The Cult Question

With Romney as the front-runner, the question of his Mormon religion continues to be an issue and came to the forefront recently when a Perry supporter labeled Mormons a cult, which was then followed by calls for Perry to repudiate these comments.

This is an issue, which if not handled correctly, could blow up in a number of directions.  Romney supporters are understandably nervous that if Romney’s Mormon beliefs become an issue, it could cost him the nomination or the election.   However, if the defense of Romney is to label any criticism of Mormonism bigoted that could also easily backfire and alienate many Christians who make up a large portion of the conservative base that Romney will need to win.

One factor that makes this a huge minefield is the general ignorance of the mainstream media when it comes to religion.  But the biggest problem in this whole debate concerns the word “cult.”   “Cult” is one of those words that has a very large lexical domain (range of meaning) from academic/technical at one end of the spectrum to a derogatory label on the other.  Those calling for Perry to repudiate the term clearly see the term in the latter sense.  Because of this ambiguity in meaning I do not use the word, and have encouraged others to avoid it.

While there certainly are some Christians who use the term in a derogatory sense, for many Christians the term cult simply refers to groups who in some fashion claim to be Christian, but who reject one or more of the key doctrines that have defined Christianity.  But this gets into a discussion of just what is Christianity.   I discussed this issue in my book, Christianity and Secularism.

On these central beliefs there is very little dispute.  In fact, it has been these doctrines that have defined Christianity as a religion.  Groups that accept these doctrines are considered to be Christian groups.  Those who do not accept these doctrines cannot be considered Christians, at least not in any historical sense.

Some may consider it to be judgmental and arrogant to say who is or is not a Christian simply because they do or do not accept a particular doctrine or belief.  First, let it be clear that we are talking about classifying groups based on beliefs.  After all, if there is a difference between being a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu, does it not mean that Christians must have some distinct beliefs that can be contrasted with these other religions? Second we are not talking about an individual’s relationship with God.  This is a spiritual matter that only God can judge, for only He knows what is truly in a person’s heart.  We may be able to get a good indication by the person’s actions or beliefs but we cannot judge the heart.

Groups do not have personal relationships with God.  What defines a religious group is the beliefs of the group.  If we were to be completely non-judgmental, then we would have to conclude that any group that claimed to be Christian was, regardless of what they believed.  This would render the term “Christian” completely meaningless.  Should we consider a group that believed in child sacrifice to be a Christian group? Would this make child sacrifice a legitimate expression of the teachings of Christ? Clearly not.  So the question is not should a line be drawn that defines Christianity, but where do we draw that line.

If no line is drawn, Christianity becomes a completely meaningless term that could be applied to any group or any action from the most divine to the most depraved.  If, on the other hand, we compose a long and extensive list of doctrines that must be accepted in order for a group to be considered Christian, then we would indeed be arrogant and judgmental, restricting Christianity only to those groups that agreed with us in every little detail.  The doctrines that define Christianity should be limited to those expressly taught in the Bible as essential….

Philip Schaff, in his three volume work, Creeds of Christendom, surveyed the doctrinal statements and creeds of the various Christian churches down through the ages.  He refers to their ecumenical creeds as those creeds which contain “the fundamental articles of the Christian faith, as necessary and sufficient for salvation.” As to the acceptance of these creeds, Schaff points out that they:

… are to this day either formally or tacitly acknowledged in the Greek, the Latin, and the Evangelical Protestant Churches, and form a bond of union between them.

The differences that divide denominations are mostly peripheral issues, such as whether or not some spiritual gifts are available to be used today.   (pg 76-7;90-1)

How this applies to the current debate is that Mormons reject some of these key doctrines. For example, while both Christianity and Judaism believe that there is only one God, Mormons believe that that many gods exist.  This does not make Mormons bad people, but it does mean that Mormons beliefs are different from those that have historically defined Christianity.

It is true that Mormons use a lot of the same terminology as Christians, such as referring to Jesus as the Son of God, but what they mean by this is often vastly different than what Christians have historically meant.  Thus when a Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, to name just a few, talk about the nature of God, or say that Jesus is the Son of God, and they all mean the same thing.  Mormons talking about these topics may sound similar, but they mean something significantly different.

