1 John 1:1-4

[Deleted]

Nov 1, 2012 13:55:41 GMT -7 ryan said:

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:

NO, I don’t think so. I apologize if this has gotten unnecessarily confusing and I crossed out that portion in the above post.

The phrase “in beginning” with no def. art. is an unspecified time. The timing must be supplied by the context.

The specific words “ap arxhs” in verse one refer to the timing of the Apostles experiencing this “what” from the incarnate Jesus.

After that, it gets much more difficult for me to put into English, all of the meat that is packed into the Greek of verses 1 and 2.

For instance, the “what” that they experience in Christ, concerns the “the word” of “the life”. “the word” means here, the logic and reason in the “what”. But this logic and reason, belongs to (gen case) “the life”. “the life (zoe)” here means the very essence or energy force of life that is eternal. They experienced a “neuter thing” from the beginning of being with Christ that concerns the very logic and reason of the life energy force that is eternal and was face to face with the Father. In other words, from the beginning of their time with Jesus, they experienced something eternal.

I do think the point is that what they heard then is the same now, it was from the bodily incarnate Jesus, and He is eternal(spirit), having been with the Father. That is the set up for the book.


I’ll move the question on chapter 2:7 to that thread for my thoughts on it.

[Deleted]

The specific words “ap arxhs” in verse one refer to the timing of the Apostles experiencing this “what” from the incarnate Jesus.

RE: from beginning:

Have you ever seen that picture with the face of a young women hidden in an old women's picture? I keep having that with this section. I see it one way and then I see it the other. I think I have figured out why. Logic and reason from an English standpoint.

The “beginning” is either
1. from the experiences of the Apostles with the incarnate Logos of Life.
2. Or it’s from the eternal Logos of Life’s presence at creation.

Arxh from a lexicon/dictionary standpoint, is unspecified in and of itself. It needs context to identify a time period. Apo + Arxh just means from an unspecified point onward. Because John does not add any words to “from beginning” to qualify it’s time, like from creation, or with Jesus, etc., we have to look at context.

What I have to ask myself is does the context tell me to focus on the Apostles or on the Eternal Logos? Clearly the focus is on the Eternal Logos as it is the subject of the first clause and acts as the direct object of the sentence. In this first sentence that runs from verse 1-3, The Logos is:
1. Eternal
2. Pros ton Pater (face to face with the Father)
3. Was manifested (revealing what was already their)
4. Experienced physically

The context does not point me to the time period of the Apostles and then go on to describe their time period. In fact, the secondary clauses about the Apostles experiencing physically the “what”, are only their to explain further the “what”. The context points to a thing that concerns something eternal that was with the Father (showing Spirit) and manifested itself (showing flesh) to the Apostles.

Then from our intro notes, we know that this letter was written to refute gnostisism. Speciffically that flesh is evil and a Holy God cannot exist in a body of flesh.

So what I am saying is that I do not know of any grammatical rule that puts “from beginning” in one location or the other. (Believe me when I say I have searched Hi and Lo for a rule that I never learned) So it all comes down to context, and the weight of the context would make this “beginning” that of creation. Whenever arxh is used in reference to God, it is alway creation. Of course we have to then realize that which we are saying was from creation had no beginning. He is eternal.

So in light of what was just said, I would say that John is presenting that which was eternally with the Father in the Spirit realm, took on flesh, and was experienced in that flesh by the Apostles. Their experience is what they are passing on. This is what John, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose to open with in this letter refuting gnosticism.

[Deleted]

Let me just say that if I discover that something I said violates either the Greek, the syntax, or the context, I will strike it, no matter how many times it takes. I realize this is frustrating to others, and it is to me, but that is where my skill level is at. I often realize later or remember later, something that causes me to go back and re-examine.

[ryan]

No problem dude. I'm glad that you re-examine, and admit when you are wrong, or even that you don't know. Most would not do that. I appreciate it!! ^_^

[Justin]

I think this is fantastic and the more we go over it the more it seems John intentionally left this as a conundrum not only to show that the gnostic aversion to the physical appearance of God is wrong. But to elevate the thinking of the Spirit above the line of thinking that the gnostics held in such high regard:

That which had no beginning, was with the eternal Father in the beginning and was manifested in a physical beginning and then had a ministry with a beginning that the apostles experienced.
Now which beginning of the eternal Word of Life is he referring...

Put that in your gnostic pipe and smoke it!

[Justin]

Interesting to note, regarding Mark's summary of this section, the frequent use of KAI (especially vs 3) as an adverb and it's many different translations in English.

[Deleted]

Nov 15, 2012 7:35:14 GMT -7 Justin said:

Interesting to note, regarding Mark's summary of this section, the frequent use of KAI (especially vs 3) as an adverb and it's many different translations in English.

This brings up a good point and a opportunity for a basic reminder. My understanding is that the DEFINITION of a all conjunctions is that it’s a word that joins or links. That’s it. The linking can be two nouns, two phrases, two sentences, two passages. It can be linking ideas or things or actions. One can be controlling and the other subordinate, or coordinating the two equally or one after another for a larger set of 3,4,5 and so on. It’s use can show purpose, contrast, comparison, coordination because of the content of the ideas, things, or actions that are being compared.

All of the MEANINGS in the lexicon come from looking at HOW the linking is taking place, but it’s still the basic idea of linking. All of the categories and sub-categories like conjunction of purpose, or subordinating conjunction come from looking at how and what is being linked.

All of the categories and sub-category “meanings” are used because the grammar book is trying to boil down what is happening between those passages, sentences, phrases or words into a simple, easy to remember category name like “subordinate, copulative, adversative, contrastive etc” . It is not a subordinate conjunction because the grammar book lists it as one. In reality, it is only a subordinate conjunction if the circumstances say it is. If there is a primary clause and a related secondary clause that is subordinate in function and they are joined by a conjunction, then those circumstances dictated that the conjunction is functioning to join a subordinate clause to a main clause.

If you think of KAI in mathematical terms, what it’s actually doing is “adding” a word, clause, idea etc to another word, clause, idea etc in some way. This is where the ADVERBIAL use of “also” comes into play. That core meaning of “addition” that exists in the connecting conjunction is being utilized. One way to know that KAI is being used adverbially is to see if there is another conjunction opening the clause. Only one conjunction will join each clause, so if there is KAI within that same clause, you should think adverbial use. In those cases, you see your KAI as a “extra” KAI out of place. That’s when you start thinking about this embedded characteristic of “additional” and will find it translated as “ALSO” as an adverbial usage. Keep in mind that in this 1john text, there is already a joining conjunction "hina" so that's what makes the "extra" kai stand out.

There is more to the usage of KAI, but to understand this is a good starting point.