Lecture 9.docx

We're going to get our first commentary review today and this review is from Michael Beck and as he's going to show us here, it's of Wutherington. My review is Wutherington, the third letters and homilies for Hellenite Christian volume 1. The subtitle is a socio rhetorical commentary on Titus. I act...

We're going to get our first commentary review today and this review is from Michael Beck and as he's going to show us here, it's of Wutherington. My review is Wutherington, the third letters and homilies for Hellenite Christian volume 1. The subtitle is a socio rhetorical commentary on Titus. I actually just reviewed Purchase of 3 John, which is about the third of the book. It is Purchase of 3 John and it retails for about 40 bucks if you want to buy it. So Ben Wutherington is an ordained pastor in the United Methodist Church and a professor of New Testament at Atthaberry Theological Seminary in Kentucky, which is an interdenominational school with a Wesleyan heritage. By the way, he's not the professor. That would imply there's just one professor there. He's either just a professor or professor. He has written numerous commentaries on New Testament books using the socio rhetorical criticism. This method is concerned with the study of the text amidst first century Greco-Roman and Jewish social history and rhetoric. There's a whole series of commentaries in this theme that he writes in, mostly on the Pauline epistles, but he's also done some on the Gospels as well. Wutherington's socio rhetorical commentaries are known for their introductory matter and historical background and Wutherington expresses some unique viewpoints in the 32 page introduction. He sees 1 John as a rhetorical homily or sermon in the genre of wisdom literature written by a church leader named Elder in the 80s. This older man, which that's usually what he refers to the author as the older man, is not not of 70s, but the beloved disciple mentioned in the 4th Gospel, which Wutherington claims is most likely Lazarus because in the 4th Gospel it's said that Lazarus is the one whom Jesus loved. Wutherington believes the Gospel of John was written based on Lazarus' memoirs and assembled by a collector or editor dubbed the 4th of Angels. Nor does Wutherington believe the Book of Revelation shares the same author as the John in the epistle, having been written by a John of Patmos. He sees these epistles as being written to a Hellenized Jewish isolationist sect of Christians in western Asia. The community has reached out to Jews in the area, some of which later became recognized as members and even teachers. At some point it became clear these Jews held a different view from the beloved disciple regarding Jesus, which led to his schism. The commentary on the text is about 186 pages and is somewhat conservative fitting within the general evangelical stream of Bible scholars. However, due to the nature of this commentary series, the reader should not expect a rhetorical, grammatical expertise as the text. The epistles are interpreted based on their assumed social history and ancient rhetorical format. The Armenian pastor will find much to agree with on problem verses and the Calvinist will find much to sharpen the skills of reputation. The commentary includes helpful sections entitled A Closer Look, and a few excerpts on many of the items that are made throughout the commentary on topics such as proficiation, antichrist, and the sin unto death. A Bridging the Horizons section and the final seven pages of the commentary includes quotes from Augustine and Beattie, as well as three samples of limited exposition and application of material from these epistles. A major weakness for most readers is going to be the required knowledge of the rhetorical terms like Epictic, Sepiential, Exordium, Paratio, and others. I found myself having to look up these terms to follow the outline of the commentary, therefore a basic knowledge of rhetoric would be helpful to the first time reader of this series. Those are all outlines based on the style of rhetoric that they used in ancient times and a lot of words, Latin words, will have to look up those examples. A second major weakness is an exegetical one. The lack of argumentations proves certain exegetical assumptions and coupled with that the lack of dealing with opposing viewpoints. One example is the assumption that 1 John 2.27 seems to disavow the teaching office associated with local church elders. He mentions this in the introduction without further proof of his art. That's the verse that he just mentioned a few minutes ago about you have no need of anyone to teach you and so whether he says you don't need elders in the church, obviously that's what John is saying. Another example is when Wetherton gives four lines to his view of 1 John 2.2 and concludes, Jesus atone in death was not merely for the sins of believers but for the sins of the world. A lengthy footnote is given to list some of the different meanings of Cosmos and John, but no arguments are given to show why the reader should take the world here as a being of believers as