God's seed...

Recently I have presented an exposition of 1 John 2:28-3:10 which is a wonderful section of Scripture. In my exposition I studied the word [SIZE=14pt]spevrma [/SIZE]which is translated "seed." The phrase "His (God's) seed" is never used within the NT except here in 1 John. So what does this phrase mean? Here are my results:

[SIZE=12pt]In this pericope "[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]seed" has been viewed as Offspring, Spirit, Word, and Divine Nature by various commentators in interpreting the text. The phrase [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]σπέρμα αὐτοῦ[/SIZE] meaning literally "His (God's) seed" is unique in this context within the NT providing problematic interpretation. The interpretation concluding in "offspring" is viable and has the most lexical support; from the RSV "for the offspring of God abide in Him". The objections to this interpretation (Dodd, 75) are the lack of a definate article and this rendering producing an unnecessary repetition yet both of these objections are not serious (Bruce, 92). The Spirit interpretation brings fourth the concept of the Holy Spirit similar to John 3:6. In John 3:24 and 4:13 divine abiding is associated with the Spirit. The objection lies in the inadequate lexical support and a failure to distinguish between the sense and referent of the word. The interpretation of "word or gospel" rests in the identifications found in 1 Pt. 1:23 and Lk 8:4-15 where Peter speaks of begetting through the seed and Luke gives the parable of the sower. The objection to this is [SIZE=12pt]σπορᾶς is used by these authors and not σπέρμα; σπέρμα is never used to refer to the word of God. Divine Nature is the final addressed interpretation and the preferred rendering. This rendering keeps intact the context of σπέρμα and explains the phrase [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]σπέρμα αὐτοῦ against a Jewish and Christian background by combining the concepts of "Spirit" and "word". It also falls within the semantic range of the word within the synchronic study. In the OT the ability to renounce sin derives from God's word or Law (Ps 37:31,119:11).[/SIZE] According to the prophets the messanic age was to be characterized by the cleansing of believers in whom abide the Law and Spirit of God (Jer 31:33-34; Ezek 36:25-27). This interpretation also harmonizes with the anointing John speaks of which indwells the believer (2:20, 27) as well as the purification from sin resulting from the indwelling word and Spirit of God elsewhere in the NT (John 15:2-4; Acts 15:8-9).

StanJ said:

I don't see this. In fact if you look at the following link you'll find 5 translations that show it as seed;
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203%3A9&version=MOUNCE;NIV;NASB;NET;NRSV

The seed remains in the person born of God, not God. It would be useless for it to remain in God. It is used here in a metaphorical sense as to a seed or principle of spiritual life.
In essense, this 'seed' is the work of God, drawing us, that results in our confession of salvation. It is very similar what Jesus said to Peter about his confession. It is a foundation, a principal that God uses to build the Church of Jesus Christ. Rom 10:9-11

Click to expand...

Stan,

Thank you for your participation in the discussion. Let's start with your translations. I do not disagree with the translation "seed." Yet the question remains what is God's seed, or what does John mean behind this phrasing? Did God plant a literal plant-like seed in us? Is God's seed referring to His reproductive essence? If we view the word as metaphorical we can then suggest a different translation other than "seed."

Moving forward your suggestion, "The seed remains in the person born of God, not God. It would be useless for it to remain in God." I am unsure what you are getting at here.

Without question this word [SIZE=14pt]spevrma[/SIZE] has also been translated as offspring within the LXX and and the NT. This then can suggest John is stating God's offspring remain in Him. This would give the perseveration of the saints doctrine a very strong proof scripture, yet this is not where I argue my interpretation.

In your assessment you seem to suggest the gospel is God's seed through this language, "It is very similar what Jesus said to Peter about his confession. It is a foundation, a principal that God uses to build the Church of Jesus Christ." Perhaps you are suggesting faith is God's seed?

Yet what is confusing is this statement, "In essense, this 'seed' is the work of God, drawing us, that results in our confession of salvation." Are you suggesting here that God gives His seed to everyone, both believer and non-believer. Or do you suggest God selects some He gives His seed to?

