Faithlife
Faithlife

First John: 1 John 2:21-John Affirms the Recipients of the Epistle Were Faithful to the Gospel and Warns Them About the Antichrists Lesson # 79

First John  •  Sermon  •  Submitted   •  1:03:05
0 ratings
· 4 views

First John: 1 John 2:21-John Affirms the Recipients of the Epistle Were Faithful to the Gospel and Warns Them About the Antichrists

Files
Notes & Transcripts
I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. (ESV)
Pastor-Teacher Bill Wenstrom
Thursday August 31, 2017
www.wenstrom.org
Lesson # 79
I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. (ESV)
I write to you, not because you do not know the truth” is composed of the following: (1) emphatic negative adverb ou (οὔ), “not” (2) first person singular aorist active indicative form of the verb graphō (γράφω), “I write” (3) dative second person plural form of the personal pronoun su (σύ), “to you” (4) conjunction hoti (ὅτι), “because” (5) emphatic negative adverb ou (οὔ), “not” (6) second person plural perfect active indicative form of the verb oida (οἶδα), “ you do know” (7) articular accusative feminine singular form of the noun alētheia (ἀλήθεια), “the truth.”
The verb graphō means “to write, to communicate in writing” and refers to the act of John communicating in writing to the recipients of this epistle.
The meaning of this verb is emphatically negated by the emphatic negative adverb ou which expresses a negation which is absolute.
Therefore, these two words express the idea that John was “by no means writing” to the recipients of this epistle that they do not know the truth.
The dative second person plural form of the personal pronoun su means “each of you” since the word refers to the Christian community in the Roman province of Asia as a corporate unit and is used in a distributive sense emphasizing no exceptions.
The conjunction hoti is employed with the indicative mood of the verb oida in order to form a direct object clause which means that this hoti clause is the direct object of this verb oida.
This would then indicate that John is affirming with the recipients of this epistle that they in fact possess knowledge of the truth.
The verb oida means, “to possess knowledge of something.”
The word’s meaning is emphatically negated by the emphatic negative adverb ou, which is again expressing a negation which is absolute.
Therefore, these two words express the idea of being ignorant or totally ignorant with regards to something.
The noun alētheia means “truth” and refers to John’s apostolic teaching and specifically it refers to his apostolic teaching concerning person of Jesus Christ, that He is the incarnate Son of God.
Therefore, the verb oida, the emphatic negative adverb ou and the noun alētheia express the idea of the recipients of this epistle being totally ignorant of the truth.
But because you know it” is composed of the following: (1) conjunction alla (ἀλλά), “but” (2) conjunction hoti (ὅτι), “because” (3) second person plural perfect active indicative form of the verb oida (οἶδα), “you know” (4) accusative third person feminine singular form of the intensive personal pronoun autos (αὐτός), “it.”
The strong adversative conjunction alla is a marker of emphatic contrast which means it is introducing a hoti declarative clause which asserts that the recipients of this epistle did in fact possess knowledge of the truth which stands in stark contrast with the precious assertion that they were ignorant of the truth.
Once again, we have the conjunction hoti which is employed with the indicative mood of the verb oida again in order to form a direct object clause which means that this hoti clause is the direct object of this verb.
This would then indicate that John is affirming with the recipients of this epistle that they did in fact possessed knowledge of the truth.
We have again the verb oida which again means, “to possess knowledge of something.”
The accusative third person feminine singular form of the intensive personal pronoun autos means “it” referring to the noun alētheia since they agree in gender (feminine) and number (singular).
Thus, this pronoun refers to the truth regarding the person of Jesus Christ that He is the incarnate Son of God.
Therefore, the verb oida and this intensive personal pronoun autos express the idea of the recipients of this epistle possessed knowledge of the truth.
And because no lie is of the truth” is composed of the following: (1) conjunction kai (καί), “and” (2) conjunction hoti (ὅτι), “because” (3) nominative neuter singular form of the adjective pas (πᾶς), “no” (4) nominative neuter singular form of the noun pseudos (ψεῦδος), “lie” (5) preposition ek (ἐκ), “of” (6) articular genitive feminine singular form of the noun alētheia (ἀλήθεια), “the truth” (7) emphatic negative adverb ou (οὔ), “not” (8) third person singular present active indicative form of the verb eimi (εἰμί), “is.”