opposed to the elect of every tribe or tribe or nation. Also the author does not interact with the question of how Christ can be an atoning sacrifice for unbelievers and yet they are still seen as guilty by God. Regarding 414, Wethering states in Jehani theology God has not limited the skill of whom may be saved as John 3.16-17 makes clear, assuming with little reasoning that both verses should be interpreted according to the traditional harmony of the year. Similar to the excursus on avoiding sin and going out to perfection on page 501 dealing with 1 John 3.6, 9-10, that's where it says anyone who abides in Christ will not sin, anyone who practices sin doesn't abide in him. This may leave the reader scratching his head. Wetherington concludes that at the moment a Christian sins, the moment he commits an act of sins, he's no longer abiding in Christ at that moment. He states that some sort of theology of perseverance other than the later Calvinistic one seems to be inflated. Wetherington concludes that once a biding can wax and wane so that when a believer abides in Christ he is sinlessly perfect. But when he sins he no longer abides in Christ for that moment. This means that the beloved quote, the beloved disciples position amounts to a view that goes well beyond indeed against Luther's simo-mustis et picator which is righteous and at the same time sin. However a very little exegetical reasoning is given to support these claims relying instead on other commentators quotes to bring in for support. Which he relies a lot on Raymond Brown. Regarding the sin leading to death in 1 John 5, 17, Wetherington sees the sin as that of apostasy which leads to spiritual death. In the excursus on this problem passage Wetherington does interact with a few other views but relies on his interpretation of Hebrews 6 which makes clear that he says Christians certainly can commit this sin of apostasy. So while this commentary by Wetherington does have something to fit the, particularly to see an opposing viewpoint, The busy pastor wants to first work through commentaries by Yarvara, Cruz, or Stott for a more exegetical and expositional understanding of the biblical text. I think I missed the key. That was half a letter grade right there. Applause for him and for our earlier wave. Numbers are 3, 5, 3, 9, 1, 6, 3. And if you wanted to get technical you could say 6-2 because that's a subsequent time or part of the sentence. And the cross reference analysis from 1 John 3, 7, will children let no one deceive you. So this idea of a lot of people that deceive you is also reflected in chapter 3 verse 7. And then the easy commentary or grammatical interaction. I just picked up what both Lou and Stott talked about and that was the use of a participle of the non-tone. Lou claims that the thread that deceivers is ambiguous, that the present tense of the verb, planan-toned, that sounds as if the problem is actual and yet everything else in the section indicates that it's a potential. So whether these deceivers are actually there when John did write this. She leans towards translating the phrase, those who might lead you astray. That's a capture of the potentiality of deceivers rather than translating the phrase, those who are trying to lead you astray, as if it were a certainty. Lou also said that to be led astray would not be a temporary aberration or easily corrected, but would close off the promised eternal life. Whereas Stott on the other hand, renders the present participle as those who are trying to lead you astray. He writes that the Hoss' teaching was not in itself enough to keep them in the truth and that believers should not understate the subtlety of deceivers. He says that they have not succeeded but they are in the process of making the attempt at the time of the writing. He concludes that it is possible for Christians to be deceived by false teaching and the devil is the primary deceiver. So my final translation is I have written these things to you about those who are trying to deceive. And if you want a term for that in grammar, you don't run into it frequently. There's something called the conative. C-o-n-a-t-i-v-e. Conative. That's the connote. Connotation. And sometimes there'll be an indicative verb and the sense of it is, as in this case, not I deceive but I'm trying to deceive. So that's what's going on here grammatically. They're not just pulling the trying out of the air. You might not agree that it should be conative. You just might say they're picking some people off. They're deceiving them. They may be wrong about this scenario but they're not necessarily playing fast and loose with the text by putting trying in there. The grounded insight. Believers are susceptible to deception at the hands of false teachers and their false teaching. Just because you become a Christian does not mean that you are fully protected from deceivers who desire to lead you astray. Not only do false teachers remain in this world, they are actively attempting to draw believers away from the truth of God's word. The word of God was written that we might know the difference between the true teaching of the word and the false teaching of the word. See Form 7 in the left hand corner asnd what it meant there that it got decided to teach the curse that might be cast on you with the same book but with the same purpose that is computers. There is an important clue here. It said there needs to be more people involved in this world because there has always been support. So it's not the idea of stone or glass in these writings that came with this too valuable information. Place it in more detail than the other out really. 