Here is how BDAG handles 1 John 3:9:

1. "genetic character, nature, disposition, character, of the divine σπέρμα (acc. to BWeiss = the word of God; acc. to EHaupt, Westcott, HHoltzmann, OBaumgarten, OHoltzmann, HHWendt, FHauck = the beginning or germ of a new life, planted in us by the Spirit of God; acc. to HWindisch and THaering, who are uncertain, = word or spirit; acc. to WWrede = the grace that makes us holy; RSV et al. ‘nature’) that dwells in one who is γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (γεννάω 1b) and makes it ‘impossible for such a pers. to sin’ 1J 3:9 (JPainter, NTS 32, ’86, 48–71). The imagery suggests a person of exceptional merit, in Greco-Roman circles a model citizen, possesser of ἀρετή (q.v.; on the importance of ancestral virtue s. Pind., O. 7, 90–92; P. 10, 11–14; N. 3, 40–42; 6, 8–16; cp. Epict. 1, 13, 3: the slave has, just as you do, τὸν Δία πρόγονον, ὥσπερ υἱὸς ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν σπερμάτων γέγονεν; s. also Herm. Wr. 9, 3; 4a; 6 ἀπὸ τ. θεοῦ λαβὼν τὰ σπέρματα; Philo, Ebr. 30 τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ σπέρματα al.; Synes., Ep. 151 p. 289b τὸ σπ. τὸ θεῖον; Just. A I, 32, 8 τὸ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ σπέρμα, ὁ λόγο.—Musonius p. 8, 1 ἀρετῆς σπ. Maximus Tyr. 10, 4g σπ. ψυχῆς.—Pind., P. 3, 15 σπέρμα θεοῦ καθαρόν refers to Asclepius, Apollo’s son by Coronis.).—B. 505. DELG s.v. σπείρω. M-M. EDNT. TW."

1. Comparison with the EDNT: The definitions of seeds of plants, sperm, and descendants are given. Regarding 1 John 3:9 it is suggested John is using an ontological citation from Gnostic adversaries speaking of God's sperm. The context is a metaphor of procreation by God where seed refers to the Spirit or the event of the word, whereby God's sperm characterizes one's action.

2. Comparison with the TDNT: In the Johannine tradition the word is found a total of 5 times always referring to the transferred meaning of offspring or progeny except in 1 Jn 3:9. It is noted the idea of God's seed does not occur in Pharisaic or Essene circles yet is common in Hellenistic Judaism and the mystery religions. The seed of God is the Spirit who manifests Himself in His Word.

3. Comparison with the NIDNTTE: The idea of an echoing of the Philonic concept of the "divine seed" is discredited. The divine principle of life in the believer (God's word? The Spirit? Grace?) is what John has in mind. The physical seed was the generator of life in the creative order (Gen 1:11-12). The divine σπέρμα is origin of life in the new order of recreated humanity.

Where things get interesting is what follows the phrase "His seed." We are unable to sin. Yet clearly earlier in the epistle John speaks of claiming to be without sin makes us a liar. 1 John 1:8-2:1

[SIZE=12pt]3:9 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]3:9 Everyone begotten (perfect, passive, participle, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]γεννάω, substantival[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]) from out of God does (present, active, indicative, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]ποιέω, gnomic present[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]) no sin because His nature {seed} is abiding (present, active, indicative, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]μένω[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]) in him, and he is unable (present, middle or passive, indicative, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]οὐ δύναμαι, gnomic present[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]) to sin because he has been begotten (perfect, passive, indicative, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]γεννάω[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]) from out of God.[/SIZE]

Here I will give more findings of the study.