This is not an unusual circumstance. Jews, Christians and Muslims all share a lot of beliefs.  In fact they all believe that there is only one God.  But they also have key differences.  Thus we refer to them as different religious movements.  While there are a large number of Christian groups with differing beliefs, they have historically shared a core of beliefs that has defined them as Christian.  Mormons reject this core of beliefs, so the easiest thing to do is to likewise consider Mormons a different religious groups. This is not said in a derogatory sense, but merely an attempt to be accurate and precise.

So how does this apply to the election?  The simple answer is that it doesn’t.   The constitution is pretty clear that there should be no religious test for office.  The office of the president has no religious function, and therefore the religion of the candidate should be largely irrelevant.  It would only become relevant if the candidate chose to make it an important part of their campaign, but this would in and of itself raise red flags.  But Romney has not done this, and nothing in his career would indicate that he would.  So as a bottom line, when it comes to Romney, while I do not believe he is a Christian, I am looking for a President, not a pastor. Thus I will be much more interested in his polices than his religion.

The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 3 John 11a -15

Week Five:  Oct 9, 2011

This week we finished the study in 3 John picking up in verse 11b.   We also started 2 John, but I will start that in another post.

II.  Body

b.      Commendation of Demetrius (11,12)

11b – The person who does what is good is from God. The person who does what is evil has never seen God.

–          Some see this as a tough verse.   While this sounds good at first, as Paul writes in Romans 3:23 “…all have sinned and continue to fall short of God’s glory” and so no one would be from God and everyone would be the category of those who have never seen God.     Just how do we understand an atheist who helps the poor?  What about Christians who do evil?  Just what is this verse saying? As in all issues of interpretation the context is key. John has just encouraged Gaius to imitate the good, and so this is part of the exhortation to do good and not evil.

It is also important to keep in mind that there was tendency in  first century Jewish culture to put things in stark black and white terms.   For example, in John 15:23 Jesus does not talk about belief and disbelief, but says that, “The person who hates me hates the father.” Luke 14:26 is probably the best example of this when Jesus says, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father, mother… he can’t be my disciple.”  Few would take this literally, and most see this as emphasizing that we must put Jesus first to be a disciple.

–          So when we come to this passage, we must understand that it is in the context of encouraging Gaius to imitate the good and is presented in black and white terms.   John cannot be saying that Christians never do evil.  For he say in 1 John 1:8 “If we say that we do not have any sin, we are deceiving ourselves and we’re not being truthful to ourselves.” So what he is saying is that when looking for examples to imitate, we should look to those Christians (the context here is within the Church) whose lives are marked by doing good, and avoid those who are doing evil.

–          So then what does this say about Diotrephes?  One option is that this is a general statement and should be seen as an exhortation to Gaius.  The other option is that this has a broader context and directly contrasts Diotrephes with Demetrius in the next verse. In short that Diotrephes has never seen God.    I believe this should be understood in terms of the former.  The discussion has moved away from Diotrephes and onto Gaius. If this were a judgment of Diotrephes, it would be a severe one.  We will see in 1 and 2 John that John is not reluctant pass judgment when needed.  Thus if he was going to make such a judgment about Diotrephes it is more likely he would do so in a  statement directly about Diotrephes, rather than in one where the connection to Diotrephes must be inferred from a statement about how Gaius should act.

12 – Demetrius has received a good report from everyone, including the truth itself. We, too, can testify to this report, and you know that our testimony is true.