2, 5, 10, 3, 5, 3, 10, 10, 1, 3, 2, 5, 3, 9, 4, 10, 4, 5, 10, 8, 5, 4, 10, 10, 5, 3, 5, 9, 3. First word on the second last line. Pontone. Substantible. Or is it only two? Is it only two or four dash two? Four dash two. Yeah, cross reference. Cross reference analysis. First John 2, 20 highlights the fact that believers are anointed by the Holy One. Second Corinthians 1, 21 is God who has anointed us and establishes us with Christ. And then the mother load is Acts 10, 38. Peter preaching to the Gentiles, he says, God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. And the commentary interaction is with the anointing to Christa Christma. Lucy's the author is emphasizing the anointing as something they receive from God and sees it as a divinely authorized capacity and insight. She writes that it is a possibility that the author is writing out of hyperbole so that the audience would recognize that they need for teaching. So it's almost a sarcastic remark. It's just a suggestion. She's not concluding that. However, she says, by appealing to the sufficiency of what they already have, the author is implying that no one else would have anything additional to offer. The teaching they are given by the anointing is comprehensive about everything. But the present tense teaches here shows that this is an ongoing experience and still requires that they continue to be depending on the anointing. Stott views the anointing as the second safeguard to keep true believers from being led astray. The first safeguard, he says, was the message that you have heard from the beginning in verse 24. And the second is in this verse 27. The knowledge given by the Holy Spirit, which he argues is the meaning of Christma, provides direct illumination. And Stott writes that in the last resort, the Holy Spirit is absolutely our adequate teacher. And we maintain our right of private judgment by his illumination of the Word of God. However, he warns that we must see this verse in the context of the letter in which John is in fact teaching those who he says have no need of human teachers. Other passages of the New Testament also refer to teaching in the church and the gift of teaching. I notice here he kind of equivocates. I mean, in what you have said so far in this passage from 2.20 to 2.27, Lou says, somebody said yesterday that the anointing is more the message, the Word, the truth. Stott says more it's the Holy Spirit. But here you say the knowledge given by the Holy Spirit. Well, now that's something different. And here in the last resort, the Spirit is our teacher and he illuminates the Word of God. That's not really fair. Yeah, it's not really fair. You know, it's either the Christmas, either the Holy Spirit or it's the truth of the Word of God maybe illumined by the Spirit. But it seems he's equivocating a little bit here and recognizing that there's got to be a cognitive component here. It can't just be a spirit that frees them from the didactic tutelage of a book or a figure like John or a body of information. So, a final translation is, let the anointing that you received from him abide in you. You have no need that anyone should teach you, but just as an anointing teaches you about everything and is true and is no lie, and just as it taught you, abide in him. One slight observation. Is everything singular or plural in English? Singular. Singular. And is ponton singular or plural? Periponton. Plural. Plural. Because if you parse that, you would say it's genitive singular neuter. Or just genitive plural neuter. So, if you've got a choice between everything and all things, all things would be slightly, I think, more accurate than everything. I mean, everything includes all things, but he doesn't say everything. He says concerning all things. Which might be a little more pegged to the diversity or the variegated nature of the challenges they face rather than one big thing. It's the complexities of the situation and maybe the teachers, the claims, whatever all they're facing. That's a completely English issue. Well, it's a little bit translation philosophy. If you have ponton, which is plural, and you can translate it all things, is there something in your philosophy that says, well, it says all things, but I'm going to translate everything. And some translations will say, well, that's good enough if you have some reason to say everything, and others are going to say, no, if it says all things, why not translate all things? What's wrong with translating as directly as we can what it says? And then if in our teaching we wanted to talk about