[SIZE=14pt]Validation: 1John 3:9[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt] I. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Identification of the Problem[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]A. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Significance of the Problem[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] 1. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Lexically what is the strength of the phrase [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν? Is this an absolute statement?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] 2. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Contextually how does this phrasing fit within the epistle thus far? What is the thrust of the epistle and how does this pericope fit within it?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] 3. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Theologically when interpreting the phrase the verses 1 John 1:8, 2:1 must be considered as they seem to contradict 3:9. With this apparent contradiction in light how is the exegete to interpret the pericope?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] 4. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Application requires comprehension and proper interpretation of this text. This is vital for combatting unnecessary dogmatic practices, division among Christ's followers, and improper or false teaching about God's word.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]B. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Nature of the Problem[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] 1. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Easily a literal interpretation can be applied yet does this interpretation apply to the reality of the Christian experience?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] 2. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Within the purpose of the epistle John is giving instruction as well as directing objections to opposing views. Some interpreters disregard this fact when looking to the epistle. Also looking into the arguments laid out to the point of the phrase reveals specific context interpreters may overlook.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt] II. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Examination and Evaluation of the Opinions[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]A. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Those born of God cannot continually habitually sin.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] 1. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Support[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Johannine usage of poiein hamartian (lit. ‘to do/commit sin’) as it is used in the Johannine writings does denote habitual sinning (John 8:34; 1 John 3:8)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] 2. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Objection[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]a. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]The use of the present tense says nothing about the habitual or non-habitual character of the sinning, but only shows that the author has chosen to depict the sinning as something in progress, rather than as a complete action.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]b. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]The present tense is also used in 1:8, where the author says, "If we claim to be without sin we deceive ourselves".[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]B. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Author and Redactor theory.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] 1. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Support[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The idea of a sharp contradiction (cf 1:5 and 3:9) within a brief span of writing suggests different writers.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] 2. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Objection[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]a. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]The theory of a redactor in 1 John has little following in scholarship today.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]b. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]This theory is a confession to irreconcilability of the passages.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]C. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]The author is thinking of specific types of sin.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] 1. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Support[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]a. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]The OT alludes to deliberate (those done with a high hand) and indeliberate sin.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]b. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]John in 5:16-17 speaks of sin that leads to death.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] 2. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Objection[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The direct context does not lend to this interpretation.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]D. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] The author is directing his statement to two different groups of opposition.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Objection[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Most commentators agree on only one group of secessionists.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]E. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]The author is thinking of only elite Christians.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Objection[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]This elite Christian is yet to be witnessed or experienced when considering sins of pride, vanity, coveting, and the like let alone sins of omission.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]III. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Proposed Solution:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]A. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]The author has eschatological ideals in mind with an already/not yet idea behind the reality of the experience. Behind already/not yet it is meant already believers are empowered to abstain from sin though we have not yet felt the full effect of this empowerment as we will in the new age or the culmination of the eschaton. Wallace states, "Thus, the author states in an absolute manner truths that are not yet true, because he is speaking in eschatological hope (2:28-3:3) and eschatological judgment (2:18-19).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] 1. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Support[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]a. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]John is speaking in an apocalyptic context (2:18)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]b. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]In the context of 3:2 John speaks of an already/not yet manifestation of the children of God.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]c. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]In Jewish apocalyptic expectation the last days would be void of sin experienced by those close to God.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]d. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]The OT speaks of deliverance from uncleanness (Ezekiel 36:29).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]e. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Extra biblical books from the period speak of no longer sinning in the eschaton (Enoch 5:8-9; Jubilees 5:12; Testament Levi 18:9; 1QS 4:21-23; CD 20:2,5,7). [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] 2. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Objection[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]a. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]This is a subtle nuance not explicit in the writing.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]b. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]This view weakens the immediate sense given within the text.[/SIZE]

