Lecture 7.docx

Alright, let's have our presenters for the last few verses get going. First, John 2.16. Let's read the numbers. Ten, four, one, nine, one, two, one, two, two, two, ten, one, two, one, two, ten, one, two, one, two, eight, five, nine, one, two, ten, nine, one, two, five. Problems with numbers? Okay, y...

Alright, let's have our presenters for the last few verses get going. First, John 2.16. Let's read the numbers. Ten, four, one, nine, one, two, one, two, two, two, ten, one, two, one, two, ten, one, two, one, two, eight, five, nine, one, two, ten, nine, one, two, five. Problems with numbers? Okay, you've got taste sarcas, epithumia, taste sarcas in line one. You've got taste as a two, and we think you know better than that. Any other that you didn't like? Any other that you didn't like? And if you wanted to do a swigly after pan, ta, for all, ta, and tocaso. Again, that's a prepositional phrase that's used as a noun. Yes? Since you have the apposition, could you also do the same thing for the entire, the less of the flesh and the less of the eyes, and do a squiggly and make the entire thing a two as well? I mean, it wouldn't be wrong to show that they're in apposition. Just, you know, how far do you want to stretch your word processor capabilities, or how much paper do you want to use. But yeah, you're right. Those things do all fulfill a parallel function. Cross-reference. Cross-reference analysis, Galatians 5, 16. I say then, walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of flesh. Against 1 Peter 4, 2, that he no longer shall live at the rest of his time in the flesh of a lust of men, but with the will of God. Here we see the contrast between our subject verse 16 and these two verses, obviously talking about walking as children of God versus walking as children of flesh under a different owner. Commentary interaction. Looking at Scott, at Scott, since everything in the world comes from the world, we may not love any of it. John selects three for special, John Scott, sorry, John the author, hopefully, that selects three for special menswear. The cravest simple man, the lust of his eyes, and the boasting of what he has and does. These appear to him the essential marks of the pagan way of life. This life is the life in its present concrete manifestation, according to how he quotes Westlock in the style of page 103-4. It appears in verse 17 as well, where it is translated material possessions. As Lou restricts the three to a three-fold formula, as mentioned in verses 12-14 previously, that distinguishes them to stemming from but one desire, in her page 95. Both writers correctly state that as they do not belong to the Father but the world, they should be avoided at all costs. Final Translation. Because all that is in the world, the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes, and the arrogance of life, is one of the best verses of the world. I started off there, I finished up there with a small B and a big C. As it carries on from verse, I can be said to be carrying on from the previous verse. As it takes both ways along. Grounded Insight. Finlay summarizes the three categories as two forms for deprivation, arising from our needs and one from our possessions. Unholy Deprivation. Is that deprivation, is that a form of depriving? Yes. So it should be D-E-P-R-I. Right? Because otherwise, that looks like a form of depravity? Yes. Deprivation. Okay. Deprivation arising from our needs and one from our possessions. Unholy desire for things one has not. And unholy pride in things one has. Stop page 104. This compares without a dot. Quake. Base desires. False values. And egotism. Unquake. The latter comes naturally from those who are in the same control of darkness. And this distinctly contrasts with those who have been reborn of God and know Him. As in John 17, 14 and 15. Who have been chosen out of the world and do not belong to it. These ones should not practice what characterized those who may know before them. Okay. Any comment? Or correction? A lot of directions to go in the translations. And most, you know, the more ambitious the commentary is, the more discussion there'll be of different routes you can take in trying to convey this. And of course, overarching it all is the Johannian insight, God so loved the world. And here we're told to love not the world. So we're back in attention. And this has to be explained and unpacked. For 17, the numbers I have are 10, 1, 2, 5, 10, 1, 2, 3, 1, 10, 6, 1, 2, 1, 2, 5, 9, 1, 2. Any number problems? Looks pretty good. The cross references are there. After Matthew 7, 21 was one of those exclamation points, the mother loves. So those are the further references listed at those points. Observations would be believers live in a period of transition while they still live in their flesh. They seek to not live for the desires of men but for the will of God. The form of the woman's desires are in the process of fading away but have not yet fully been eliminated. Yet, believers are called to live for a new master to give themselves to heavenly desires, the will of their God who will establish them forever. There are some grammatical considerations. Stott differentiates between the world used in the Juhannam literature and the rest of the New Testament. He believes that it's always used by John to describe fallen community. And then Leo points out the use of a singular desire here and believes it shows to be more than number of inappropriate human loans, namely the negative aspirations and mindset that