The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 1 John 2:22-3a
Week 24: Mar 18, 2012
Having pointed out to his readers that they have an anointing and know all things, John defines who cannot be trusted.
Study
f. Why John Writes (2:21-27)
ii. Those who deny are the liars (2:22-23)
22-3a – Who is a liar but the person who denies that Jesus is the Messiah?[1] The person who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist. No one who denies the Son has the Father.
Who is a liar is a rhetorical question that draws out a key distinction between believers and those who left. John does this with three phrases centered around literally: “The denying” (ἀρνούμενος).
the person who denies that Jesus is the Messiah
– The first “denying” is key for it is what characteristic of a non-believer. This is more than just a matter of the words; it goes much deeper to the core meaning. Goes to the nature, person, and work of Jesus.
The person who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist
– The second “denying” functions as a restatement and amplification of the first. There are several things going on here. The first is that the Son and the Father are being equated. To deny one is to deny the other. Second Jesus is being linked to the Son. This may seem obvious, but it is important to remember that the heretics saw divisions between Jesus, the Christ, and the Father. This is what separates groups that are Christian from those who claim to be. I do not believe that this includes those in other religions, for the context here is those who left the church. Unlike Jews and pagans (or today, Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, etc.), those who left claimed to be the true followers of Christ. Today this would include groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. They claim to be true followers of Christ, but they deny the basic biblical teaching concerning the nature, person, and/or work of Jesus.
No one who denies the Son has the Father.
– The third “denying” is a summary of proto-Gnostic belief and here John is applying these statements to his critics.
Questions and Discussion
As can be seen from the shortness of the study, there was a lot of discussion this week and more than I can summarize here. Most of it centered on how and where we should draw the line between Christians and non-Christians in terms of teaching. From 1 John it is pretty clear the dividing line is the person of Jesus Christ. Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses have a view of Jesus that differs significantly from that in the Bible.
For example, while John 1 says that Jesus was “the word” and in verse one says “the word was God” the Jehovah Witnesses, attempt to avoid this by translating this as “the word was a god” and then goes on to try and diminish this even further by claiming that “a god” does not really mean what is says, but really means something lesser than a god.
There was also a lot of discussion on how this applies to groups whose view of Jesus is ok, but where we have other disagreements. While many Christians are fairly tolerant of differences such as pre, mid, or post tribulation, many Christians have other beliefs they think are really important. For some differing views of creation are seen as disqualifying. Perhaps one of the most difficult such views centers on the questions about the Bible such as inerrancy. While I hold to inerrancy, I do not believe that those who question inerrancy are automatically not Christians. For example, I have a friend who does not accept inerrancy, but whose commitment and relationship to Christ are solid. In fact, I have asked him and he cannot give me any specific errors in the Bible, but he is just not willing to say that the Bible is inerrant.
In short I am not as concerned about most theological views, as I am about two things: What do they say about Jesus, and how is there walk with the Lord.
If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.
See here for references and more background on the class.
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org
Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.
Footnotes:
[1] 2:22 Or Christ
A Tale of Two Cases
It is a momentous time at the Supreme Court both with the argument this week on ObamaCare, and last week’s unanimous rebuke of the EPA. The latter should serve as a dire warning should the court uphold ObamaCare.
In 2005 Mike and Chantell Sackett bought a small piece of land so they could build a house. This was as small lot in a residential area with other houses, water and sewer hookup. By 2007 they were ready and had gotten the necessary permits and so started construction fo there new home when one day three people from the EPA showed up at the site and said this might be a wetland and that they needed to stop. Not only did they need to stop, they were also told to remove all evidence of construction and make modifications to the land that the EPA wanted done. Removing the gravel alone would have cost them $27,000 which was more than they had originally paid for the property. To make matters worse, failure to comply would result in fines from $35,000 to $75,000 per day.
The Sacketts repeatedly asked for a written document of their alleged wrongs, but it was over 7 months before they would receive one. The Sacketts did not believe their property was a wetland. After all, there was no standing water on the property, nor were there any streams or other continuous flowing water off of their property, nor did the EPA list the property in their inventory of Wetlands. The EPA did not even do the required on-site test to determine if the property was a wetland.
To make matters even worse, the Sacketts were not permitted a hearing to challenge the EPA’s ruling, nor could they take them to court to challenge the ruling. Their only recourse would be to apply to the EPA for a wetlands development permit, so they could be rejected. Only then could they challenge the EPA in court. Yet this was a process that would take many years with an estimated cost of $270,000.