everything, based on it saying all things, we can do that. But the translation should be a near reduplication of what we read there in our language as possible. Yes? What would be the difference in the meaning of all things and everything, or in the Greek, the singular versus the plural of the time zone? I think it would just be a difference in nuance and a difference in, you know, you write as a reflex to prompting in your brain, right? You're thinking something, and as a result you put it on paper. And I think on the whole, if you say everything, you're thinking about a big thing, or you're thinking in a synthetic mode. Singular. A package. But if you say all things, then you're thinking, you're breaking it down. You're acknowledging that there is a multiplicity of issues here. That they're being taught about. But this anointing teaches you about that multiplicity. The diversity and the variegated body of stuff there. So they may be 90% identical, but there is a difference. So why obliterate the difference in the translation? And then if somebody wants to say, well doesn't all things include everything? Then you say, well yeah, actually. So why didn't he just write everything? Well, because he wanted to stress the multiplicity. Or at least that's what the words most directly imply. Yes? I'm just curious about your opinion on if the anointing is doctrine or scripture or a cognitive aspect. What do you think about at the end, and just as it taught you, abide in it versus abide in him? Yes, the question is whether the en alto should be in it or in him. And I probably would say you could flip a coin. And you could probably argue both. It might be inconclusive. It would be interesting to see in your Bible gateway how many translations go one way and how many go the other. Because this is the translator's dilemma sometimes. Is that you can't rule out the other possibility. Where we see it in 1 John most of all is with father and son. That there's so many times where we don't know if the he's referring to the father or to the son or maybe in John's mind kind of both together. And we really can't rule out one or the other. But in translating you have to make up your mind sometimes. So I think it's why translation committees, I'm sure, always have prayer before and maybe after they make decisions. Because in some cases you're in a lose-lose situation as far as being absolutely sure that what you're rendering is what the writer had in mind. The grounded insight is that true believers possess the anointing from God that allows us to discern between truth and falsity. We have been anointed by God himself and given the spirit that has opened our eyes to the truth of the gospel. It is a continual process of growing and learning at the hands of the true God as we continue to abide in him. And because of this anointing of the universe we can move confidently at the present and into the future as we continue to abide in him. I think that leans, his grounded insight leans more towards Christma being the spirit. But I won't go into that. That's supposed to be funny, right? Verse 28. Numbers are 10, 8, 2, 5, 9, 3, 10, 10, 5, 5, 2, 10, 8, 5, 9, 3, 9, 1, 2, 3. Anybody have a problem with the number? Don't see any. Sorry, the first couple of numbers. 10 is 8, the first couple. Looks good. Cross-reference analysis, 1 John 3, 2. We are his children and we will have confidence when he appears. Motherhood is 1 John 3, 21. If our hearts don't condemn us, we have confidence before God. And then there's also 1 John 1, 20. Not being ashamed, but we will be presentive and full of courage. And the commentary interaction is good. Peruzia. Lou acknowledges that his presence is not the journey, but the being present that is in focus. But does so while bling-bling stating that the he is not identified. She acknowledges that Peruzia is often used in the New Testament to refer to the future revelation of Jesus. But quickly inserts that the Danielic vision of the Son of Man in Daniel 7, 13 is a coming and triumphant judgment. She states that the scriptural references could be referred to both to God and to Jesus in early Christian thoughts. There can sometimes be some ambiguity as to whose coming is anticipated. She also ventures to mention that the use of Peruzia in 2 Thessalonians 2, 8, 9, speaking of the powerful coming or presence of Satan in the final onslaught against God's purposes and against those who believe in God. Ultimately she concludes that contrary to what might at first seem to be the case, the coming of Jesus or of God could be more to be feared than that of the antichrist. Yet fidelity and persistence are the sure protection against any such fear of shame. Stott on the other hand mentions no words in saying that there can be no mistake in this reference to be our Lord's return, that is the return of Jesus Christ. He dismisses all other theories that commentators have suggested that Peruzia in Paul's letters were replaced in John's letters by the coming of the Spirit and the present enjoyment of the eternal life. Because teaching about the second coming actually