–          Demetrius means belonging to Demeter, the Greek Goddess of fruits and crops.  This would indicate that he was of pagan origin. If his parents were Christian, they most likely converted after he was named. He apparently was unknown to Gaius, and thus the introduction included here.
He is almost certainly the one who delivered the letter. If Demetrius lived near Gaius, he would have been known and no introduction would have been needed. If he was traveling and not yet there, the letter would have mentioned his coming.  Some suggest that he may have been one of those rejected by Diotrephes. I see this as possible but beyond what the evidence supports. This could conflict with his being unknown to Gaius depending on the assumptions about Gaius in verse 9.  He was probably there for more than just the delivery of the letter and had been sent to help Gaius with the problem of Diotrephes until John could arrive.

received a good report from everyone

–          In context, this is all Christians.   That this is mention abruptly following the exhortation to not imitate evil but good indicates that Demetrius is being held up as an example of the good that Gaius is to follow.

including the truth itself

–          Exactly what John is revering to here is unclear.   It could refer to Truth personified, i.e., that if truth could speak, it would give a good report for Demetrius.   Another option is that this is a reference to God as in John 14:7 I am the Way the Truth and the Life.   Finally it could be truth as the reality of his walk with the Lord.  In other words, that the way Gaius lives in the truth,  as John says about Gaius, (v3) testifies about him.    It is hard to say which of these John intends.

We, too, can testify to this report

–          Demetrius is personally known by John and he adds his testimony to the rest.   This three fold testimony is an indication of the trust that could be placed in him and the importance of his mission.

and you know that our testimony is true

–          Finally this is a subtle indication of authorship  – see John 21:14  “We know his testimony is true.”  This seems to be phase that John would use.

III. Conclusion

a.      Final words (13-14)

13 – Although I have a great deal to write to you,¹ I would rather not write with pen and ink.

–          This is a serious matter and there is a lot to do, but John does not want to write. He has already mentioned that he will be visiting soon (v10) and has probably given more detailed instructions to Demetrius.

14 – Instead, I hope to see you² soon and speak face to face.

–          Again John mentions that he is coming soon.  I always find it interesting the way idioms change from language to language.  This is literally: Mouth to mouth

b.      Greetings (15)

15 May peace be with you!³ Your friends greet you.⁴ Greet⁵ each of our friends by name.

–          John closes with a standard greeting.

May peace be with you

–          Traditional Jewish greeting, which was frequently used by Christians.   This is the greeting used by Jesus in locked room following Resurrection  (John 20:19)

Your friends greet you.

–          Gaius evidently had friends who were with John and they send their greetings

Greet each of our friends by name

–          John sends a personal greeting to his friends who are with Gaius.  John want each specifically greeted, as opposed to a general greeting to all. These friends could be in Gaius’ household or in his church.

Questions:  The questions this week centered on the intersection of Love and Truth.  Love asks us to be accepting.  Truth demands that we maintain standards.  How does one do both?  One question concerned how this applied to the Presbyterian Church-USA ordination of a homosexual minister in Madison, Wi?   Clearly that church was focusing on the acceptance that stems from love.  But what about truth?  The Bible’s position on homosexuality may not be politically correct, but it is clear.   But this goes to a deeper problem concerning the authority of God’s word.  Will we follow what the Bible says, or will we follow the current trends of political correctness?

Those opposed to the message of the word of God, frequently present such issues as conflict between reason and/or science and faith, where faith seems to be defined as that which is false.  But this is far from the case.  In fact the evidence, while frequently ignored, is pretty clear.  The closer that one follows the teaching of the Bible the happier and more fulfilled will be their lives and longer they tend to live.  For the Christian, this is not too surprising.  The Bible is not an arbitrary document.  It rules were not given so that we could be punished.   Like the Sabbath, the Bible was given for help us.  The primary message concerns the reconciliation with God and our eternal life, but much of the Bible also deals with how we can life better lives here and now.

Some of the Bible consists of thou shall, and thou shall not.  But not all the instructions of the Bible are as clear cut as you should not murder or you should not steal.  Much of the teachings of the Bible consist of balancing competing interests.  That is the one of the focuses of John’s letters, just how do we balance competing interests of Truth and Love.

Again I will have a follow up Post to start 2 John.

Next week we will start in 2 John 3

If you have question 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 version ISV. 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) Lit. you (singular)
2) Lit. you (singular)
3) Lit. you (singular)
4) Lit. you (singular)
5) The Gk. verb is singular

The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 3 John 10-11a

Week Four:  Oct 2, 2011

This week we continue the study in 3 John picking up in verse 10.

