1 John 1:1-4

[T]

Okay so that was a lot of great info that I just learned. But I seriously am bothered by this one thing. As I read your posts Mark, I feel as I read, like I’ve heard you before. I have but a few times had the privilege to sit and listen to someone that speaks and teaches as you write, but his name is not Mark. Have we met before? This name…Mark, is this your real name or an alias or maybe you are to remain hidden behind a secret name? Like this “retzev” fellow, it’s like “Hester” backwards (Vezter), but not quite. Who is this retzev?

[T]

oh yeah and I had this question really quick:

Jhn 6:28 Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?"
Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

My question here is this: The people were asking what works they can do for God. Did Jesus answer them saying the work they must do is believe in Jesus? Or, was he radically changing it up and saying that the work is not yours, but God's. His work in you is that you believe in His Son whom He sent. You see what I mean here? If the first meaning is correct, then why not translate: Jesus answered and said to them, "The work you must do for God is, believe in Me." But, if the latter is correct in translation, then this concept that the work belonged to God, and not man, must have been mind bending for these people!

[Deleted]

Thank you for the compliment. That is how I take it. We may have met when you visited our church with Ryan, but I don't remember if it was more than an intro. I am using my real name on this forum. I don't know who "retzev" is but I do know it's not me. There is so much I do not know, but I did go through a major struggle with relative pronouns in 1Timothy when we were exploring them there. Other than that, all I can say is that we are all meeting the Holy Spirit here.

[Deleted]

Oct 8, 2012 21:27:45 GMT -7 T said:

oh yeah and I had this question really quick:

Jhn 6:28 Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?"
Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

My question here is this: The people were asking what works they can do for God. Did Jesus answer them saying the work they must do is believe in Jesus? Or, was he radically changing it up and saying that the work is not yours, but God's. His work in you is that you believe in His Son whom He sent. You see what I mean here? If the first meaning is correct, then why not translate: Jesus answered and said to them, "The work you must do for God is, believe in Me." But, if the latter is correct in translation, then this concept that the work belonged to God, and not man, must have been mind bending for these people!

I think I see what you mean but as I understand it, the issue is not that what Jesus was saying was new or radically different as much as He was pointing out that this crowd had the wrong motive for seeking Him.

Verse 26 tells us their motive was wrong. The crowd was only seeking Jesus because of the physical food He provided the day before, not because of the sign pointing to Him as the Messiah. The “work” they were doing was “the seeking” after Jesus for only physical food. So in verse 27 Jesus tells them do not “be working”, (which is their seeking Jesus) for food that perishes but for food that is eternal. He tells them that this is “food” that is eternal thats being offered by the Son of Man, for this One has the seal of approval from God. In other words, Jesus has the authority to give to them food that is eternally satisfying meaning, salvation.

Now at this point they have been told that the physical food is not the point, that they have wrong motives and that Jesus can give them salvation. And how do they respond? How do we do those signs ourselves. Jesus’ answer is on par with everything He has been telling them. Verse 29 He says This is the work of God, in order that you might believe into the He whom that One sent. Now in Greek “this is the work” is what’s called a predicate nominative. It means that “this” and “the work” are in the same case because of the verb that is used. One of these words is the subject and the other is the direct object but it takes a little work to figure out which is which. The rule is that the one with the article is the subject. So in English it would be This work (subject) is (verb) this (direct object). Remember that the work he is talking about is the seeking. The works they are talking about is the miracles. In other words, the purpose for seeking Jesus is this. The “this” then is laid out in the end of the verse. Seek Jesus in order that you might believe into The one whom that One sent. So, as I understand the passage, Jesus is saying don’t seek me for food or God’s power, or to be able to perform miracles, seek me in order that you might believe into me and receive salvation. Note that I used a literal translation for might believe “into” the One... Throughout the NT, the presentation is alway one of believing into Jesus. It is not just what you believe. Anyone can say I believe that. But did their belief show that they are in Jesus. Believing that a man can hold a chair on a high-wire a thousand feet off the ground without falling is not the same kind of belief that puts that same person INTO the chair he is holding. Being able to trust you life into Jesus for salvation is that kind of persuasion that only God can give. Seek Him that you might believe into Him whom the Father has sent for He has the authority to give to you eternal life. It’s all about motive in this passage. Does that help with your question?