God has identified as a gift to God. So before in the previous verse, Leo didn't want to take each individual threat there, the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, the arrogance of black foot, move them all together in one desire, he just continues on. The emphasis of the verse, he recognizes the dualism of the world against the Father in this passage but states that it's not a fixed, unchanging opposition. She says really in this chapter in 2A, John describes darkness as on the way out. Now he uses the same verb of the world in its desire. She believes John expresses the utter incompatibility between the sphere that represents God's will and intention and all that opposes it as well as the complete certainty that regardless of whatever might be happening in society and to this community of believers, the opposition he got was irreversibly doomed. So I actually had a hard time not knowing what she was trying to emphasize there, whether or not she was trying to emphasize that there was a strong opposition or whether it was a slow transition. But I think that eventually she kind of focuses on the contrast is not really between the present and the future but between the transients and permanents, between the already disappearing world and the inextricability of the one who does the will of God. And Scott agreed with that, that we shall more readily obey the commandment to not love the world and we should remember that while the world and its desire are transient, God's will and those who do it are like eternal. So the final translation would be, and the world is passing away and its desire but the one who does the will of God remains forever. And a grounded insight would be, a tremendous motivation for believers to remain faithful is the truth that those who live by their own desire will not last but those who live by God's will shall remain forever. And the brevity of the world and its desires cannot be escaped, the eternal hope for those who do the will of God cannot be questioned. The temporary is contrasted against the eternal. And in light of the previous verse depicting the powerful pull of the flesh from both within and without, verse 17 is an even stronger motivation for seeking God's will rather than one's own desire. Those who do God's will shall last, unlike the world and its desires. Okay, any comment or question? There's a lot of self-evident truth here. And a lot of imponderable questions, I mean things we all have to work out, what's the world and what's love for it? And we always have to remember something that commentaries tend to say at the beginning and then kind of forget. John is dealing with people apparently who know who he is and he knows who they are. And they probably had ways of deciphering and applying the things he was saying without immediately going to bizarre excesses like we could because we don't have the same controls through knowing him and having maybe been in his presence and so on and so forth. But I think this is where doctrines of unity of scripture often can help us because, for example, Jesus was emphatic that there's a world order that he came to destabilize and eventually to redeem as well as to judge. But he came bringing the kingdom, he came announcing the kingdom. And it's not like there was no reign of God here before, but certainly in his coming, on the same streets and with the same horizons that people who love the world live, we are subjects of God's kingdom and this is his world. And we relate to the things that we see in the world differently than a person who doesn't know God. In other words, this world is transformed, it's sanctified, as Paul says, all things are sanctified through prayer and the word. They're sanctified because we're subjects of the king who rules over a kingdom and his kingdom extends to this world. So we can have a positive regard for things in the world without loving the things in the world. Because again, it's sanctified because it's going through a relationship with God. I mean, I think you could convict Jesus of loving things in the world, like say people. So you can easily push this in directions I don't think John intended for it to say in one way to... We can't ask John point blank, but I think we can go to places in scripture and bring some perspective and contour into this, lest we either become extremists or say, well this is such hyperbolic overstatement that you really can't take it seriously. Micah? Yeah, do you agree with the blanket statement that the use of world in all of John's writings is the same designation? I don't think I found that to be true when I studied it. Yes? In this verse, the verb paragatai is singular, and because of that, would you think that the heia but the mia out too is emphatic? That the world is passing away and it's less, instead of using a plural verb, use a singular? Well, as you may know in Greek, they tended like a lot of modern languages, and unlike English. English is pretty religious. If you have a compound subject, you had to have a compound verb. But most languages that have a compound subject, they conform the verb to the nearest subject. So if you've got three subjects in German and they're all singular, it's still going to be a singular verb, more than likely, and a lot of other languages like that too. But certainly Greek, you wouldn't expect a plural verb here, just because there's two subjects, because they're both singular subjects. So it would be optional for the writer. Thank you. Next verse. What's cool about