occurs later in this letter, our Lord's return will involve his personal presence and people who either have confidence or be ashamed of their lives before him. And my final translation would be, and now little children abide in him so that when he appears we may have confidence and we may not be put to shame from him in his presence. Good. And my grounded insight, it is clear that people will react to the coming of Christ in two different ways. They will either worship him in confidence or shrink away in shame. This verse speaks clearly that we can only stand in confidence and full assurance if we continually abide in him, if we continually in him today and until he returns. Our abiding in him now will bring confidence before him in the day to come. Good. We're burning through the verses here. Verse 29. Ten, five, ten, four, five, five, ten, eight, four, one, six, one, five, nine, ten, five. Good. Cross reference analysis. There are two motherly little techniques. This one. So, first John 2, 1. If anyone sins, we have Jesus Christ the righteous. He was our advocate. So, the first two are talking about righteousness and then the last is talking about being born of God. And then, first John 3, 7 and 10. Do not be deceived. Those who practice righteousness are righteous and he is righteous. And then, the second mother load talking about being born of God. First John 4, 7. Whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. The commentary interaction with the issue of birth from God. Ex autu, again, in Thai. Lou writes that the idea of God's producing offspring is a startling one and not easily parallel. Those who believe in God are often spoken of as children of God, but not necessarily being born from him. Paul uses the language of adoption in Romans. This verse, however, is distinctive in using the language of birth from God. She ventures to say that the interpretation of being born of God might depend on whether righteousness is a consequence of birth or the prior condition before birth. Well, ultimately, she comes to know for a conclusion. However, she states that the practical message of the author is clear. No one can claim divine birth without manifesting its roots or its roots. Stott agrees that the word ginao refers to being born of God, but simply boils the beginning from God as the logical consequence of those who know God, know that God is righteous. He writes, the child exhibits the parent's character because he shares the parent's nature. A person's righteousness is thus the evidence of his new birth, not the cause or condition of it. Of course, if John were somehow a party to the incident with Nicodemus and wrote it down in the fourth gospel, he witnesses to Jesus using this language. So it's not so startling for John because he might have been thinking about it for about 60 years. So my final translation is, if you know that he is righteous, you also know that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him. And the grounded insight, righteousness is the evidence of new birth and a transformed life. Because God's children strive to reflect his character, a true believer will pursue the practice of righteousness as a proper reflection of the God they love and worship. Yes? Do you believe there's a need to bring out in the translation that John uses two different words for no? I think it's difficult to do because there's an overlap in them. The ESB says if you know that he is righteous, you may be sure. But everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him. Is that taking it too far? It's a notch beyond a translation. And you don't get that very often in the ESB. And I don't know of anything lexically that justifies it. What about recognize that there's a return that's lost to the spirit? I think recognize works, but it's a more distinct kind of knowing. And the question is, if he's using kind of a flat generic word like gnosko, is there anything in the context here that forces us to say recognize rather than just the flat you know? It does jazz it up a little bit to say recognize or to say what? Be sure? You may be sure. It spices it up a little bit. But it's not spicy in Greek. It's very flat. Yes? Going back to the Greek, de kaiosunni, is that a two? Yeah, why do you have that as five? Right. Why do you have that as five? Brian, we were trusting you. There's the numbers 3, 2, 2, 3 principle. Right? Everybody knows what number 32, 23 says? It's a very handy verse. Especially because 2, 3, 2, 3. Be sure your sin will find you out. That's one of my life verses. And I doubt it all the time. I think I can sin and get by with it. But so far, it's the reason I believe in inerrancy. Go ahead. We've got one more question. Okay, Yoruba, this is in verse 28. I'm not sure if I can ask the question in verse 28. Did you just wake up? For the Greek word, penna, can we just say, in order that instead of so that? I'm not sure if that's okay. Yeah, in order that or so that. Those are pretty close to the same. And in fact, sometimes John uses it synonymously with Hati. Sometimes he uses it just to mean that. It doesn't mean in