I.  Body

a.      Criticism of Diotrephes (9,10)

10* – For this reason, when I come I will remind him of what he is doing¹ in spreading false charges against us. And not content with that, he refuses to receive the brothers. He even tries to stop those who want to accept them and throws them out of the church.

–          Most translation have, “if I come”  but the Greek grammar here assumes a probably future. So John is planning to come and deal with this issue.  In modern parlance, this would be the equivalent  to saying  “Lord willing…”

–          John plans to come and to deal with this.

I will remind him of what he is doing

–          The ISV and many translations have “call attention to.”  The Greek word here (ὑπομνήσω  /  upomnēsō) mean to remember.  The translation of “Call attention to” seems strikes me as implying a more public venue, whereas to remind could be private or public.  I have no doubt that John planned to follow the biblical model of first confronting Diotrephes privately.

–          John’s determination to come and deal with Diotrephes is not only proper it is good. There is no question that the improper exercise or rejection of authority is wrong and this would sum up Diotrephes.  But a failure to exercise of proper authority is also wrong.

in spreading false charges against us.

–          The Greek word here (φλυαρῶν/phluarōn) means “to speak in such a way as to make no sense, presumably because of ignorance of what is involved.” (Louw-Nida)  This is in the present tense, as with the rest of the verse, indicating that this was an ongoing problem, not just something that had happened.

–          It would seem that to justify his rejection of John’s authority, Diotrephes was making statements that were untrue.  It is not clear if he was lying, but he certainly was not telling the truth.  Some may be confused by this distinction, stemming from a general confusion about the meaning of lie.  Saying something that is untrue is not necessarily a lie, as it could just be an honest mistake.  On the other hand a carefully phrased statement may be technically true, but it can still be used to deceive, and it is that deception that is at the core of a lie.  In short, a lie is anything said with the intent to deceive.

Thus it is possible that Diotrephes was not attempting to deceive, but rather in his attempt to justify himself, he was not as careful as he should have been. This is something that we should all be wary of.   In fact he was so uncritical in his charges against John that he drifted into claims that were evidently internally inconsistent to the point of nonsense.   So whether he was actively lying, or just spreading untrue statements, it is clear that Diotrephes did not love the truth.

–          This is the question that we should ask ourselves:  Do we love the truth?  When we speak, particularly when we speak about others, are we sure about everything we say?  This really becomes important when we are in a dispute.    When we are in a dispute which is more important to us?   Being completely truthful, even when it does not help us? Or is it winning?  Probably most would say being truthful.  But what if we rephrase that slightly?  Unless one is a lawyer, winning is normally not the main concern, but rather winning for a reason. What if we, for the sake of argument, assume that we are completely correct, and in fact have been wronged, such that our side is the side of justice?  Now which is more important, truthfulness or justice?

Here I think the Gospel of John and the Epistles give a pretty clear answer:  truth is a more important value than justice.  Jesus did not say in that he was “the way, the justice and the life.” Consider this, as sinners, do we really want to demand complete justice?

This really comes home when we consider how often we tend to cast things in terms of motives and compared with how well can we know motives?   We can speak about motives, after all John said that Diotrephes wanted to be first, but we had better be very sure about what we said.

And not content with that, he refuses to receive the brothers

–          Not content with saying things,  Diotrephes moves on to actions as well. What we say can be bad, what we do is worse.   While Gaius was praised for receiving the brothers, Diotrephes refused.  Again there is no indication that the problem with Diotrephes was doctrinal. Perhaps he was them as a challenge to his authority?  Or perhaps it was because they were associated with John and to accept them would be to accept John’s authority, but either way he did not receive them.

tries to stop those who want to accept them throws them out of the church

–          Not only did he not receive them, he tried to stop others from receiving them as well.  Throwing them out of the church should not be thought of in terms of formal excommunication. That would imply a more formal church structure than probably existed at the time.  Rather this would be a breaking of fellowship.  This indicates that the break with John was to some extent public and that Diotrephes had supporters within the church.  These members may not have had the full story, as we have seen false statements about John played a role in all this.  But Diotrephes did have supporters, and so John was coming to set the records straight.

