Word Study

[soul man]

Learn Semitic writing styles and Hebrew idioms.

I added your name to a post I just made.

So we see through the mind of an apostle that made many proclamations by revelation by an idiom?
I'm still looking for some sort of an answer to explain the written word that declares it is spiritually discerned only.

 

[CharismaticLady]

So we see through the mind of an apostle that made many proclamations by revelation by an idiom?

Jesus used idioms

I'm still looking for some sort of an answer to explain the written word that declares it is spiritually discerned only.

I would think knowing what the apostles mean by what they say would be a start. Private interpretations will only lead to false teachings.

1 Corinthians 2

 

[marks]

You still don't get it! First of all, if 'these people' are not born again, then neither is John, because he links himself with them by hte word 'we.' Secondly, each verse contains a conditional clause: 'If we say......,' 'if we walk......' If I say to you on the basis of 1 Corinthians 12:3, "If you and I say that Jesus is accursed, then we are not speaking by the Spirit," that statement is true and it is true of both of us, but it does not mean that we are not speaking by the Spirit, because it begins with the word 'if.' If we don't say that Jesus is accursed, then we may well be speaking in the Spirit; it will depend on what else we say.

Now do you understand?

Hi Steve,

I believe John is using a general "we". All we who are in this conversation.

6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

If we say that John is writing only to the born again, then John is saying the born again lie, walking in darkness, and do not have fellowship with God. If we continue the thought, then we come to the contrast, "if we walk in the light . . . the blood of Jesus . . . is cleansing us from all sin".

If we reflect back on that contrast, and inverse if to for those who lie, and do not the truth, then we have to conclude that for those who lie, Jesus' blood Is Not cleansing them from sin, therefore they remain in their sin.

So in saying that the "we" should be defined as "belonging to the same spiritual group as the apostle", we necessarily conclude that some among the saved are not.

So in the same way, if we say John is talking about the redeemed, then we have the conflict. But if we say that John is speaking about people in general, or of both saved and unsaved though they all be gathered together, then we remove that conflict, as the statements made true of either these or those.

And we know that this is a perfectly valid way to communicate as I have written here.

It brings a softness to the speech, an inclusiveness, well suited, we can suppose, to John, the apostle of love, as he was known.

Your thoughts?

Much love!

 

[marks]

@John Caldwell and @soul man

Here is a use of a Hebrew idiom. Good eye and bad eye, refers to being generous or stingy.


Matthew 6:23
But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

Luke 11:34
The lamp of the body is the eye. Therefore, when your eye is good, your whole body also is full of light. But when your eye is bad, your body also is full of darkness.

Deuteronomy 15:9 "Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the Lord against thee, and it be sin unto thee."

These verses in the Gospels are often misunderstood for failing to recognize that the idiom used is defined in Scripture.

Deuteronomy 28
54 So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:
55 So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.

Terrible example, but it shows the meaning.

Much love!

 

[Enoch111]

Private interpretations will only lead to false teachings.

Please give this serious application to your own private interpretations.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Hi Steve,

I believe John is using a general "we". All we who are in this conversation.

6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

If we say that John is writing only to the born again, then John is saying the born again lie, walking in darkness, and do not have fellowship with God. If we continue the thought, then we come to the contrast, "if we walk in the light . . . the blood of Jesus . . . is cleansing us from all sin".

If we reflect back on that contrast, and inverse if to for those who lie, and do not the truth, then we have to conclude that for those who lie, Jesus' blood Is Not cleansing them from sin, therefore they remain in their sin.

So in saying that the "we" should be defined as "belonging to the same spiritual group as the apostle", we necessarily conclude that some among the saved are not.

So in the same way, if we say John is talking about the redeemed, then we have the conflict. But if we say that John is speaking about people in general, or of both saved and unsaved though they all be gathered together, then we remove that conflict, as the statements made true of either these or those.

And we know that this is a perfectly valid way to communicate as I have written here.

It brings a softness to the speech, an inclusiveness, well suited, we can suppose, to John, the apostle of love, as he was known.

Your thoughts?

Much love!

You have to ask yourself why some refuse to believe other scriptures such as "Jesus/He was manifested to take away our sin, and in Him there is no sin." Also that "he whom Jesus frees from sin is free indeed." Instead of examining ourselves to see if these are true of ourselves, some chose rather to rally around verses describing the unsaved who walk in darkness and claim these verses describe the normal Christian life. And heaven help anyone who tries to show them they are using a false scale in which to measure themselves. They also do not see themselves in the following verse, but rather see it as describing those who are actually teaching the truth about holiness.

2 Timothy 4:
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Please give this serious application to your own private interpretations.

I keep myself under scrutiny. Do you?

 

[John Caldwell]

@John Caldwell and @soul man

Here is a use of a Hebrew idiom. Good eye and bad eye, refers to being generous or stingy.


Matthew 6:23
But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

Luke 11:34
The lamp of the body is the eye. Therefore, when your eye is good, your whole body also is full of light. But when your eye is bad, your body also is full of darkness.

Here's one we sometimes use as well:

Job 19:21b And I have escaped only by the skin of my teeth.

(I think literally "with the skin of my teeth").

 

[Steve Owen]

Hi Steve,

I believe John is using a general "we". All we who are in this conversation.