1. [SIZE=12pt]John furthers the explaination of why sin is abhorrent to the children of God using language that might seem contrary to the Christian experience. This is because he is presenting the perfect divine seed implanted in us that awaits it's final manifestation (cf. 3:2). Here John is forseeing what we are to be through the light of God's perfect, holy, nature presenting a desired action oppisite sin. This description is meant to embolden the Christian within their struggle against sin.[/SIZE]
   [SIZE=12pt]γεγεννημένος- Distinctions within groups again are being made with those begottenfrom out of God. -3:9a[/SIZE]
2. [SIZE=12pt]οὐ ποιεῖ- Does no sin is qualified with ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ. Because those begotten by God have been endowed with His seed, they do no sin. This seed is the divine nature of God and sin contradicts God's nature. The verb ποιεῖ is interpreted in the gnomic present giving it an already/not yet sense. -3:9b[/SIZE]
3. [SIZE=12pt]οὐ δύναται- Also presented presented in the gnomic John is strengthening the faithful and looking forward to a sinless state.[/SIZE]
4. [SIZE=12pt]γεγέννηται- The reasoning for our inability is we are begotten from out of God.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]John continues the idiom he uses: [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pas[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] + article + participle[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]. In brief the nature of God which is contrary to sin is instilled within the child of God. This new nature will see a future manifestation of sinless perfection through a condition of cooperative sanctification (2:28; 3:3; 3:7), the work of Jesus Christ (3:5), and the work of being begotten by God. See also in 3:2 where contextually John speaks of "now" being the children of God while it has not yet been manifested what we will be. -3:9[/SIZE]

Angelina said:

Okay, I am not a scholar ~ just a basic layman type person and coming from that background, I think that seed equals anything that can grow. So in essence God's seed is Jesus and his truth planted in the hearts of believers which will grow in the right environment. Seed could also be associated with the book of Genesis where living things could produce according to their kind. We also produce spiritual fruit as believers according to the seed planted in our hearts.....JMHO

Click to expand...

We are very close to what I perceive. Here is a small quote from the OP.

Divine Nature is the final addressed interpretation and the preferred rendering. This rendering keeps intact the context of σπέρμα and explains the phrase σπέρμα αὐτοῦ against a Jewish and Christian background by combining the concepts of "Spirit" and "word".

StanJ said:

No, that is not what I said or even alluded to. As John is using the natural as a metaphor for the spiritual then we have to maintain that perspective and not go create new ones. A physical seed needs to be implanted in order to grow regardless of what kind of seed. The same perspective needs to be held for spiritual seed. 1 John is dealing with the born-again experience in this scripture, so then the seed he indicates must be what precipitates that born again experience. We know that God draws men to Jesus and that Jesus said we must be born again. Whatever the seed is in terms of the spiritual, it cannot be broken down into physical things such as descendants. The Born Again experience is just that, and cannot be looked at in any other way, hence the wording. What we do know for sure, based on other scriptures within the New Testament, is that confession brings about the Born Again experience, and those are saved, and so this is what John relates to here. Only those that are born again have the seed because it is actually generated in them. One cannot be born again if they don't have the seed. Jesus explained exactly what the seed was in Luke 8:11, and John 20:31 tells us exactly why the word was given.

I see no use in addressing the rest of your post, that is a commentary by somebody else on what they feel this is, when I don't agree with the premise of the OP, nor them, so I will just leave it up to this point.

Click to expand...

Regarding the translation descendants 3 of the 4 times John uses the term σπέρμα it is rendered this way. Brown states this in his commentary: In John 8:33, 37 there is a debate whether the Jews are the sperma of Abraham, while in 7:42 the tradition is cited that the Messiah is supposed to be from the sperma of David. Thus in three of the four Johannine uses sperma means “offspring.” The suggestion that this is also the meaning in 1 John 3:9b has to be subdivided according to whether “God’s offspring” is understood to be Christ who is the Son of God, or the Christians who are the children of God.
Brown, R. E. (2008). The Epistles of John: translated, with introduction, notes, and commentary (Vol. 30, p. 408). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

Thus your statement, "Whatever the seed is in terms of the spiritual, it cannot be broken down into physical things such as descendants" is without merit.

Also in the OP I have: "The interpretation of "word or gospel" rests in the identifications found in 1 Pt. 1:23 and Lk 8:4-15 where Peter speaks of begetting through the seed and Luke gives the parable of the sower. The objection to this is σπορᾶς is used by these authors and not σπέρμα; σπέρμα is never used to refer to the word of God. "

Not that I disagree that the word is apportioned to the "seed" John is referring to, rather that it is only part. This is why I use the phrase "divine nature." This also helps to contextually explain why Christians are unable to sin, which is the result of having the divine nature of God.