[T]

Yes, that helped out a lot. In fact, I didn't even realize they were seeking after the "works" of God; that is, I didn't know they were asking Jesus how to get His ability to do the things He was doing. So if the people had the wrong motive and had the wrong perspective, why did Jesus seemingly keeping feeding that outward, physical outlook by continuing to do miracles that fed that appetite?

[Deleted]

Well first off, I don’t think the entire crowd was made up of the same people. In the parallel accounts in Matthew 14 and Mark 6 we are told that Jesus himself “sent away” the crowd after the feeding of the 5 thousand men and their families the night before. The disciples got into a boat and left for the other side of the sea. In those parallel accounts we are told that the next morning, when Jesus got to the other side of the sea, He was recognized immediately by the people who then went throughout the whole land to gather the sick and disabled, and that at least some who were at that feeding of the 5 thousand men the night before, got into boats and went “seeking” Jesus. This account starting in John 6:22 is that mixed new crowd. This conversation recorded in John 6:22 is just a part of what was going on during that next day on the other side of the sea.As to why Jesus spoke to people who had wrong motives and did not understand, I can think of some reasons.

First Jesus decides who He will speak to and not speak to:

Matthew 13:13 “Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see,
and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Second, understanding, even among the disciples was very limited during that time. Note that it wasn’t until the
last supper that Luke says regarding Jesus to the Apostles:

Luke 24:45 “Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” regarding the suffering of the Christ.
And In Matthew 13:11 Jesus answered them, “ To you it has been granted to know the
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted...

Third, only later, after the resurrection of Jesus and after having received the Holy Spirit, would they be permitted
to reflect on all that had been said and done and understand the spiritual meaning:

John 12:16 These things His disciples did not understand at the first; but when Jesus was glorified, then
they remembered that these things were written of Him, and that they had done these things to Him.

Lastly, it is not for the sake of those who won’t believe, but for the sake of those who will:

John 20:30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples,
which are not written in this book; John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.


I admit that I have never thought of that question and don’t quite understand why you would ask. May I ask you if you understand that they were coming to him wanting only the miracle and His response was that He Himself was the miracle and that “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him...” That is, to seek Him on a human level for what He can do for me is an unacceptable “work”. But to be drawn to seeking Him through repentance and salvation is the “work” of the Father and the only acceptable way to be seeking Him. I think it is very important for us to know about this conversation that He had with them.

[T]

What I see here is a people who were sick, blind and poor, left to fend for themselves. The "religious" leaders not only ignored these people, but they burdened them with excessive rules and made it next to impossible to come to the temple and worship God. Instead of leading and shepherding the flock, they fleeced them and left them to die. Instead of teaching the Word and teaching them to look for the Messiah, they made up their own teachings to benefit themselves and their positions of power. So, what do you think people would do, if someone in town was actually doing the "work" of God and healing the sick and feeding them? I wonder who would have listened had Jesus never done any miracles. What crowds would He have drawn? Since only those that the Father draws will believe, why did Jesus waste His time doing miracles and humanitarian deeds, mixed with parables of the Kingdom? He should have just stood at the corners and talked, and when they brought out the sick, He should have turned away and left them, (being that healing and doing miracles was not why He was there). So, my question remains, why bother with the miracles? Everything you explained, I understand, but it doesn't answer my question. Unless John 20:31 is the answer.

[Deleted]

Please forgive me T. if I did not understand your question. I thought I was answering a quick question on John chapter 6 and specifically about what Jesus meant vs. the crowd when the word “work” was used. I tried to answer that question from what the text says.

re: "So, my question remains, why bother with the miracles?"