Unfortunately this is not uncommon for the EPA. They can make such arbitrary rulings largely free from review of any kind, simply because they know that most people simply cannot afford either the time or the extremely high cost of fighting them. In fact, even in areas where they have been taken to court and have lost, the EPA continues to make similar rulings knowing that in most cases they are safe becuase the people affected simply cannot afford to challenge. Luckily, the Sacketts refused to submit to such tyranny. They could not go to court to challenge the EPA ruling, but they did go to court to challenge their inability to challenge the EPA.
The appellate court sided with the EPA. By the time they managed to get to the Supreme Court last week, seven years had passed representing accumulated fines of $80 million. The Supreme Court rebuked the EPA 9-0. Certainly great news for the Sacketts, and the many other facing such EPA action, but it is hardly over. Ultimately the only thing the Sacketts won was the right to have their day in court. It is unclear if the EPA will continue to drag this out, attempting to drive up the legal costs even higher. After 7 years of waiting to build their house, the Sacketts are only beginning the process of actually challenging the EPA ruling that their property is a wetland.
The case of the Sacketts should give great pause as the court hears argument on ObamaCare. ObamaCare transfers significant amounts of control over health care to the federal government, and thus to federal bureaucrats, bureaucrats just like those who arbitrarily declared the Sacketts property a wetland, denied them a hearing, and tried to deny them the right challenge them in court. As Mike Sackett described it “The EPA used bullying and threats of terrifying fines, and has made our life hell.” Yet they had simply been denied the home they were seeking to build on their own property. With ObamaCare, similar bureaucrats could just as easily be denying you your health.
For all the details on the Sackett v EPA, check out the Pacific Legal Foundation web site and consider supporting them in their defense of people like the Sacketts
The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 1 John 2:20-21
Week 23: Mar 11, 2012
Having just contrasted the position of his reader with that of his opponents, John returns to comforting his readers by clarifying why he is writing to them.
Study
f. Why John Writes (2:21-27)
i. Premise: You Know all things (2:20-1)
20 – You have an anointing from the Holy One and know all things.[1]
an anointing
– John returns his focus back to his readers by point out how they are distinctive. But exactly what does he mean by anointing? The Greek word here (χρῖσμα) is a noun and it only occurs here and in verse 27 in the NT. The verbal form is found in several places. In Luke 4:18, Acts 4:27, 10:38, and Heb 1:9 it refer to Jesus being anointed by God. In 2 Cor 1:21-22 it is used in relation to us. Now the one who makes us—and you as well—secure in union with the Messiah and has anointed us is God, 22who has placed his seal on us and has given us the Spirit in our hearts as a down payment. The word literally means to, mark or touch lightly will oil to indicate some calling. Louw Nida gives the meaning of the noun form of the word as an “assignment. ” While in the Greek translation of the OT it is used in 1 Sam 9:16 where Saul is to be anointed King.
– As to what John means, unfortunately, this is where our lack of knowledge shows. We know that later Christians and Gnostics both had ritual anointing with oil. Later Gnostics claimed they had a special anointing (again tied by to their secret knowledge), but there is no evidence of this during 1st century. As for the other mentions of “anointing” in NT, The Greek word in these cases is ἤλειφον not χρῖσμα and refers to the physical application of perfume or oil as in the following:
- to care for the body – Mt 6:17 – when fasting
- the sick – Mk 6:13, James 5:14,
- to prepare the dead for burial – Mk 16:1
- to honor a Guest – Lk 7:38, Lk 7:46, Jn 11:2, Jn 12:3
The use by John here is most likely figurative. It is possible that John is using a play on words as the word Christ (Χριστός) is related and literally means the anointed one. In which case, the antichrists then would be the anti-anointed ones.
– In terms of the overall meaning of the verse, there are some strong parallel to the Gospel of John
1 John 14:17 – He is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor recognizes him. But you recognize him, because he lives with you and will be in you.
2 John 15:26 – When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.
3 John 16:13 – Yet when the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own accord, but will speak whatever he hears and will declare to you the things that are to come.
– So this leaves us with the following options:
1 This is referring to a ritual that was performed. Again there is no evidence for such a ritual in the first century. But there is a deeper problem here. Those who left would have done the same ritual. So this would not really set them apart.
2 Because of the parallels with Gospel of John , many conclude that the anointing is the gift of the Holy Spirit.
3 Others see this as the word of God, i.e., the teaching handed down by the apostles and prophets that was stressed at the beginning of the letter. This fits the broader context nicely – i.e. that it teaches us the truth (v27). It also has the advantage of being objective, i.e., we can test by the Word of God.