​This coincides with "For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust." 2 Peter 1:4

Angelina said:

I agree that the Holy Spirit and the word of God work together in the heart of believers to enable us to grow and be transformed into his likeness.

22 Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, 23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,

1 Peter 1:22-23

Click to expand...

I appreciate your identification of Spirit and word both being brought fourth in this passage! B)

StanJ said:

Brown is commenting on different verses, and in the context of 1st John, it is not the same thing as to what Brown is commenting on. Obviously my comments do have merit but just don't fit into your predesigned exposition. The thing with using expositors or commentators out of context, is that it makes it appear that one really don't know what point they're trying to convey, and that makes it confusing for all. It is quite evident that all renderings of the Greek word sperma do not mean or convey the same thing, & I never implied they did. Each part of Scripture has to be taken within its context to see what is actually being said, and in the context of 1st John, the seed is a spiritual thing even though it is being metaphorically used, just as the seed is a metaphorical seed in Luke 8, or do you believe the farmer in the Luke 8 was planting descendants?

Christians do not have divine nature's any more than they have righteousness. The Holy Spirit in us is the only thing that we can consider divine in us and Paul clearly teaches that Jesus is our righteousness.

Click to expand...

Brown is speaking of 1 John 3:9. I could give the entire commentary, yet this would be excessive. The point being made is many do interpret descendants in this context and are lexically and grammatically correct, even though neither of us interpret it this way. His comment once again," The suggestion that this is also the meaning in 1 John 3:9b has to be subdivided according to whether “God’s offspring” is understood to be Christ who is the Son of God, or the Christians who are the children of God."

As far as your final comment, "Christians don't have divine nature..." 2 Peter 1:4 seems to disagree with you. Yet I feel I have a grasp on what you are attempting to convey.

This is why I bring to attention to (3:2): already we are children yet it is not yet manifested what we will be. And the apocalyptic context.(2:18,28; 3:2) From the OP:

According to the prophets the messanic age was to be characterized by the cleansing of believers in whom abide the Law and Spirit of God (Jer 31:33-34; Ezek 36:25-27).

StanJ said:

Yes, OK, I reread this, and if that is his conclusion, then he totally fails in understanding linguistics and how different words have different connotations. I don't know who this Brown is that you quote, but I've never heard of him, so I can only assume he's not the one of the more preeminent Greek scholars of our day.
However I do know John Gill and his take on this particular passage is much different. He states;
for his seed remaineth in him;
not the word of God, or the Gospel, though that is a seed which is sown by the ministers of it, and blessed by God, and by which he regenerates his people; and which having a place in their hearts, becomes the ingrafted word, and there abides, nor can it be rooted out; where it powerfully teaches to avoid sin, is an antidote against it, and a preservative from it: nor the Holy Spirit of God, though he is the author of the new birth, and the principle of all grace; and where he once is, he always abides; and through the power of his grace believers prevail against sin, and mortify the deeds of the body, and live: but rather the grace of the Spirit, the internal principle of grace in the soul, the new nature, or new man formed in the soul, is meant; which seminally contains all grace in it, and which, like seed, springs up and gradually increases, and always abides; and is pure and incorruptible, and neither sins itself, nor encourages sin, but opposes, checks, and prevents it:

This is much more in keeping with the general consensus on the scripture. Your rationale does not make any sense here, as John is definitely referring to a spiritual seed and not a physical seed.
The Old Covenant law is a written law and that is not the law that God writes on our hearts. The law is obsolete and has disappeared. Heb 8:13
That law does not abide in us, but the Holy Spirit does, if we have been baptized in him as Paul taught in Acts 19:1-7.

Click to expand...