The main purpose of the signs was to demonstrate that Jesus was the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. That is why I keep calling them signs. They point to Jesus as that promised Messiah. Secondarily, we are told many times that Jesus had compassion upon the people. And yet, we know that not all were healed. Timothy’s stomach, Paul’s eyes etc. were not healed and the hospitals are full to this day and even those that were raised from the dead are not still alive as far as I know. So not a kind of compassion that physically heals or enriches everyone then nor now. I also know that salvation is not all inclusive for the sick, blind and poor. Someone can want a miracle to alleviate their infirmity, but want nothing to do with a Holy, Righteous God and that cannot be pinned on the Pharisees (though I whole heartedly agree with your description of them). Yet the fact remains that when the text says the work “of God” that it means that it is God doing the work and not man doing work “for God”. The Work of God" that Jesus was speaking of is the provision of the Messiah by the Father. The physical signs that He did were to confirm that He was that Messiah promised in the Old Testament. It was for them at that time and us in our time according to John 20:31. If the Father does not draw someone, then or now, they won't be able to understand that. They won't even see their need for salvation. The statement "Father drawing them" does not have to mean He makes them believe. What I get from the Bible is that it means that God presents every man coming into the world with the light. Every person is then responsible for how they respond to that light. To those who responded favorably, the Father draws them to Jesus. They could not have sought Jesus without the Father and yet they are responsible for how they responded to the light. I think John chapter 1 and 3 bare this out. You noticed that every time someone asked about physical signs, He responded with the spiritual teaching. That's because salvation, at a minimum trumps physical infirmity or social condition and yet God is compassionate to those who are His. Remember what he said to the paralytic: Matthew 9:5 “Which is easier, to say, ‘ Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, and walk’? Matthew 9:6 “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” — then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.” He healed the man in order that they might know He has authority to forgive sins. You see, when Jesus is talking about healing etc, He is ultimately talking about salvation. He is not talking about bringing a fallen, rebellious world of poor into the middle class, or healing the rebellious sick, or eye surgery for every rebellious blind person only to destroy them all in Judgement. When He is talking about having compassion, it is for the sake of salvation for those who God would draw because of their response to the light. The ultimate act of compassion was John 3:16 and yet while powerful enough to provide salvation for anyone ever born, it is conditional to repentance that leads to being born from above.

[T]

Yes, I understand. The more important focus is the eternal, but not to discount compassion with the message of salvation. Again, I don't think Jesus would have reached as many people with His message if He had not done any signs or had compassion on the sick and the poor. Heck, we are even told in James that true religion is taking care of widows and orphans. So, we are to have humanitarian care and love AND present the gospel. And like back then, you may have people come for just the human care, but some may receive the message. But to discount charity and love to only give the gospel would be a mistake. That's not the way Jesus did things and as His followers, I don't believe that is the way Christians should be.
As far as the original question, I asking was Jesus telling them this, "Hey, it's not the work YOU can do, but the work of salvation is God's.
Your first response:
I think I see what you mean but as I understand it, the issue is not that what Jesus was saying was new or radically different as much as He was pointing out that this crowd had the wrong motive for seeking Him.
Verse 26 tells us their motive was wrong. The crowd was only seeking Jesus because of the physical food He provided the day before, not because of the sign pointing to Him as the Messiah. The “work” they were doing was “the seeking” after Jesus for only physical food. So in verse 27 Jesus tells them do not “be working”, (which is their seeking Jesus) for food that perishes but for food that is eternal. He tells them that this is “food” that is eternal that’s being offered by the Son of Man, for this One has the seal of approval from God. In other words, Jesus has the authority to give to them food that is eternally satisfying meaning, salvation.
Your second response:
Yet the fact remains that when the text says the work “of God” that it means that it is God doing the work and not man doing work “for God”.

