Re: [TruthTalk] Re:APRIL FOOLS DAY???

[Wm. Taylor]

I've not read through the archives yet to research the topic of I John, to see whether it has been beat to death -- this reason the beloved Apostle wrote the letter in the first place. And so if this is old news or if it is something you have already studied, then disregard my argument -- your mind is already made up. But if there is a desire to get to a broader understanding of I John through a study of the cultural context into and from which John wrote, then maybe I can be of some help.   I John was probably written within five years of the Gospel of John, the latter coming first. Both were written toward the end of the First century. I believe they were written, the both of them, to address an ongoing and developing problem in the Ephesian area. Ephesus itself was a hub city and a hot-bed of ideas, most of them wacky to the core. Ephesus was where the East met the West, so to speak. And so there was always a fresh tension there between old and new, no matter how old or new the ideas actually were (I once wrote a paper on Artemis of Ephesus, wherein I argued that I Timothy needs to be interpreted through an understanding of this Greek goddess to get to Paul's injunction against women teaching in the church. I would be glad to forward it on to anyone who might be interested in knowing, if nothing more, a little bit about the influence of Artemis on Ephesian culture and a possible solution to the ongoing debate over the role of women in church. Anyway, back to the present discussion).   The problem being address in both I John and the Gospel of John, I believe, was gnosticism. Now, I know that this is an old argument and is thus probably not new to this group, but let me tell you why I see it as relevant to our discussion. I have read many commentaries that wax eloquent about the threat of the Gnostics to John's little community, but I have yet to read one that considers and takes seriously this threat once the actual commentary begins. This is a grave mistake. It distorts the whole meaning of John's intent. The entire letter of I John is a warning to false prophets and a rebuttal of their claims. These false prophets were Gnostics. It's not enough to give a cursory nod to this cult in an introduction to the book, whereby to mention the Gnostics and then go on to the important stuff of I John, never again giving them a thought. No! When we interpret I John we must always ask first what did this passage say to or about this group and the ones whom they had hurt. Understanding and application comes after cultural/historic context is established. To know what it means to us, we have to first ask what it meant in and to those little churches of 1st c. Ephesus.   The Gnostics at the end of the First century were already developing ideas about the Incarnation which were quite antithetical to Christian life and thought. Their Greek mindset forbade them to think that flesh could be saved. Flesh by nature of being flesh was evil. The heavens were the place of the spirit/mind, of universals, of Forms, of truth and true knowledge. Flesh was a part of the material/natural realm and was thus imperfect and unsalvable. Jesus therefore could not have had a real flesh and bone body. He had to have only appeared to be human. "When Jesus walked upon the sand he left no footprints." Hence both the Gospel and the Epistle begin with a strong affirmation of Christ's divinity and his humanity. I John especially dwells upon his true physical presence (an indication that the problem was worsening, not getting better): "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life -- this life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us -- that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ" (NKJ 1 John 1.1-3).   What were a couple of the beliefs which threatened fellowship, both vertically and horizontally in these churches?   1. Gnostics believed that sin took place in the body first and migrated to the mind. But the mind of the Gnostic had been redeemed in Christ and could not sin; it was a new creation. The body was unredeemable and therefore did not matter. What was done in the body was irrelevant to salvation, hence one could do what he or she wanted in the body and it would not translate into sin (the Gnostics are the ones who gave Epicureans a bad name; think about it}:>). That which could be saved had been saved and therefore could not sin.   2. Gnostics believed that saving gnosis (knowledge) came through a secret initiation, whereby true truth was imparted. Hence the knowledge of the Gospel, the gospel knowledge which the true Christians of these churches had heard and believed, was insufficient to bring them assurance of salvation. They needed this higher knowledge to know certainty and have assurance.   What does John say to challenge and warn against these beliefs? And in light of that, what is John saying to us?   First of all, I think it is an absolutely crucial distinction to realize that John's language is as strong as it is because he is warning against false teachings from false prophets, who denied Christ and were attempting to add to the Gospel of Christ. I John is not about lining out a few wayward brothers. No, the Gnostics had rejected Christ and were in grave danger of sending themselves to hell. Not only that but they were destroying the confidence of true believers in the process. When John uses the contrasts of light v darkness, good v evil, the love of God v the love of the world, children of God v children of the devil, the Spirit of Christ v the spirit of anti-christ, and so on, he is painting a lucid picture: there is no living the Christian life with one foot in each of these camps; they are incompatible the one to the other. There is no salvation for the one who denies Christ; and there is no assurance of salvation for the Christian who is not living in full obedience to the Gospel of Christ. John begins his letter addressing the most dangerous of Gnostic beliefs, the one which could sin them to hell, the denial of Christ's Incarnation, and from there moving outward. Jesus was a real man and truly God! His body was resurrected too! His entire letter is therefore about restoring fellowship and re-establishing confidence in Christ, that the Christians of these churches might experience joy and that the non-Christians might come to saving repentance.   