Raymond Edward Brown, S.S., (May 22, 1928 – August 8, 1998) was an American Roman Catholic priest, a member of the Sulpician Fathers and a prominent Biblical scholar of his era. He was regarded as a specialist concerning the hypothetical ‘Johannine community’, which he speculated contributed to the authorship of the Gospel of John, and he also wrote influential studies on the birth and death of Jesus. Brown was professor emeritus at the Protestant Union Theological Seminary (UTS) in New York, where he taught for 29 years. He was the first Roman Catholic professor to gain tenure there, where he earned a reputation as a superior lecturer.

from Wiki..

I know now you only read part of the posts. As soon as you see something you disagree with you stop. This is a bad practice and makes you look ignorant of the subjects you comment on.

Critical scholars give most of the differing opinions of an interpretation then their objections against them. This is what Brown and I are doing concerning the opinion of sperma being descendants. Again 3 of the 4 times John uses sperma it is translated offspring. Brown goes on to argue further giving even more opinions of how it is translated Spirit, and word, and settling on nature.

Now if you critically analyze what is being written by myself and Gill you will see we also agree. He says, "the new nature," as do Brown and I. If God has given us His seed that both I and Gill see as the new nature, is not this nature divine?

Regarding this bit, "The Old Covenant law is a written law and that is not the law that God writes on our hearts. The law is obsolete and has disappeared. Heb 8:13
That law does not abide in us, but the Holy Spirit does, if we have been baptized in him as Paul taught in Acts 19:1-7."

I never argued it was the Law written in our hearts, but thanks for the clarification!

StanJ said:

Thanks, but this little bio doesn't really sway me towards accepting his POV. Anyone who suggest or thinks that the Gospel of John is Johannine in nature, has not really studied how the gospel and epistles compare. In any event, I do not accept his assertions because he's making jumps in logic that are eisegetical in nature, which is not something I would expect from any scholar.
I agree that critical scholars give the varying points of view, which is what Gill does.
If you read the last sentence of your post, it does sound awfully close to you saying that. Maybe you can restate that for us?
You said: According to the prophets the messanic age was to be characterized by the cleansing of believers in whom abide the Law and Spirit of God.

Click to expand...

I am not quite grasping what you are saying here, "Anyone who suggest or thinks that the Gospel of John is Johannine in nature, has not really studied how the gospel and epistles compare." Are you under the understanding John did not write the gospel?

Then this portion, "In any event, I do not accept his assertions because he's making jumps in logic that are eisegetical in nature, which is not something I would expect from any scholar." Where are these "jumps in logic" you accuse?

Yes to restate first I will post the Scriptures:
Jeremiah 31:33
33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Ezekiel 36:26-27
Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

Here the prophets speak of a time where God instills His Law into the hearts of His people. The 1John 3:9 passage is confirming this. Before Christ most, perhaps even the prophets themselves, would have thought it was the Mosaic Law that God was speaking of here in these portions of Scripture. Yet John is careful to explain what the commandments are within his epistle. 1 John 3:23 Love is the fulfillment of the Law, yet it was Christ who solidified this idea in the minds of the children of God.

Through time we have a progressive revelation God gives. In the beginning we have a promise in the garden. Progressively Abram is renamed Abraham. Progressively the covenant is expanded through David and finally fulfilled through Christ and a New Covenant is given. Yet at the time of Abraham it is difficult to see forward to the time of Christ and the New Covenant. We on the other hand are able to look back to see how God progressively revealed Himself through the person of Christ. Yet looking forward to the culmination of the age there is much speculation.

StanJ said:

Yes, that is exactly what I understand.


You didn't see them then I really can't point them out to you now can I? I see them and I'm sure most people who are not predisposed to that position will see them, the point is they're there.


No, 1st John 3 is not showing this, it is showing or dealing with the born again experience. God begins to write his laws on our hearts after we are saved, and it is not a one-time event it continues throughout our lives as the spirit brings the things to the forefront. THE Law always references the Mosaic law in the Old Testament. The real laws of God that existed before the mosaic covenant. It serves no useful purpose to not make a distinction between the two, unless of course you don't see the distinction between the two?


I agree, God doesn't fully reveal himself to everybody the instant they are saved. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here is though?

Click to expand...

24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Jn 21:24). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.



Shalom!