order that. It just means that. So, henas are a little bit tricky in John's writings. But here, in the first verse, John says, in order that, either one of those would work. John, first John, three, one, five, four, two, five, three, one, two, ten, two, two, five, four, three, one, two, ten, two, five, four, three, one, two, ten, two, five, four, three, five, ten, five, nine, three, one, two, eight, five, three, ten, eight, five, three. Did anybody catch him this time? Yes, Darrell caught him. Hina, is it a pronoun? I don't think so. Hina's a good guy. I read it as a three. Anything else? Yes? Here's our watchdog. Is that a pronoun? I think we'd want to leave that an adjective. It's a what kind word. It definitely modifies a noun here. I think four is probably pretty good for that. Good. Cross-reference analysis. John, one, twelve, to all who've received him, who believe in his name, give them the right to become children of God. Luke 20, 36, those who believe and are resurrected are equal to angels and are sons of God. Romans 8, 6, so all these are dealing with being children of God. The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God. And then the commentary interaction, children of God versus the world. Lue recognizes that this is the first time children is introduced, but writes that at this point then there is no sense of the creation of a new family of God or of a relationship generated by the one who is uniquely son. However, the world is recognized by the readers as the order and system antithetical to God, seductive and yet forbidden. She writes that the author's use of the term gives little or no concern for their conversion to be other than what they are. She summarizes this verse by saying that as children of God they share God's experience, which is one of rejection, anonymity, or effective invisibility in other people's concerns and experience. So she kind of takes a more gloomy view of being separated from the world. Yeah, and let me point out, hermeneutically, if you read her introduction, she sort of isolates the rhetoric of 1 John as if there is no other world that exists. It's as if Jesus didn't come and John didn't hear him and there wasn't a track record of decades of churches in the Greco-Roman world in which now there was a new family of God. There was a new family of God. There was a relationship generated by the one who was uniquely son. She says there's no sense of this here. Well, why isn't there a sense of that there? Well, because she's made a hermeneutical decision to cut off all that earlier history and to interpret 1 John rigorously as if there's somebody making this stuff up and getting it from we don't know where. But there's a very different way to read this. And a lot of the things she brings up, they look differently if you take a different view of John and the background to these things because, number one, they're grounded in Jesus and the whole apostolic experience, especially John. Remember John co-pastored with James and with Peter through the 30s, the 40s, the 50s, the 60s. Just a little asterisk here. You know, remember in Acts 12, I think it is, is in Acts 12 where John's brother James gets arrested and gets executed. And they're going to execute Peter too. And the guy who's doing the executing then gets killed, Agrippa. You know, John's gone through a lot of stuff, both as a follower of Jesus and as a guy whose brother's a martyr. And by this time, he's seen a lot of other martyrs. And, you know, the early church communities, they've been, you know, through a lot by this time. So when people come to the Bible and they look at it in a different way, there's always something to be gained from that. I mean, we gain a lot from reading Lou because she's looking at things from an angle that we normally wouldn't. And whenever you change her angle, you see new things. But she's looking at things from a different angle. And she's looking at things from a different angle. And when you change her angle, you see new things. But, you know, I just want to remind you that you always got to be content. I'm not saying you're not content. I'm just really understanding. Here it's very clear that she says things. At first you say, how can you say that? Well, it's how you set up your, like setting up your deer stand. If you're a hunter, you're going to see certain things, but then you're not going to see other things because of the height or the angle or the orientation. And that's what we see going on. And I think for a lot of us who minister and who preach the word of God and teach it, it's an impoverished angle. Because you see so much less than what's really there. And for me, I don't see a lot of Jesus in this. You know, I would hate to have a congregation that was reading the Bible this way. So it's not to say, again, there's nothing there. It's just it's greatly reduced, I think, in its richness. I think the first contrast between you and Scott the most, because like Scott describes it as an outburst of wonder. See, he's trying to move on with his presentation. He took that segue right back in. Go ahead. That's