these verses is they give us something to do. They give us something to think about. We may not know exactly how to take it, but what we can't say is, well, this doesn't apply to us. I can't think of anywhere in the world where the world intrudes on you more than Southern California. And we love it. Yes, who said that? Numbers verse 18. Two, four, two, five, ten, eight, five, ten, two, five, ten, eight, two, four, five, eight, five, ten, four, two, five. Second last word on line one, Kai. How do you translate that in the end? You're a little too high for us. End. You don't translate it. I don't know what that is. So if you really want to stick to it not being translated, then we'd call it eleven. And you'd say, well, it's a particle that we just throw away. But then you'd have to do a comprehensive search of all the kais, which would be several thousand, and see if you can document a kai that's a particle. And I wouldn't recommend that. So it might be more feasible to call it an eight and think of it in terms of even now. Anyway, I don't think you want a ten there because you don't translate and. Did anybody else see a number you didn't like? Do you want to go back to the numbers? Lawrence is a glutton for punishment. He's giving us every chance right now. He's turning the other cheek. Yes? Hoffing? Could that be a conjunction as well? Yes. And the eightness comes in. It answers a how question. It's how we know. Whence we know? From this we know. There's a howness. I would call it an eight dash ten. It's an adverbial conjunction. So I'm most happy with eight dash ten. I'm sort of happy with ten. I'm least happy with eight. But I'd give you credit for any of those three. That's the right idea. Okay. Cross-references. Little more. There are many come already. Verse 24 and Matthew 24. Grammar and direction. The word antichristos only appears in the German letters. Verse 18, verse 22, and chapter 4, verse 4, and 7.7. This was generally thought of as a sign of the approaching end of the age of Scott the Great. His previous commentary indicated that Christians already knew that they were living in the last days. And that the true light was shining with the world and its darkness fading away. Big suppression. What is the meaning of the many antichrists coming? And Scott maintains that many antichrists, which are best interpreted as substitute christs, are merely forerunners of the main one spoken and the second is no means true. Still to come. This brings us to our final translation. Children, it is the last hour. And just as you have already heard, antichrist is coming. Many antichrists have come already. Therefore we know from this that it is the last hour. What did you get your first already? Just as you have already heard? Already heard. That was my assertion effectively. Because I've already heard it. I've heard it before. So I thought it would be nice for a sweet translation for a bit. Okay. Grounded insight. The antichrist here is clearly one who is against Christ, not just one who hates Christ. Verse 22 refers to such a one whose teaching is fundamentally counterfeit to and opposing the antichrist. Scott page 108. Whilst the ultimate antichrist corresponds to Paul's man of lawlessness, and to the Thessalonians 23 and 24, the many here refer to those who came with a teaching that was against that of Christ. The Christians should watch out for and avoid such teachings. Okay. Thank you. You'll notice in Essay Allant that there's sort of a double break there. There's a new paragraph and there's a wide gap on the page. Also the Byzantines put a three. So everybody agrees this begins a new literary division in the book. Okay. For verse 19, the numbers are 9, 3, 5, 10, 8, 5, 9, 3, 10, 10, 9, 3, 5, 5, 11, 9, 3, 10, 10, 5, 10, 8, 5, 4, 9, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 을 So the cross references that we listed are Acts 20 to 30. In First King James 11, 19. believers know that evil men will arise not only from outside the church but from within. There will likely arise divisions and factions within the church, and the believers must hold fast to the truth and proper obedience to show themselves included. Within the grammars, the commentaries, both Stott and Leo recognize that this verse was indicating purpose. Stott argues that John not only relates to the fact of their departure, but also to the fact that they were not of us. Leo agrees, page 101. They believe, and primarily Stott here says that this verse provides a test to the church that if the false teachers had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. This is stated as a principle. Those who belong to us stay with us. Future and final perseverance is the ultimate test of past participation in Christ. And he believes that this verse also gives Biblical warrant for some distinction between the visible and invisible church, for all members of the church participating in church activities are not necessarily members of Christ, as they may be with us but not of us. He says they share our earthly company but not our heavenly birth. Leo believes that what John says about origins in the previous verse seems somewhat contradictory because of the origin being, they were from us but we're realizing that they were not really of us. But she believes that John's salt is potential problem by focusing on the temporary verse or against the permanent. Those who seem to be originating from us could not truly be of God but they would remain. Their heavenly origin must have been the looser. This is an