4 Finally it is possible to see this as a combination of 2 and 3. It is God’s Word, not as preached, but as receive by the work of the Holy Spirit.
– My view:
While 4 has a lot of merit, I believe that the focus on the identity of the anointing somewhat misses John’s point. Many commentators see John as still arguing against his opponents and this is yet another argument. But I don’t believe that the main issue here is distinguishing Christians from those who left, but the security of salvation.
In context, John has just said that those who left were never part of us. This shows that the security of salvation was an issue. After all, a new Christian who had just seen the church split might very well wonder if it could happen to them, maybe it could happen to them. Maybe they are not really part of the church either. It is this context that John mentions the anointing. It is interesting to note alone these lines that the only other use of χρῖσμα apart from Christ occurs in 2 Cor 1:21-22, a passage which also is focused on the security of the believer. While the others left, showing that they were not really believers in the first place, John’ reader remained. John 14:23-24 If anyone loves me, he will keep my word. Then my Father will love him, and we will go to him and make our home within him. 24The one who does not love me does not keep my words.
from the Holy One
– While this could be God the Father, it is more likely Jesus following the pattern of John 6:69 where Peter says, “Besides, we have believed and remain convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
and know all things.
– There is a minor textual issue at this point with some manuscripts reading and know all things. (πάντα) while others have and all of you know (πάντες)
1 In favor of and know all things is that this reading has a little broader textual evidence. The problem is that it results in an incomplete sentence for “to know” requires an object (i.e, what is known). The NIV handles this by supplying the world “truth” drawing it from the context of the next verse.
2 In favor of and all of you know is that it is a complete sentence and it is the slightly older reading.
Still the evidence is pretty balanced and it comes down to which you think was more likely, that a scribe thought that “and all of you know” needed something as in “… all of you know _______” and changed this to .. and know all things. Or, is it more likely that a scribe though that to “and know all things” made us too much like Christ and changed this to read “and all of you know.”
As is always the case with such issues, there is no real theological point at stake, only how we understand this particularly passage. This is abundantly clear when we realize that the reading and know all things is very similar to 2:27 while and all of you know is similar to 2:21.
– Either way John is making a statement about our position.
1 You know lies are not in the truth
21 – I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because lies don’t come from truth.
– John again emphasizes that that his condemnations are not directed at them, and he affirms there standing in the faith. This is emphasized in both a negative and then a positive fashion. What they know is the truth. Flow of the argument over the last two verses is:
- They have an anointing of the Christ
- This anointing have given them knowledge
- Lies do not come from the truth.
- What they know is the truth.
Questions and Discussion
The discussion this week centered on the role of evidence. If the anointing is understood as simply the Holy Spirit, there is the problem of subjectivity. For example, Mormons when ask about their faith routinely talk about their testimony which centers on a subjective experience. They believe this experience to be the Holy Spirit. The problems with this immediately appear when their testimony is compared to the testimony of others that conflicts with theirs. How could anyone know they were correct? Mine, is an example of a conflicting testimony. While their testimony says that Mormonism is true, mine is that it is false. We cannot both be correct, and thus at least one of us must be wrong when it comes to what we think the Holy Spirit is telling us. This is where the word of God comes in, for it is an objective measure by which we can compare.
When we do compare, Mormonism to the teaching of the Bible, it quickly falls short, and thus it is no wonder that Mormons have to fall back on dubious claims that parts of the Bible have been removed or changed so as to obscure the teachings they think should be there. Unfortunately for the Mormons, the text is very well known and the minor difference that do exist among the thousands of manuscript are like the ones discussed in this week’s class and are not even close to the types of changes that their theories would need.
The bottom line is that Christians need not fear as we have a mountain of objective evidence that supports our beliefs and the guiding of the Holy Spirit.
If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.
See here for references and more background on the class.
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org
Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.
Footnotes:
[1] 2:20 Other mss. read and all of you know
The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 1 John 2:18b-19
Week 22: Mar 4, 2012
We left off last time in the middle of John’s discussion of his opponents and what was meant by his use of the term “the last hour.”
Study
e. Their Position (2:18-27)
i. Antichrists a sign of the time (2:18-19)
18 – Little children, it is the last hour. Just as you heard that an antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour.