b.      Commendation of Demetrius (11,12)

11a – Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good.

do not imitate what is evil, but what is good

–          With another a personal appeal, John marks a change in subject

–          The commentators I read saw this as John telling Gaius to resist any pressure put on him to follow after Diotrephes.  But, with all the praise of Gaius to this point,  this simply does not strike me as correct, and it was not how I read this.   Instead I saw this as John telling Gaius not to respond in like fashion.  As we saw in the previous verse, Diotrephes was speaking ill of John, and putting pressure on member to follow him.   Gaius should not respond in like fashion.  He should not speak ill of Diotrephes, and put pressure on member to support John.

So how should Gaius (or we) respond?  The two hallmarks of John’s teaching here have been truth and love.  Modern culture responses to the love part of this pair easily.  But truth, does not fare as well.    Yet for John, truth, which is mentioned 6 times in letter, is very important.  Love is mentioned once, beloved four times.

One other question is why does John say imitate (μιμοῦ / mimou)? For many, it is the heart that matters, and if your heart is not in what you do, it is meaningless. Yet the concept of imitating implies actions based, not on our heart, but on something outside of us. It is doing things even when our heart is not in it, or even against it. Yet, we learn and become better at what we do by imitation. If you want to learn a musical instrument or a language you must practice, and the practice is more important than where their heart is. Likewise, if we want to be a better Christians we must practice. This also touches on the modern distrust of ritual, as stale and dead. Yet many Christians have found that ritual can get them through periods where they “don’t feel it” and help rekindle faith. Now with a musical instrument it is easier if you have a teacher to imitate. Again the same is truth for Christians, and our teacher is Jesus.

Next week we will start in 3 John 11b

If you have question 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 version ISV. 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)  ISV:  I will call attention to what he is doing

The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 3 John 5-9

I. Body

a. Commendation of Gaius (5-8)

b. Criticism of Diotrephes (9,10)

Questions:

The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 3 John 1-4

Week Two: Sept 18, 2011

3 John

Outline

The structure of 3 John is very close to a typical 1^st century letter, and thus there is pretty broad agreement on the outline by scholars.

I.Opening

a.      Address (1)
b.      Prayer (2)
c.       Personal Words for Gaius (3-4)

II.Body

a.      Commendation of Gaius (5-8)
b.      Criticism of Diotrephes (9,10)
c.       Commendation of Demetrius (11,12)

III. Conclusion

a.      Final words (13-14)
b.      Greetings (15)

Study

I. Opening

a.      Address (1)

1 – From:[1] The Elder
To: My dear friend Gaius, whom I genuinely love.

The Elder

The typical opening of a 1^st Century letter contains 4 components: From, To, Greetings, and Prayer.  John opens with the first two of these components.

John does not use his Name but rather his title.  This would indicate that he had a position of great respect.  Elsewhere the plural (elders) is used to refer to the leaders in a local church, (Acts 11:30, 1 Tim 5:17).  It does not have quite the same meaning here as The Elder is apparently writing to a church other than his home church.  Thus it would appear that The Elder is someone who had authority over many churches

The fact that John refers to himself as “THE” elder could indicate that John was the last of the twelve.  The term elders would also indicate that John was elderly, though for the 1^st century that is not saying much.

To: My dear friend Gaius

Gaius was a very common name in the first century, and so we really do not know who this is.  Detailed address information would have been given to the carrier of the letter, which was probably Demetrius (v11-2).  From the rest of the letter we know that Gaius was a Christian, was probably a prominent member of his church and that this church was most likely one of those under the care of John.

whom I genuinely love.

A genuine statement of affection.

For some reason John breaks with custom and does not include the formal greeting that would normally appear at this point.  This also could be a sign of familiarity, i.e., to dispense with custom,  or it could just be that John cared little for custom.  He somewhat breaks with custom in 2 John and 1 John does not follow the format of a letter at all, though it is likely that 1 John is not actually a letter.

b.      Prayer (2)

2* – Dear friend, I pray that you are doing well in every way and that you are healthy, just as your soul is doing well.[2]

Dear friend,

Another statement of affection.  As we will see, John seems to use this and similar statements as a means of dividing up his letters.  Here he does this just before starting his prayer.