With this in mind let's look at some of this first chapter of I John: 3-4 -- that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write to you that your joy may be full. By planting seeds of doubt through their denial of Christ the Gnostics had stripped true believes of these things -- confidence, fellowship, and joy. John begins the process of re-establishment right here. We have seen and heard Jesus: he is real; you can be confident in this, and if this is not enough, let me say it again -- 5-6 -- This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. The false prophets were claiming fellowship with God through their special initiation into his realm of gnosis, yet they were actually walking in darkness. John says if "we" (still holding out hope for their repentance; he does this over and over -- If we ...) do this we lie and do not practice truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. Notice the emphasis on the blood of Jesus Christ. Spirit beings do not shed blood. It is only the flesh-and-bone kind of blood of the true man Jesus Christ that cleanses from all sin. To walk in the light is to fellowship with others in the body of Christ. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. John has just established the physical blood of Christ as that which cleanses sin. He now turns his attention to the ones who claim to have no sin -- in the mind -- and who also claim that Christ is not concerned with what humans do in the physical body. Yet it was Christ's own body which bled and died and was resurrected, giving them life. They Gnostics were living in deception. The truth was not in them. This may speak to the ambiguity in English translations. If translators are not taking into account these Gnostic claims and John's emphatic rebuttal, they may being missing the thrust of John's intent. The Gnostics were saying that they were not sinning (continuous present tense), yet they were deceived! 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. This may be the most misunderstood, misapplied, and therefore most damaging verse in the entire Bible. First of all, this word homologeo (to confess) means "to speak the same thing"; in this instance it means to speak the same thing as God through his messenger John about the ongoing sin in which the Gnostics were entangled. In every occurrence of this word in the NT it is in reference to verbal-vocal communication, to audibly speak. John is not writing here to Christians about an ongoing confession of sin in our prayer life, on our knees before bedtime (although that can be quite appropriate and good); he is writing directly to those who had denied the Lord who redeemed them and were in grave danger of condemning themselves to hell. He was telling them if they would but confess that sin -- verbally so as to clear up the confusion they had stirred up in church -- God would faithfully forgive them even of this most grievous sin and cleanse and restore them to righteousness. When we miss this, we heap loads of sin and guilt upon the backs of believers. This is Pelagius running amuck. This is Martin Luther running back and forth to the confessional. This is me, a little boy too scared to go to sleep because I may have forgotten to confess all of my sin. This paints God an ogre. It makes him fickle, placing conditions upon the forgiveness all ready established in his Son. John is specific and emphatic! We dare not make this a general belief/practice, one of sin, confession, forgiveness > sin, confession, forgiveness > sin, confession, forgiveness, ad infintum; because when we do this, we distort the entire Gospel. We turn it on its face. We change the good news of reconciliation and forgiveness already wrought out in Christ Jesus into the most psychologically blatant of lies. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.   I will be happy to share more from this stream of thought. Please just ask me. Bill Taylor                    ----- Original Message ----- From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:APRIL FOOLS DAY??? John, my first experience with Greek came under the tutelage of Mounce's Grammar. I know him personally, as he was promoting this work at the University I attended. He swung through on a regular basis to see how we were doing and if he had made himself clear in terms of presentation. This very question was asked of him, the one concerning continuous activity, nothing to do with I John in particular. The question had more to do with an English understanding of gerunds (verbal nouns) than a Greek understanding of participles. His answer was lucid: There is no gerund in Greek. Greek words appear in Greek. They only become problematic in translation. At the point of translation English is always an approximation of a Greek thought. Hence the target is too approximate as closely as we can Greek words and ideas. Hence it is not inappropriate to translate a present tense with a gerund-based English approximation. Nor is it always necessary or even possible to do this. The point is to get the present tense across the divide, if a gerund will do this then by all means use it. The point is to get it across the language barrier into English while conveying the Greek idea as closely as possible. Our problem of course is this: Ideas are always interpretive. This is the same thing I am speaking to in my pistis post. There is always an interpretive task involved any time we try to convey meaning. That task increases exponentially when trying to convey it across a language barrier.   I think the continuous case is appropriate here. While the English texts do not state it as such, that present tense idea must still be taken into view. That's my two onions worth.   Bill    ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 6:38 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:APRIL FOOLS DAY??? In a message dated 4/1/2004 5:19:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because you quoted Mounce, let me quote him concerning the presentactive indicative verb.  "The present active indicative verb in Greek isbasically the same as in English.  It describes an action that usuallyoccurs in the present.  It can be either a continuous ("I am studying")or undefined ("I study") action.  We recommend using a continuoustranslation by default, and if it does not fit the context switch to theundefined."  (My, John's , emphasis) Ok  -- I am in the twilight zone here, missing something.  I took these words from Terrys quote of David Miller (I think).  I did not get this email apparently.  And this is why I am saying maybe our disagreement is semantical.  Or maybe I am just plain dumb but is not this quote saying exactly what I was saying"   Terry quotes: "The Spirit is willing, but this old flesh is weak. There you go and Terry may have said it better than I.  I do not believe in "total depravity."    When it come to being perfect, sinless, it is not that can't do.  Rather, it is because we won"t.  Romans 7  makes this abundantly clear.  The battle rages  -- one will against the other.  Anyway, Terry put it exactly.   john