Week 22: \u00a0Mar 4, 2012<\/p>\n
We left off last time in the middle of John\u2019s discussion of his opponents and what was meant by his use of the term \u201cthe last hour.\u201d<\/p>\n
Study<\/p>\n
18 \u2013 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. <\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Just as you heard that an antichrist is coming, <\/strong><\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The word Antichrist\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>is a source of great confusion.\u00a0 \u00a0The problem is not in translating from Greek to English as antichrist is simply a transliteration of \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (antichristos).\u00a0 The problem is in translating from the 1st<\/sup> century to the 21st<\/sup>. John is the only one to use this term in the New Testament.\u00a0\u00a0 Jesus warned about False Christs (\u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03cc\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 – 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 (\u1f41 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u00a0— 2 THess 2:3).\u00a0 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).\u00a0 Whatever the reference, John is referring to an antichrist that will to come at some time in the future. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 so now many antichrists have appeared<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Just as there will be an Antichrist, now there are many antichrists. \u00a0The view is that these will be lesser ones leading up to the real antichrist. \u00a0They share the same spirit and these antichrists will be the precursor to the real thing.\u00a0\u00a0 But this is where the problem begins.\u00a0 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.\u00a0\u00a0 But little if any of this was in John\u2019s mind or the mind of his readers.\u00a0 So we must try to understand the term as John intended, which refers to those against or opposed to Christ.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This is how we know it is the last hour.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It is the presences of the antichrists that tells us we are in the last hour. \u00a0\u00a0Returning to last week\u2019s question about the meaning of \u201cthe last hour<\/strong><\/em>\u201d\u00a0 we can note the following:<\/p>\n 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. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The \u201clast hour\u201d then is that period of time where some unbelievers will cloak there unbelief by claiming to be true followers or Christ.<\/p>\n Looking at the options from last week, John it would seem, \u00a0meant either Option A (that age from the ministry of Christ to the Second Coming) or possibly C (referring \u00a0more the quality of the age rather than the time period). \u00a0It is important to note that John is not talking about WHEN the second coming will happen,\u00a0 he is talking about the period of deception leading up to it and he is point out that this period had already started.<\/p>\n 19 \u2013 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. <\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 They left us<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 John\u2019s readers have known who he was talking about from the very beginning, now we find out. \u00a0\u00a0The Greek is ambiguous (\u1f10\u03be \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd) .\u00a0 This could refer to origin \u2013 us being the place they were from, or it could refer to membership \u2013they had belonged to us. \u00a0But either way this was a church split. They were once a part of the church but they left.\u00a0<\/p>\n First century churches were normally small and close so the split certainly involved friends, and very likely family members.\u00a0 This was the event that sparked the letter,\u00a0and it\u00a0helps\u00a0us to understand\u00a0the context\u00a0that stood behind the it.\u00a0\u00a0These 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.\u00a0 They already knew exactly what was going on.<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It is important to note that they were not thrown out, they left.\u00a0 While disputes and disagreements were common in the early church people did not leave the faith. \u00a0For example, in \u00a0\u00a0Gal 2:11\u00a0 Paul wrote about his disagreement with Peter.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly wrong.<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In Act 15:39 the disagreement between Paul and Barnabus \u00a0was so sharp that they parted ways. Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus.\u00a0<\/strong><\/em> Yet while they parted ways, neither left the faith.\u00a0 In Rom 14: 13 Paul gives the following instruction to those who were in disagreement Therefore, let\u2019s no longer criticize each other.<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The 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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n But in the chruch John was writting to, there was something far more fundamental than a dispute over which day we should worship on.\u00a0 These people departed over core doctrine\u2014They had left the faith.\u00a0 But this immediately raises the question that \u00a0if Christians can abandon their faith, what does that say about eternal security?<\/p>\n they were not part of us<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 John address the issue by refuting the premise, they did none loose their salvation because never were in the faith. \u00a0\u00a0He does this by first making a claim, and then gives a logical argument to support it.<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Technically his argument is a hypothetical syllogism of the form Modus Tollens.\u00a0 This is \u00a0a deductive argument, \u00a0which means if the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed. \u00a0\u00a0If we put it into classical form:\u00a0<\/p>\n If they had been part of us, then they would have stayed with us. Questions and Discussion<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n The discussion this week centered a lot on the term antichrist and how applicable it is to groups like the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses and Mormons. \u00a0\u00a0Here we much be careful.\u00a0 As John intended the term, i.e.,\u00a0 referring to those who claim to be follows of Christ when they really oppose him, the term would be accurate.\u00a0\u00a0 However, that is not the common meaning of the term today. \u00a0To say that Mormons and Jehovah\u2019s witnesses are antichrists would really be inaccurate without a lot of qualifications about exactly what is meant by the term.\u00a0 \u00a0It may be accurate in the way that John used the term, but it would not be accurate\u00a0\u00a0given the modern understanding.<\/p>\n If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at\u00a0elgin@hushbeck.com<\/a>\u00a0and be sure to put \u201cEpistles of John\u201d in the header.<\/p>\n See here for references and more background on the class<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
\u00a0i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 They Left us (2:19-20)<\/h5>\n
\nThey did not stay with us.\ufffd
\nTherefore they were not part of us.<\/p>\n