academic problem but it's something you encounter so much pastorally. And also just the longer you live, the more you see people fall away. I mean just statistically. I used to be a lot more bothered by this. How can it happen? But I've just seen it happen so many times. I still don't understand it a lot of times but it's a tribute I think primarily to the ability of the human heart to deceive itself. And of course people who fall away, you're always hopeful they'll come back. But people are in religion, which is to say in our sphere, they're in churches for lots of different reasons by many different avenues. And you can counterfeit. I mean people look perfectly fine. And you just don't know their lives. You don't know their hearts. You don't know what goes on when you're not around. And then later on you realize, yeah they fell away, they left the ministry, they committed this crime. But you start to see the paper trail. Generally it makes sense even at the human level. So it happens. So it's suggested, the final translation would be, they went out from us but they were not of us. For if they were of us, they wouldn't be with us. But they went out so that they might be revealed for all and not for us. The grounded insight would be, be sober, not surprised. Be sober but not surprised. Examples bound of men and women who have abandoned the faith. These examples serve as a warning of the deception of the world. This will continue and should keep the Christians sober but not surprised. Men will deceive, they will be self deceived. And John Horne's read is that they are unfaithful and confirm their head and their course. You might think about if they had been of us, they would have remained with us. That might capture the semantic sense a little bit better than if they were of us. I'm not saying you should change it but if anybody had, if they had been of us, they would have remained with us. That captures the conditionality of John's language. Why don't you do the last verse too, since you're up there. Rich? I had a question about cross referencing this with Revelation about the Nicolaitans and Revelation 2 and 3. Does this verse help to convert that passage to Revelation? And what is exactly the link that you see? That the Nicolaitans had Christian origin, that they were presenting some alternative Christianity, that John is the right Revelation, radical. It certainly is an apparent analogy. And of course there's also a possible parallel in someone like Judas. Jesus washed his feet and he had all the disciples fooled. But finally he was unmasked. And Jesus prayed all night before he chose him. Maybe that's one reason he stayed up all night praying. God are you sure? Am I supposed to choose this person? Because so often Jesus had insight into people's hearts. It's hard to imagine that he went for a couple years and didn't realize Judas was a traitor. Maybe he did, I don't know. But sometime before the last night he knew. So this is a great tragedy and mystery. And it's another justification for faithfulness in ministry because we don't want to take people's, we don't want to take them for granted. Go ahead. So in verse 20 the numbers I have are 10, 3, 2, 5, 9, 1, 2, 10, 5, 4. I think technically your hagiu would be 4-2 because hagias is an adjective. But it's a substantive here. And the same with pantha. By all there you mean all things. It's not an adjective just hanging out. You know all. And then it goes to the next sentence. You know all things. Well that's not how I translated it. In my book I just indicated that because that's the word that I knew. But when I actually translated it I took it as you all know. Let's go back up to the Greek. Pantha there is what case? The finger. Excuse me? The finger? For the case accusative? Yes, accusative. So can it be the subject? No. You can't say you all know. Would it be the same or could it be taken either way? No. Because it would be pontes with an epsilon sigma if it's nominative. So that has to be and you know pantha all things. However, you're taking the Tregelis text there I think? Right? I believe so. I was reading the commentaries and also I believe ESV goes with you all know. Yes, but that's because the ESV is translating the Nestle-Aulant and the Nestle-Aulant has pontes. That's the nominative. So there's a variant here. And my guess is you took that off what I sent which is Tregelis. Right. I was going off the other text. So what is the textus receptus or closer to the textus receptus? So if you read pontes then it's the U implied in the te is bound up with that nominative pontes. You all. All of you. Oedete. No. But if it's pontas then that's accusative and it's you know all things. That's why the King James says you know all things. Give us your final translation because we have to turn everybody loose. And that is pretty good. Pick one of your grounded insights. So the top one is the grounded insight. Do you wear claims to the special truth that elevates the knowledge of the man rather than the words of scripture used to work on the heart of the spirit? You know if you follow my commentary it's a lot easier to support that because I argue that the anointing really is the message, the word, the gospel. Most commentators take that to be the Holy Spirit. So if you take it to be the Holy Spirit then it's harder to stand behind what you just said. So stop believing it's the Holy Spirit and use the word of the gospel. Yeah. And this gives I think Lou's right. Thank you. Let's give a hand to Lawrence and Joshua.