depends on how you orient your mind. You can also imagine it being the one who loves his brother. So it would just make a difference in how you explain the verse. Maybe even how you translated it, but it doesn't really change the overall teaching of the verse. You would say there is no cause for stumbling in it. That is the light, as opposed to in him, that is the one who loves his brother and abides in the light. That wouldn't change the way the rest of the passages. I doubt it. That's rather insignificant. Insignificant change. Because in a way, whichever way you translate, the other one is still true. Because the one who loves, there's no cause for stumbling because he's in the light. So light and not stumbling, whether you stress the light or the guy who's in the light, the same phenomenon is being highlighted. There's no cause for stumbling here. There is a big cause for stumbling when people... make claims but they don't abide in the light. Big, big problem. Okay. Thank you Matthew. Oh yeah, Zefania? Dr. Yobro, the verb menate, can we translate that as remain also? Yes. Menate can be abide or remain. Thank you. Let's give our presenters a hand.