ryan
NEANISKOS
Posts: 106
|
Post by ryan on Jul 28, 2012 6:32:08 GMT -7
7) - Brothers, I do not write a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the Word which you have heard from the beginning.
8) - Again I write a new commandment to you which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away, and the true Light already shines.
9) - The one claiming to be in the light, and hating his brother, is in the darkness until now.
10) - The one loving his brother rests in the light, and no offense is in him.
11) - But the one hating his brother is in the darkness, and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness blinded his eyes.
|
|
ryan
NEANISKOS
Posts: 106
|
Post by ryan on Jul 28, 2012 20:51:35 GMT -7
- The word that is translated "New" in verses 7 & 8 does not mean "New in time" but "New in character".
- This "Old commandment which they HAD from the beginning". The word "Had" is in the Imperfect tense meaning that they continuously had this commandment in the past.
- In verses 9-11 we have the same form of contrasts of beliver/non-believer that John has been using. Verse 10 is showing the characteristic of a believer while verses 9 & 11 are showing the characteristic of a non-believer.
Questions:
- What is the "WORD" that is being referred to in verse 7 that they had from the beginning? Is it referring to the Old Testament? Or a specific command?
- Are verses 7 & 8 a contrast just like the rest of the verses so far in this chapter? Saying that the old commandment (v.7) is in contrast to the new commandment (v.8) and that there are two commandments? Justin submits John 3:23 as both the old and the new because there are two commandments in verse 23. And the word commandment is singular in verse 3:23 just like it is in verses 7-8 of chapter 2. Justin submits that the old commandment is to love one another, and the new commandment is to believe in His Son. Any thoughts on this? Most commentators say that in verses 7 and 8 of chapter 2, John is referring to the SAME command.
- Is verse 8 saying that he is writing a new commandment BECAUSE the darkness is passing away… or is the commandment true in him and in you BECAUSE the darkness is passing away?
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jul 30, 2012 12:40:53 GMT -7
I'll just add that I can find nothing to support my thoughts that the two commands are the two in 3:23 except for the summary reading of this section.
But, I can find no support for the common thought that the old and new commandment is the same either; which is to love.
Jesus did say to his disciples "a new commandment I give to you; that you love one another" but is that the same as here? Also, why would the old be commandment be the same as the new.
|
|
ryan
NEANISKOS
Posts: 106
|
Post by ryan on Jul 30, 2012 14:35:23 GMT -7
GOOD question Aguado.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2012 14:23:00 GMT -7
- Questions: - What is the "WORD" that is being referred to in verse 7 that they had from the beginning? Is it referring to the Old Testament? Or a specific command? - Are verses 7 & 8 a contrast just like the rest of the verses so far in this chapter? Saying that the old commandment (v.7) is in contrast to the new commandment (v.8) and that there are two commandments? First- note that “the beginning” in verse 7 is repeated in two places in the Textus Receptus. Although English translations add “the” in both places, it is only to smooth out the translation. In the Greek text, it does not have the definite article “the” for either one. Because of that fact, it is correct to place the timing of both statements to the time of the incarnate Christ as opposed to back in the OT Law or the beginning of creation as in John 1:1 where it does have the definite article linking it to Genesis 1:1 in timing. Added note strike this as it is wrong: that is incorrect. John 1:1 does not have the definite article either. It is the context of each verse that determines wether it is timed at creation or incarnation. Here, each time "beginning" is used it has no article which, in context, takes us back to verse 1. The timing has to be when they "heard", "touched", and "saw", thus incarnation. Point one is that the old commandment they had and the old commandment that is the word that they heard are both from the timing of the NT. See post on verse 1&2.
Second, the first mention is literally “an” old commandment. It has no definite article. The second mention has the definite article with it meaning - “the commandment” - and is followed by an adjective with a definite article - “the old”. That should means something to Greek students! It is in the attributive position. It literally reads, “the commandment - the old”... The use of the article with this second mention tells me that it is referring specifically to the “an old commandment” first mentioned. So this is not a different commandment.
Third, the second reference is literally “the commandment - the old” - IS - “the Word”. This is what is called a predicate nominative. And when two nouns of the same case have the definite article and are separated by “is” (an eimi verb) it means that they are one and the same and are reversible. The old commandment is The word and The word is The old commandment.
Fourth, the word “Word” is capitalized in this online text. You might want to check your other English versions. You will see that none of them capitalize it. So don’t rush to think it is a title just yet. The context will have to determine whether it is or is not.