The conjunction kai is adjunctive meaning it is introducing an assertion which is an addition to the previous one that the recipients of this epistle possessed knowledge of the truth.
The conjunction hoti appears for a third and final time here in .
It is employed here with the indicative mood of the verb eimi again in order to form a direct object clause which means that this hoti clause is the direct object of this verb.
This would then indicate that the recipients of this epistle were receiving in writing John’s affirmation that no lie is of the truth.
The noun pseudos means “a lie, falsehood, deception” since the word pertains to a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth.
Here it refers to false doctrine and specifically to the claims of the proto-Gnostic teachers who taught that Jesus Christ was not a human being.
The noun pseudos is modified by the adjective pas which means “any” since the word denotes totality and is used in a distributive sense emphasizing no exceptions.
The verb eimi means “to exist in a particular state or condition” and its meaning is emphatically negated by the emphatic negative adverb ou, which expresses an absolute, direct and full negation.
Therefore, these two words express the idea that under no circumstances does any lie exist in the state of originating from the truth.
The noun alētheia is the object of the preposition ek, which is a marker of source or origin of a particular thing expressing the idea of any lie “originating from” the truth.
Thus, John is asserting that under no circumstances does any lie exist in the state of originating from the truth.
I am by no means writing to each of you at the present time that each of you are ignorant of the truth but in fact that each of you are possessing knowledge of it and in addition that never does any lie originate from the truth. (My translation)
contains three assertions.
The first is that the apostle John was by no means writing to the recipients of this epistle that they were ignorant of the truth.
The second is couched in a strong adversative clause and affirms that the recipients of this epistle possessed knowledge of this truth.
The third assertion reminds the recipients of this epistle that never does any lie originate from the truth.
The recipients of this epistle were believers living in the Roman province of Asia in the last decade of the first century A.D.
The truth” refers to his apostolic teaching concerning person of Jesus Christ, namely that He is the incarnate Son of God which is indicated by John’s statements in because in these verses he asserts that the one who rejects this teaching is the antichrist who rejects both the Father and the Son.
In , John affirms with the recipients of this epistle that they possess knowledge of this truth as a result of the anointing from the Holy One.
This “anointing” is a refence to the permanent indwelling of the Spirit which gives the believer the ability to discern between truth from God and lies from Satan.
The Holy One” is a reference to Jesus Christ.
Therefore, in , the first two assertions are presenting reasons why John was communicating in writing with the recipients of this epistle.
The first two were to affirm with them and encourage them that they possessed knowledge of the truth that Jesus Christ is the incarnate Son of God.
The first affirms this knowledge in a negative sense and the second in a positive sense and the third assertion was to remind as well as to warn them about those who reject this truth and spread lies instead about the person of Jesus Christ.
Thus, we can see that John is warning the recipients of this epistle about those teaching false doctrine in their geographical area while at the same time affirming with them and encouraging them that they are correct and accurate in their belief that Jesus is the incarnate Son of God.
In , John describes these individuals who teach false doctrine about Jesus Christ as “antichrists” and so consequently, he is affirming with the recipients of this epistle and encouraging them that they were in fact experiencing fellowship with God (cf. ).
The apostle is also confirming with them that the proto-Gnostic teachers were incorrect and inaccurate in their teaching concerning the person of Jesus Christ.
Thus, these antichrists were emphatically not experiencing fellowship with God if they were believers and emphatically possessed no relationship with God if they were unbelievers since an eternal relationship and fellowship with God is based upon the person of Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross.
So therefore, as he did in , the apostle John in is affirming with the recipients of this epistle that they were remaining faithful to his apostolic teaching which communicated the gospel of Jesus Christ.
He is thus encouraging them with his statements here in .
RELATED MEDIA
See the rest →
RELATED SERMONS
See the rest →