6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

If we say that John is writing only to the born again, then John is saying the born again lie, walking in darkness, and do not have fellowship with God. If we continue the thought, then we come to the contrast, "if we walk in the light . . . the blood of Jesus . . . is cleansing us from all sin".

How you, @John Caldwell and @CharismaticLady can possibly suppose this is beyond me! What is so difficult about the word 'if'?
If I said your comment made sense, I would be lying, BUT I'M NOT SAYING IT, and therefore I'm not lying. If John and his readership were claiming fellowship with God and walking in darkness, they would be lying and not doing the truth. BUT THEY'RE NOT DOING THAT. If John and his readers are walking in the light, the blood of Jesus is cleansing them from all sin. But if they're not, then the blood of Jesus is not cleansing them from all sin. This is so obvious that I'm embarrassed to be writing it.
These verses are a warning from John to his readers: don't suppose that because you've made a declaration of faith in Christ you can carry on living just as you did before. It's an impossibility because those who trust in Christ have the Holy Spirit which leads Christians to walk in the light. So if (note the 'if') either John or his readers are continuing to walk in darkness, then inevitably the conclusion is that they are not born again, that their declaration of faith was false and that Christ never knew them (Matthew 7:21-23).

This is the plain meaning of the text. You cannot turn the Scripture into a wax nose to be punched into any shape you want. 'We' means 'we.' If John had wanted to talk about a third party, he would have talked about 'they.'

 

[CharismaticLady]

How you, @John Caldwell and @CharismaticLady can possibly suppose this is beyond me! What is so difficult about the word 'if'?
If I said your comment made sense, I would be lying, BUT I'M NOT SAYING IT, and therefore I'm not lying. If John and his readership were claiming fellowship with God and walking in darkness, they would be lying and not doing the truth. BUT THEY'RE NOT DOING THAT. If John and his readers are walking in the light, the blood of Jesus is cleansing them from all sin. But if they're not, then the blood of Jesus is not cleansing them from all sin. This is so obvious that I'm embarrassed to be writing it.
These verses are a warning from John to his readers: don't suppose that because you've made a declaration of faith in Christ you can carry on living just as you did before. It's an impossibility because those who trust in Christ have the Holy Spirit which leads Christians to walk in the light. So if (note the 'if') either John or his readers are continuing to walk in darkness, then inevitably the conclusion is that they are not born again, that their declaration of faith was false and that Christ never knew them (Matthew 7:21-23).

This is the plain meaning of the text. You cannot turn the Scripture into a wax nose to be punched into any shape you want. 'We' means 'we.' If John had wanted to talk about a third party, he would have talked about 'they.'

8, and 10 are deceived people, because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and need Jesus to take away their sin, and in Him there is no sin, so Christians cannot walk in darkness, so 6 is not about a Christian either.

 

[Steve Owen]

You have to ask yourself why some refuse to believe other scriptures such as "Jesus/He was manifested to take away our sin, and in Him there is no sin." Also that "he whom Jesus frees from sin is free indeed."

And who are these people who refuse to believe 1 John 3:5? Let me assure you that I believe it absolutely. You might want to quote the other verse correctly. Are you referring to John 8:36? I believe that also. The difference between us is that I do not believe that one verse of SCripture can contradict another.

 

[Steve Owen]

8, and 10 are deceived people, because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and need Jesus to take away their sin, and in Him there is no sin, so Christians cannot walk in darkness, so 6 is not about a Christian either.

Read the Text! 'IF'

 

[marks]

.

If John and his readership were claiming fellowship with God and walking in darkness, they would be lying and not doing the truth.

That's correct. They would not be forgiven, they would not be in fellowship, they would be in the darkness and not the light, they would not be cleansed. Is this a saved person? No. They are liars.

Much love!

 

[CharismaticLady]

And who are these people who refuse to believe 1 John 3:5? Let me assure you that I believe it absolutely. You might want to quote the other verse correctly. Are you referring to John 8:36? I believe that also. The difference between us is that I do not believe that one verse of SCripture can contradict another.

I don't either, and 1 John 1:8 doesn't contradict 1 John 3:9, because one is a Christian, and the other isn't yet.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Read the Text! 'IF'

Yes, not all unsaved people say they haven't sinned. But the Gnostics did who John is referring to in 1 John 4:1-3. The context of the first chapter is the whole book.

 

[farouk]

I don't either, and 1 John 1:8 doesn't contradict 1 John 3:9, because one is a Christian, and the other isn't yet.

1 John 3.9 compares also to Philippians 2 which says that it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure...

 

[CharismaticLady]

1 John 3.9 compares also to Philippians 2 which says that it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure...

What I'm saying is you can't compare apples and oranges and say they are the same.

 

[farouk]

.

That's correct. They would not be forgiven, they would not be in fellowship, they would be in the darkness and not the light, they would not be cleansed. Is this a saved person? No. They are liars.

Much love!

It would be good if congregations in North America practised this more... We need more elders and preachers who are willing to make themselves unpopular for the sake of Scriptural principle...

 

[marks]

It would be good if congregations in North America practised this more... We need more elders and preachers who are willing to make themselves unpopular for the sake of Scriptural principle...

I think the fellowship that spoken of here is our spiritual fellowship with God.

Much love!

 

[farouk]

I think the fellowship that spoken of here is our spiritual fellowship with God.

Much love!

Primarily it must be Godward, indeed...