Fifth, note that the first mention says they “had” an old commandment from the beginning and that it IS the same thing as what they have “heard” from the beginning. Two things are being presented; a thing they had and something they had heard. “heard” is in the aorist tense showing a completed act. The statement of fact (indicative eimi verb) is that what they had is equal to and the same thing as what they heard. So I see a statement by John that they were presented the same commandment by two means and that there is complete equality in those presentations. Second, that “the word” just means the “content” of the message they heard (as is the normal meaning of logos in this type of context as compared to rhema) and not a title for Christ.
Sixth, what was the old commandment? Jesus gave a “new command” in John 13:34 “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. John 13:35 “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” John identifies that commandment by Jesus as the “old commandment” he is referring to his epistles in 2John 5 “Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. This is what they had and what they heard.”
In conclusion then, because of the grammar and cross references given, it looks to me like John is saying they had a commandment dating back to the time of Christ that they received in two forms. They “had it” which I take to mean epistle form and they “heard the word” which I take to mean that they heard with their ears, the full content. John points out that both presentations matched up 100 percent. John is writing this letter many years latter so I presume that what they had back in the day, was some epistles and what they heard was testimony and teaching from visiting Apostles.
This sets up for what he is about to do. Jesus said “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” What is the evidence of being Jesus disciple? to have the love of God that Jesus loved us with, being expressed out of us from one to another believer. Without changing that commandment that they have had and heard, John is going to add something “new”. What is John going to add without changing that commandment? That Jesus is light and those who claim to be loving one another as Jesus loved but are hating their brother [those saved] are still in darkness and spiritually blind. And then it just kinda gets worse from there. |
|
|
|
Post by T on Oct 24, 2012 21:52:18 GMT -7
I understand there may be more questions that stem from Mark's response, so if that is the case, please leave my question until that topic is finished to avoid confusion.
I was trying to figure out if darkness meant complete absence of light, since darkness doesn't exist when light is present? Second, what does verse 9 mean: "is in the darkness until now."?
Is this a "in darkness" as in temporarily, like in darkness for now? Or maybe "in darkness" from the beginning even until now?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2012 22:02:24 GMT -7
I understand there may be more questions that stem from Mark's response, so if that is the case, please leave my question until that topic is finished to avoid confusion. I was trying to figure out if darkness meant complete absence of light, since darkness doesn't exist when light is present? Second, what does verse 9 mean: "is in the darkness until now."? Is this a "in darkness" as in temporarily, like in darkness for now? Or maybe "in darkness" from the beginning even until now? please see my last post on 1john 1:5-10 for starters. Of course others here my have additional input. |
|
|
|
Post by T on Oct 24, 2012 22:38:04 GMT -7
Wow, that was an amazing amount of info. Mark. These verse in the Amplified Version seem pretty close to you translation. Would you agree or do you see somethings here that could be misleading?
1 John 2:7-11 AMP
Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old
commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the
message which you have heard [the doctrine of salvation through Christ]. Yet I am writing you a new commandment, which is true (is
realized) in Him and in you, because the darkness (moral blindness) is clearing away
and the true Light (the revelation of God in Christ) is already shining. Whoever says he is in the Light and [yet] hates his brother
[Christian, born-again child of God his Father] is in darkness even until
now. Whoever loves his brother [believer] abides (lives) in the
Light, and in It or in him there is no occasion for stumbling
or cause for error or sin. But he who hates (detests, despises) his brother [in Christ]
is in darkness and walking (living) in the dark; he is straying and does not perceive or know where he is going,
because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Oct 25, 2012 6:13:29 GMT -7
Please answer T's question first, then help me to understand your statement: - ...Because of that fact, it is correct to place the timing of both statements to the time of the incarnate Christ as opposed to back in the OT Law or the beginning of creation as in John 1:1 where it does have the definite article linking it to Genesis 1:1 in timing. Point one is that the old commandment they had and the old commandment that is the word that they heard are both from the timing of the NT. How does the absence of the definite article point to the incarnation of Christ? Do we presume such since it is A beginning? Then why not use Acts chapter 2 and the coming of the Holy Spirit? How do we distinguish? This is obviously not a hinge pin for what is taught, my question is more syntactical and I'm curious how we would come to that conclusion. Also, it appears that John 1:1 does not have the definite article for Beginning which further confuses me. I can easily understand how the creation account would be THE beginning. How do we reconcile/separate the two? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2012 9:13:01 GMT -7