good. That's slick. You know? I like that. Exactly what Yabra was talking about. Scott reflects that same opinion. It's an outburst of wonder at God's love in making us his children. And so I think Scott's more pastoral. He calls this a fact and not merely a title. That we are by his grace called children of God. Children of God also stand in direct contrast with the world. The children of God and the world are so different from each other that the world does not know us. And the reason for this is that it did not know him, which must surely here refer to Christ, says Scott. So my final translation is, see what sort of love the Father has given to us that we may be called children of God, and we are. The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Just hang on. Just one second. This is where translators have it really tough because the effect both of the Pada Paz adjective and the very unusual Irete, instead of C, if you put the word W-H-O-A exclamation point, whoa! And then, what kind of love has the Father given to us that we are called children of God? Another exclamation point. That is the semantic feel of this. There is an older course, Behold what men are of love, the Father. You can really domesticate it down. So it just sounds very routine. See what sort of love. But this is really an exclamation. It is grabbing you by the lapel. Getting in your face and you smell the garlic on John's breath. Look! What kind of love? Here are these people trying to connect you with something that is bogus. Look what God has lavished on us. We are called his children, and you want to sell that for what? You want to become a part of what? How could you be better off than for God to claim you as his child? So, go on. Is there a better way to reflect that in translation? Because it would be imperative I have to capture that emotion. We don't have time to play translation committee here. But again, it is why I recommend. I have an old published eight translation New Testament. It has got Philips and Jerusalem Bible and RSV and a range of different kinds. But as I said, you have the Bible gateway online. You can compare a couple dozen translations. Just see what people do and get a feel for what the semantic possibilities are. No matter what your translation says, this is where your personal study of the Greek, it confers on you. It charges you, commissions you when you preach and teach. Take a minute and draw this out. Take it out of the humdrum. This illustrates why I said yesterday, this is John getting emotional about the love of God and about our divine parentage. Now, in our social world, kids ruin their lives. Kids rule. Everybody knows this. And in marketing in particular. We don't need parents. We don't need teachers. We live in a screwed up market society. You go to other parts of the world and they treasure gray hair and experience. Those are the people they listen to. But in our society, they don't listen to it. Furthermore, in our society, as I said yesterday, people are emotionally cauterized in many cases. They don't have a family. The worst thing that happened to them was their dad. So there may not be a lot of excitement about divine parentage and the dignity and the beauty of being a child of a dad and a mom who are put together well. That's one of the greatest glories of the earth, is ancestry. That's where a lot of traditional societies are a lot closer to God than Western society in its post-Christian dress. When Africans become Christians, they have to unlearn a lot of stuff about tribal traditions. But basically, they flow right into this idea that we are children of Abraham. And that means something to them. And you've got to teach people in North America. You've got to teach them something about social reality. Social reality is not primarily electronic. Social reality really is about where we came from and who is behind that. And then, why are we here? We're here to become something in our lineage and to pass it on. And if you're not doing that, you are failing the world. You're failing God. You're failing yourself. You're failing whatever godly ancestry there is, even if it's just Abraham and the righteous lineage. Maybe you're the first generation. But that's what you tap into and that's what God is making possible for you. He's making possible for you to tap into the divine family on this earth. I mean, that is the highest calling that there could possibly be. And it's the only place of refuge in a world. There are a thousand different kidnappers out there. Everything is trying to kidnap you and make them your guardian. You're being pimped. Everybody's being pimped. And God is saying this is where there is refuge in meaning and hope and dignity and real love and happiness. It's the only place you're going to be happy. Nobody pimped is happy for long. So there's some work to do here. There's educational work to do to teach people about what it means to be human and to have a father. And if your own dad blew it, then God the Father is right there to step in and to reclaim and kind of redefine you and rebuild you. And I