Just as you heard that an antichrist is coming,
– The word Antichrist is a source of great confusion. The problem is not in translating from Greek to English as antichrist is simply a transliteration of ἀντίχριστος (antichristos). The problem is in translating from the 1st century to the 21st. John is the only one to use this term in the New Testament. Jesus warned about False Christs (ψευδόχριστοι – Mk 13:22; Mt 24:24) and he spoke of the abomination of desolation (Mk 13:14). Paul warned about the the man of lawlessness (ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας — 2 THess 2:3). It is also possible that the Book of Revelations had already been written with its references to the Beast and/or False Prophet (Rev 13:19-20). Whatever the reference, John is referring to an antichrist that will to come at some time in the future.
so now many antichrists have appeared.
– Just as there will be an Antichrist, now there are many antichrists. The view is that these will be lesser ones leading up to the real antichrist. They share the same spirit and these antichrists will be the precursor to the real thing. But this is where the problem begins. Over the last 2000 years we have added a lot of baggage to the term antichrist, particularly once Hollywood jumped and made movies like The Omen. But little if any of this was in John’s mind or the mind of his readers. So we must try to understand the term as John intended, which refers to those against or opposed to Christ.
This is how we know it is the last hour.
– It is the presences of the antichrists that tells us we are in the last hour. Returning to last week’s question about the meaning of “the last hour” we can note the following:
- It cannot be the very last hour, because then it would be the real antichrist instead of the precursors.
- The presents of the antichrists must be exclusive of the time period “the last hour.”
Given this, what makes these unbelievers different from the unbelievers in other times? There have always been unbelievers that have denied and/or rebelled against God. But unlike others, these unbelievers claim to be followers of Christ, when in reality they oppose him and in that they corrupt the faith. The “last hour” then is that period of time where some unbelievers will cloak there unbelief by claiming to be true followers or Christ.
Looking at the options from last week, John it would seem, meant either Option A (that age from the ministry of Christ to the Second Coming) or possibly C (referring more the quality of the age rather than the time period). It is important to note that John is not talking about WHEN the second coming will happen, he is talking about the period of deception leading up to it and he is point out that this period had already started.
i. They Left us (2:19-20)
19 – They left us, but they were not part of us, for if they had been part of us, they would have stayed with us. Their leaving made it clear that none of them was really part of us.
They left us
– John’s readers have known who he was talking about from the very beginning, now we find out. The Greek is ambiguous (ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν) . This could refer to origin – us being the place they were from, or it could refer to membership –they had belonged to us. But either way this was a church split. They were once a part of the church but they left.
First century churches were normally small and close so the split certainly involved friends, and very likely family members. This was the event that sparked the letter, and it helps us to understand the context that stood behind the it. These people has been in the middle of this so there was no need for John to have mentioned this at the beginning of the letter. They already knew exactly what was going on.
– It is important to note that they were not thrown out, they left. While disputes and disagreements were common in the early church people did not leave the faith. For example, in Gal 2:11 Paul wrote about his disagreement with Peter. But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly wrong. In Act 15:39 the disagreement between Paul and Barnabus was so sharp that they parted ways. Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus. Yet while they parted ways, neither left the faith. In Rom 14: 13 Paul gives the following instruction to those who were in disagreement Therefore, let’s no longer criticize each other. The disputes in Romans 14 were over questions that still arise in the church today such as what day to meet, and what you can eat and drink. It is interesting that Paul did not seek to settle these issues, but instead told us not to be critical of those who make different choice than we do.
But in the chruch John was writting to, there was something far more fundamental than a dispute over which day we should worship on. These people departed over core doctrine—They had left the faith. But this immediately raises the question that if Christians can abandon their faith, what does that say about eternal security?
they were not part of us
– John address the issue by refuting the premise, they did none loose their salvation because never were in the faith. He does this by first making a claim, and then gives a logical argument to support it.
– Technically his argument is a hypothetical syllogism of the form Modus Tollens. This is a deductive argument, which means if the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed. If we put it into classical form:
If they had been part of us, then they would have stayed with us.
They did not stay with us.�
Therefore they were not part of us.
Questions and Discussion
The discussion this week centered a lot on the term antichrist and how applicable it is to groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. Here we much be careful. As John intended the term, i.e., referring to those who claim to be follows of Christ when they really oppose him, the term would be accurate. However, that is not the common meaning of the term today. To say that Mormons and Jehovah’s witnesses are antichrists would really be inaccurate without a lot of qualifications about exactly what is meant by the term. It may be accurate in the way that John used the term, but it would not be accurate given the modern understanding.
If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.
See here for references and more background on the class.
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org
Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.
The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 1 John 2:16-2:18a