I pray that you are doing well in every way

While skipping the traditional greeting, He does include the customary prayer.

The Greek word here (euodousthai) literally means “to lead along a good path” (Friberg) .  In Romans 1:10 it is used literally … by God’s will I may at last succeed in coming to you. Here it is being used metaphorically, with the meaning “that your journey through life is a good one.” Outside of the NT it was also used to refer to gain or profit in business (Louw).

While spiritual welfare is important John does not limit his prayer just to that.  He also prays that Gaius prosper and succeed.

and that you are healthy

Literally: To have well, an idiom for good health

While this does not indicate that Gaius had health problems, it does not rule them out.  When we get to verse v9 we will see that health problems might explain some difficulties there.

just as your soul is doing well.

The Greek word for doing well here is the same as earlier in the verse.  Here it indicates that Gaius’ soul is progressing well, so well that John prays that the rest of Gaius life is doing as well as his soul is doing.

Note: John is praying that Gaius do well both physically as well as spiritually, both are important to John.  Getting the right balance between the physical and spiritual is tough.

c.       Personal Words for Gaius (3-4)

3* – I have greatly rejoiced with every arrival of brothers that testified about your truthfulness [3]and how you live according to the truth.

I was overjoyed with every arrival of brothers that testified

John was not just happy but very happy.  The Greek work for erchomenow is a present middle participle, and indicates repetition either by the same brothers many times, or by different groups of brothers.  Either way, it is clear that John knew of Gaius, which is another indication that Gaius held a prominent position.

about your truthfulness

Literally “your truth.” This is more than just honesty, but also includes an adherence to the true.  A key feature of Gaius’ faith was his adherence to the truth, i.e., to sound doctrine.  This was so key that others would report on it.

and how you live according to the truth.

Gaius faith was more than just belief, he lived it as well.  He put his beliefs into practice.

What would other say about us?  What would their report be?

4 – Ihave no greater joy than to hear that my children are living according to the truth.

John stresses how much this pleased him.  The word John uses for “greater” is an interesting one.  The Greek word is meizoteran.  In Greek the word for great is megas, which is where we get the English prefix mega-.  Greek normally uses an ending (- teran ) to make a comparative, similar to the way English use the ending –er as in great + er is greater.  But instead of using the normal ending Greek as a special word for greater : meizon.  John, however really wants to make sure his readers understand just how great his joy really is, so he takes the Greek word for greater, and then for emphasis adds the –teran ending.  In literal English, for him there is no “greaterer” joy.

my children

This could mean John led Gaius to Christ, or it could just be that he had spiritual authority over him.

What is our greatest joy?  What is the greatest demand we put on our children?  Is it School?  Grades?  Success?  A particular career?  If you were to ask parents today which was most important would it be that their children “live according to the truth” (or in secular terms that their children be good) ?  Or would it be that their children get a good education and a career?  More importantly, what would your children say was your greatest desire for them?

Questions:

One question that came up in class concerned the relationship of truth and love.  A key problem is that living truth and living in love are sometimes in conflict.  Living in truth requires a strict adherence to the truth.  If we are not careful, this can lead to division and we find ourselves splitting over even minor disagreements about what the Bible teaches.  On the other hand, living in love leads us to overlook differences in favor of just loving one another.

As with so many things this is a balancing act one of standing for the truth, but not in a cold doctrinal way, but one that stress Love, one where the focus is on reconciliation, not division.  At the extremes it is pretty easy.  We do not want to divide on minor issues such as whether the pre-mid-post tribulation rapture.  On the other hand we do need stand firm on the deity of Christ.  But as we get closer to the middle it gets harder to know exactly where the line is or just how we should respond.  This is one of the main themes we will be looking at in this class.

Next week we will start in 3 John 5

If you have question 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 background

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 version ISV. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

[1] 1 The Gk.  lacks From

[2] ISV your soul is healthy

[3] ISV: I was overjoyed when some brothers arrived and testified about your truthfulness