think people with shattered family backgrounds can very quickly become very constructive of builders of their own families. And if God doesn't call you to build a family, there are plenty of other ways that we can pour into other people and help stabilize them and give them a platform to become part of this society building, the society of the people of God. But that's why I think he gets excited. He's a Jew. Jew's no heritage at their best. And again, that child of Abraham thing, of course that's Pauline in particular. But I've often said you're not really understanding what being a Christian is. And this is for Americans. But you're really not understanding what it's about if deep down that blue passport identifies you socially more than being a child of Abraham. You haven't yet caught on yet. As great as that blue passport is, politically and when you're traveling and stuff, you get into some situations it's kind of nice to have a certain passport. But that doesn't mean anything next to the status of being a child of Abraham. Being a child of a parent who got you American citizenship can be a great thing, but it's nothing compared to being a child of Abraham. And I want to say most North American Gentiles, which probably, does anybody here that's not a Gentile ethnically? We're probably all Gentiles. We're not Jews. But no, we're not Jewish. For most of us, children of Abraham doesn't mean anything. But it ought to. It ought to because that's what the Bible is trying to teach us. It's trying to teach us what it means to be part of the body of Jesus the Jew, Jesus the Messiah. And we're grafted in. And we take it for granted. We think God owes the Gentiles the promise of salvation. And that's one reason we've got so many people in our churches who don't know God. Because they think it's just there and God has set up something where he's now bound himself to show his grace to people who don't deserve it. You know, read Romans 11. Don't you start boasting against the roots. Because God, he broke off a lot of the branches to make room for you. And you know something? He can break you off too. And he will. Behold, the kindness is the severity of God. We've got a God with no severity. But on the kindness side, you know, we've got a God who takes Gentiles. You know, my ancestors in Europe, you know, they did child sacrifice and worship trees. People of my ancestry can be grafted into the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and David, and Isaiah, and even the Son of God. Born of the Jewish Virgin Mary. So this is incendiary stuff. Finish up. You're taking too long. Last thing, my grounded insight. In scripture there's a clear contrast between the children of God and the world. This contrast is so clear that the world simply does not know us because as Christians we are children of God. Yet so often there is little difference between Christians and the world, and the world recognizes some believers as their own. And this should be a disheartening reality for us. It should be prayerful for ourselves and for our flocks that we would stand in contrast to and unrecognizable from the world rather than being simply immersed in it and never recognized by it. It's a dilemma because we want to be salt and light in the world. And, you know, we believe in transforming society in the name of Christ. We want to get out there and, you know, mix it up. But to transform to some extent you've got to identify with, right? You can't just, you know, go up on the top of the mountain and, you know, send signals or something. You've got to get down in there like Jesus. Mingle with the people. And that being, I mean it's the cliché, in the world with that other world, identifying with it but not being defiled by it, not being crippled by our loyalties to it. That is a really, really terrible challenge. And lots of people, you know, don't manage it. Brian, we applaud your work. Yes, are you stretching and indicating it's time for a break? Your questions are not quick. Understanding that John's so excited in chapter 3 verse 1. In the previous verse he mentions us being born of him. Is it warranted to take the gnoskete in the previous verse as imperative then? Kind of build on the excitement. Yeah, you know, I don't know if a published translation does that. But from the word gnoskete, of course, you know, we're translating it indicative. But, you know, morphologically that could also be an imperative. And I don't know of a translation that takes it as an imperative. Is that an imperative? If it were, then it would just make it all the more clear that, you know, 3 is loaded. This is where, too, just your knowledge as people, as theologically and historically trained scholars, you are not bound by the chapter and verse divisions. You know, a point against your view is, well, that's the last chapter. He started a new chapter here. But, of course, we know, well, no, not, I mean, there's no Greek and there's no verse and chapter division. So for John, whatever is in that verse flows right into the rhetoric of 3-1 without any break. So that's an interesting possibility.