It might be just me, but your SECOND response more lines up with the interpretation of the text that I was asking about and seemed to more closely answer my question. But, your FIRST response dealt more with an underlining issue Jesus was trying to address with the people and their miss focus. Because your response dealt more with the people and their physical conditions (which was their miss focus), it caused me to ask another question. Which was, "Why did Jesus perform miracles which focus on the physical?” In other words, why did He do this to a people who already had a problem with looking at their physical problems and not their spiritual eternal problems?" I think that if the plan from the beginning by God, (in order to show signs that pointed to His Messiah), was the Messiah would build ten thousands chairs, I believe Jesus would have done just that to prove He was the Messiah. But I also believe He would have STILL had compassion on people and healed them, even if that wasn't part of proving He was the Messiah. I still remain convinced that if all Jesus did was stand on a corner and talk, He would not have drawn the crowds that He did and would not have been a prominent person to listen to. The apostles did the same with their God given powers and people responded in droves. Yes, did the majority of the people use them to just get healed and not believe the gospel, probably? But, charity (love) and compassion was almost always used together with the message of the gospel given.
In Acts, there was a town, I can't remember where this was, but there was a town mentioned that said they loved the Christians. It was the Pharisees and religious bigots that stirred trouble, and lies, and gossip to turn the people against the Christians. I hate it when I hear a pastor today say that when non-Christians don't like you, and talk bad about you, then you must be doing something right. Well, that's not the way it was in Acts, and I don't think it should be that way now. If we were living Christ in us to the world, we should look like a people forgiving, loving, compassionate, with a message of the gospel to those who will hear. This is not the image of most churches today. The reason, same as always, lack of pastors reading the word without their own spin. Just READ the Word and let the Holy Spirit bring that light to them, they will respond or they won't. Simple. But without the Word, people will fall back to looking for physical fixes and their thoughts on eternal choices and consequences will slowly fade to nothing.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

[Deleted]

Thank T you for sharing your thoughts on this. I will let the following close out my comments on this section of John chapter 6 as I don’t have anything to add to what has already been said. I have learned over the years to let the text, in this case this limited section of John we were discussing, form my positions. My priority of order is to determine what the text is actually saying grammar wise, then to understand it’s meaning within the context, and finally it’s relationship to other sections. The gospels are mainly a historical record of events. They do have some teaching within them, but unless stated as such, they are a record of history. Jesus himself presented that those he addressed were in error, why it was wrong and gives us in conclusion what is right. That would be the position I would encourage someone to have, nothing more, nothing less. Not that your questions are or are not valid questions, it’s just that from my training, I don’t see how your questions are answered in any way by this section of Scripture, nor how this section supports your statements and conclusions. If an “answer” from the text does not answer the question, then it could be that the question is not appropriate for the text, but it certainly could also just be an inability on my part. Perhaps others can be more helpful than I. Thanks again for your thoughts.

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2012 15:36:43 GMT -7 ryan said:

Okay, here is a recap:

-...
2. What exactly does it mean to have your "Joy full"? The Greek word for "Full" here has to do with "Filling the inner faculties". When other verses say that people were "Filled" with the Holy Spirit this word is used to show how The Holy Spirit filled their inner faculties and used them for His purposes. So how does that apply to "Joy" here?

Other than that, I think we are pretty good with this first section.

The first thing I can point out from consulting the Greek text is that the English translation above says “your” joy. Both the Textus Receptus and Older texts have “our” joy in the text but variants of those same texts have a margin note from a scribe for “your”. As the Comfort Commentary (a commentary on textual differences) points out, This is done because of the use of the “we might have fellowship with you”. The “we”, “you” and “fellowship” parts, in context MEAN yours and ours. It is an interpretation choice to say “your” and by doing so, demonstrate that our joy is your joy, and your joy is our joy which is obvious from the context. In the end, i hope you can see that using “our” or “your” is ok and does not change the meaning. If there were a southern word like youins and ourins that covered both scenarios, I would opt for that one. Maybe that’s usins?

