Week 23: \u00a0Mar 11, 2012<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Study<\/em><\/p>\n 20 \u2013 You have an anointing from the Holy One and know all things.[1]<\/strong><\/p>\n an anointing <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 John returns his focus back to his readers by point out how they are distinctive.\u00a0 But exactly what does he mean by anointing?\u00a0\u00a0 The Greek word here (\u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1)\u00a0 is a noun and it only occurs here and in verse 27 in the NT.\u00a0 The verbal form is found in several places. \u00a0\u00a0In Luke 4:18, Acts 4:27, 10:38, and Heb 1:9 it refer to Jesus being anointed by God.\u00a0\u00a0 In 2 Cor 1:21-22 it is used in relation to us. \u00a0Now the one who makes us\u2014and you as well\u2014secure in union with the Messiah\u00a0 and has anointed us is God, 22<\/sup>who has placed his seal on us and has given us the Spirit in our hearts as a down payment.<\/em><\/strong> The word literally means to, mark or touch lightly will oil to indicate some calling. \u00a0\u00a0Louw Nida gives the meaning of the noun form of the word as an \u201cassignment. \u201d\u00a0 While in the Greek translation of the OT it is used in 1 Sam 9:16 where Saul is to be anointed King.<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 As to what John means, unfortunately, this is where our lack of knowledge shows.\u00a0 We know that later Christians and Gnostics both had ritual anointing with oil. \u00a0\u00a0Later Gnostics claimed they had a special anointing (again tied by to their secret knowledge), but there is no evidence of this during 1st<\/sup> century.\u00a0\u00a0 As for the other mentions of\u00a0 \u201canointing\u201d in NT,\u00a0\u00a0 The Greek word in these cases\u00a0 is \u1f24\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd not \u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 and refers to the physical application of perfume or oil as in the following:<\/p>\n The use by John here is most likely figurative. It is possible that John is using a play on words as the word Christ (\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2) is related and literally means the anointed one.\u00a0 In which case, the antichrists then would be the anti-anointed ones.<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In terms of the overall meaning of the verse, there are some strong parallel to the Gospel of John<\/p>\n 1 John 14:17 \u2013\u00a0 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.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n 2 John 15:26 \u2013 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.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n 3 John 16:13 \u2013 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.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 So this leaves us with the following options:<\/p>\n 1 This is referring to a ritual that was performed. Again there is no evidence for such a ritual in the first century.\u00a0\u00a0 But there is a deeper problem here. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Those who left would have done the same ritual. So this would not really set them apart.<\/p>\n 2 Because of the parallels with Gospel of John , many conclude that the anointing is the gift of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0\u00a0 This fits the broader context nicely \u2013 i.e. that it teaches us the truth (v27).\u00a0\u00a0 It also has the advantage of being objective, i.e., we can test by the Word of God.<\/p>\n 4 Finally it is possible to see this as a combination of 2 and 3.\u00a0 \u00a0It is God\u2019s Word, not as preached, but as receive by the work of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 My view:<\/p>\n While 4 has a lot of merit, I believe that the focus on the identity of the anointing somewhat misses John\u2019s point. \u00a0Many commentators see John as still arguing against his opponents and this is yet another argument. \u00a0But I don\u2019t believe that the main issue here is distinguishing Christians from those who left, but the security of salvation.<\/p>\n In context, John has just said that those who left were never part of us. \u00a0This shows that the security of salvation was an issue. \u00a0\u00a0After 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.\u00a0 Maybe they are not really part of the church either.\u00a0 It is this context that John mentions the anointing.\u00a0\u00a0 It is interesting to note alone these lines that the only other use of \u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 apart from Christ occurs in 2 Cor 1:21-22, a passage \u00a0which also is focused on the security of the believer. \u00a0While the others left, showing that they were not really believers in the first place, John\u2019 reader remained. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0John 14:23-24\u00a0\u00a0 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.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n from the Holy One<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 While this could be God the Father, it is more likely Jesus following the pattern of John 6:69 where Peter says, \u201cBesides, we have believed and remain convinced that you are the Holy One of God.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n and know all things.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 There is a minor textual issue \u00a0at this point with some manuscripts reading \u00a0and know all things<\/em><\/strong>. (\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1)\u00a0 while others have and all of you know<\/em><\/strong> (\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2)<\/p>\n 1 In favor of and know all things<\/em><\/strong> is that this reading has a little broader textual evidence.\u00a0 The problem is that it results in an incomplete sentence for \u201cto know\u201d requires an object (i.e, what is known).\u00a0 The NIV handles this by supplying the world \u201ctruth\u201d drawing it from the context of the next verse.<\/p>\n 2 In favor of and all of you know<\/em><\/strong> is that it is a complete sentence and it is the slightly older reading.<\/p>\n Still the evidence is pretty balanced and it comes down to which you think was more likely, that a scribe thought that\u00a0 \u201cand all of you know<\/em><\/strong>\u201d\u00a0 needed something as in \u201c\u2026 all of you know _______\u201d\u00a0 and changed this to .. and know all things. Or, is it more likely that a scribe though that to \u201cand know all things<\/em><\/strong>\u201d made us too much like Christ and changed this to read \u201cand all of you know.\u201d<\/p>\n As is always the case with such issues, there is no real theological point at stake, only how we understand this particularly passage. \u00a0This is abundantly clear when we realize that the reading and know all things <\/em><\/strong>is very similar to\u00a0 2:27\u00a0 while and all of you know<\/em><\/strong> is similar to\u00a0 2:21.<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Either way John is making a statement about our position.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1 You know lies are not in the truth<\/p>\n 21 \u2013 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because lies don\u2019t come from truth.<\/strong><\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 John again emphasizes that that his condemnations are not directed at them, and he affirms there standing in the faith.\u00a0 This is emphasized in both a negative and then a positive fashion. \u00a0What they know is the truth. \u00a0\u00a0Flow of the argument over the last two verses is:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Questions and Discussion<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The discussion this week centered on the role of evidence.\u00a0 If the anointing is understood as simply the Holy Spirit, there is the problem of subjectivity.\u00a0\u00a0 For example, Mormons when ask about their faith routinely talk about their testimony which centers on a subjective experience.\u00a0 They believe this experience to be the Holy Spirit.\u00a0 The problems with this immediately appear when their testimony is compared to the testimony of others that conflicts with theirs.\u00a0 How could anyone know they were correct? \u00a0Mine, is an example of a conflicting testimony<\/a>.\u00a0 While their testimony says that Mormonism is true, mine is that it is false<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n When we do compare, Mormonism to the teaching of the Bible, it quickly falls short, and thus \u00a0it is no wonder that Mormons have to fall back on dubious claims that \u00a0parts of the Bible have been removed or changed so as to obscure the teachings they think should be there.\u00a0 Unfortunately for the Mormons, the text is very\u00a0 well known and the minor difference that do exist among the thousands of manuscript are like the ones discussed in this week\u2019s class and are not even close to the types of changes that their theories would need.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com<\/a> and be sure to put \u201cEpistles of John\u201d in the header.<\/em><\/p>\n See here for references and more background on the class<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\nf.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Why John Writes (2:21-27)<\/h4>\n
i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Premise: You Know all things (2:20-1)<\/h5>\n
\n
\n