Wow, that was an amazing amount of info... Let me try to answer this way. All English translations are either a re-work of a previous English translation or an attempt to put the original Greek into English. I decided many years ago that rather than learning how all the English versions differ, where they differ and why they differ, that it would be time better spent to just learn the Greek. That way, I will always know what they are trying to represent. Whether a person likes an English translation or not, has to do with many variables. Your background in English might cause you to like certain words over what my background in English might prefer. It is also important to understand the preface page of every English translation. There, you will find the translators instruction on how they went about choosing English words. Is it a word for word attempt or a take the liberty to interpret method, or a combination of the two. All English translations have certain compromises just inherent to the process and all English translations are better with some verses and worse with others. If one learns Greek, then that is one less thing to have to work through and it’s a huge thing to have to work through. Not understanding these things about translations has caused more needless arguments among otherwise well intentioned Christians that anything else. Secondly, I agreed to join in here for one reason. I meet with a great group of guys on the weekend to study 1John. This forum is a why to keep our minds focused on that text during the week and keep thinking about the text. Doing so is a God given blessing. It also helps us continue on and grow in our understanding of the Greek and since there are not a lot of places where we can “get our greek groove on”, I covet this experience. Lastly, I am not going over Greek stuff for anyone besides us. I realize that others don’t know what we are talking about, but I am not here for others. This is an online extension of what we are doing in person. If someone else gets blessed by it, then that is of course great! We are just a handful of guys trying to exercise a tool to better understand what we are supposed to be trying to understand, and others are welcome to look over my shoulder as I do such, but I have no interest in being drug into anything that takes away from that mission. Added note: So having said that, lets get on with some Word T.! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2012 9:31:54 GMT -7
Please answer T's question first, then help me to understand your statement: - ...Because of that fact, it is correct to place the timing of both statements to the time of the incarnate Christ as opposed to back in the OT Law or the beginning of creation as in John 1:1 where it does have the definite article linking it to Genesis 1:1 in timing. Point one is that the old commandment they had and the old commandment that is the word that they heard are both from the timing of the NT. How does the absence of the definite article point to the incarnation of Christ? Do we presume such since it is A beginning? Then why not use Acts chapter 2 and the coming of the Holy Spirit? How do we distinguish? This is obviously not a hinge pin for what is taught, my question is more syntactical and I'm curious how we would come to that conclusion. Also, it appears that John 1:1 does not have the definite article for Beginning which further confuses me. I can easily understand how the creation account would be THE beginning. How do we reconcile/separate the two? Oh man, I’m so sorry, I totally blundered the answer with respect to John 1:1. To many conversions of English to Greek and visa-versa going on at one time in my pee sized nogin. Then again, I am no stranger to blundering. Isn't it great to have things memorialized on the web;) It is not ever just the presence or absence of the article. It is always grammar plus context plus syntax. The timing is the incarnation because of “we touched”, “we saw”, “was manifested”....etc. PLUS the fact that there is no article. Even if it had the definite article, I would think that there would need to be something else context wise, that that definite article was pointing to make not be referring to the timing of “we touched”, “we saw”, “was manifested” etc. I mean, that’s what definite articles do, they say which exact thing, the “the” is, but they do it within grammar, context and syntax. So in Acts, it will be the same thing; grammar + context + syntax. Does that make more sense? |
|
|
|
Post by T on Oct 25, 2012 17:08:42 GMT -7
Wow, that was an amazing amount of info... lets get on with some Word T.! WORD Yo! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2012 11:20:37 GMT -7
I think it might help to point out a few things you can see from doing word or phrase searches in the NT or OT respectively.
First, "in beginning", "in the beginning", "from the beginning", and "from beginning" are all unspecified in and of themselves. The term or phrase needs something else in the context to identify which beginning is being talked about.
Secondly, "The Command", "The Commandments", "The Old Commandment", "commandment", and "commandments", need context in the same way. It also matters whether "entole" or "teachings" is behind the English trans. For example in the OT where entole is used:
Joshua 22:5 “Only be very careful to observe the commandment and the law which Moses the servant of the LORD commanded you, to love the LORD your God and walk in all His ways and keep His commandments and hold fast to Him and serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul.”
In the Septuigint, both have the definite articles. One is singular meaning The Command to love God (later in OT stated as one command adding neighbor I think) and then plural meaning the entire Torah.
When John is referencing the OT he clearly gives the context using "of God" (theos). But here in 1John the writing is long after Jesus crucifixion so that makes what was new then, old at the time of writing. So "old" dosen't always mean OT timing. Starting with 2:1, all the "Him's" are about Jesus and "His" commandments. For that reason, I think that the the context of both " an old commandment", and "the old commandment", in verse 7 refere to Jesus and the NT time period.
Does that makes sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Nov 4, 2012 17:07:50 GMT -7
It does to me... still going through all the content here and getting my mind around it which takes time.
|
|
|
|
Post by T on Nov 4, 2012 19:01:35 GMT -7
I would like to add the account of Acts 15 as futher evidence that in I John, the commandments mentioned cannot be the OT commandments, seeing that would contradict the original decision made by the apostles in Acts. Now, this may not support what you guys are talking about, so if that is the case, please forgive my ignorance.  |
|