The word “joy” means satisfaction. It is deeper and more encompassing than “happy”. In the reference you cited Ryan, the context is that it is not the human effort doing any work, but the Spirit has overtaken their faculties to the point that there is no human effort being done. I think Iv'e heard the closest English concept would be to be possessed. The evidences of the Spirit being in control is that The Spirit is the one doing the work. In the case of 1John and “joy” the context is that they (the apostles) are announcing a message. The hina with the subjunctive, as you know, shows that a purpose is about to be given. The subjunctive is the verb “might be being”. I put it that way because it is a present tense verb showing continuous action. Then the direct object of a perfect tense participle showing a present condition based upon a past action. Right now, the author cannot say they are having fellowship. The past action will become the giving of the message that they got from the beginning. The present declaration of the recipient having fellowship or not having fellowship will be based upon how they respond to the message. You see, for their to be fellowship they have to receive the message as opposed to rebel or push back against it. The apostles are giving the message “in order that” the recipient “MIGHT” come into a condition where there is fellowship. If they do, then both the sender and the recipient are having fellowship with the Father and the Son. So because the Spirit is One, when He fills a person, the person has all of the Spirit and is overtaken. But I think when it comes to joy, I can be completely overtake by the joy of my fellowship with the Lord and believers, and yet have added to my joy, the joy of YOUR coming into the fellowship - as indeed I have!

[ryan]

Roger that. That makes sense. Out and over!!

[Deleted]

What "beginning" is John talking about?

As stated already, there is a primary clause and then secondary clauses under that primary clause. The primary clause is “that which was [eternal past existence] from beginning” and verb for the action is in verse 3 “we proclaim to you”.

Now the secondary clauses “they heard, touched, saw, and viewed” all need that primary clause to know what they are talking about. What they heard, touched, saw and viewed was this “neuter thing eternally existing from beginning”. But notice the prepositional phrase “concerning the word of life”. All these secondary clauses are concerning “the Word of life”. All of that is under that primary clause. The Word of life is “that which was [eternally existing] from beginning. So someone might say well how did you hear, touch, see, and view something from eternity? So John gives the answer in verse 2 and also gives us the timing.

Now vs 2 breaks down the timing. That life “was manifested” which is an aorist verb as apposed to the imperfect for the “thing that was from beginning” and it was manifested, so that’s the incarnation. John then links the Word of life to the eternal life as the same thing that had they seen. So the Word of life is the eternal life and that eternal life was [eternally existing] with the Father. That “was with the Father” is the same construction as John 1:1 only using Father instead of God. The Word of life “pros ton pater” or was eternally existing in equality with the Father. That’s the timing of “that which was from beginning”. And that Word of life, the eternal life was then manifested [aorist] to them as described in verse 1.

Are you able to follow what I'm trying to point out here?

[Deleted]

RE: Verses 1 & 2 - Here is a summation with some word meanings.

All the relative pronouns are the subject of their own relative clauses and each is functioning substantively (functioning as a noun) with no anticeedant provided.Then the Entire primary clause with it’s secondary clauses are functioning as the direct object of the main verb (proclaimed) in vs3. “what” = neuter relative prn. = a thing = the content of what is announced = the logic and reason that existied from beginning, face to face, with the Father and this pre-existant logic and reason was manifested in the Word of Life. This is “what” they heard, saw, viewed, and touched in the manifisted person of Jesus. (cf. Heb 4:12, 1Pet 1:23).

The point that John is making in verses 1 and 2 is that the message that the Apostles experienced first hand, concerning the logic and reason of the very essense of life itself, they are now proclaiming. It is the message from Jesus himself, who was the very bodily manifistation of the logic and reasoning that has existed, face-to-face eternally with the Father. cf. John 1:14


“The Word ” = logos = word, content, logic and reason of God
“The Life “ = the zoe = life, not just biological life (bios), but the very essence of life
“manifest” = phaneroo = to reveal, or make known, something that is already there.
“was” = imperfect of eimi = was, timeless continuous existence
“from” = apo = from a spicific point continuing onward
“the beginning” = no art. = beginning, unspecified beginning
"with" = pros = toward, with, face to face, equality

So if I did not make any mistakes, you should be able to see how the grammar + word definitions + context determining word meanings give us the meaning of the 1st two verses.

[ryan]

And we have established that this "Beginning" in 1 John 1:1 is the SAME beginning mentioned in John 1:1? I thought we had, but the reason I ask is because I was going through some notes and came across this:

I John 2:7 - Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. (This also tells us that the "from the beginning" in I John 1:1 is not the same beginning in John 1:1. The beginning in I John is the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus)