First John: 1 John 2:12-14-Second of Three Interpretative Problems

I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake. 13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father. 14 I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one. (ESV)

Pastor-Teacher Bill Wenstrom

Tuesday June 27, 2017

www.wenstrom.org

-Second of Three Interpretative Problems

Lesson # 62

I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake. 13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father. 14 I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one. (ESV)

The second major interpretative problem in concerns the apostle John’s use of the conjunction hoti.

In , the word is employed with the indicative mood of the verb aphiēmi (ἀφίημι), “are forgiven.”

In , it is also used twice with the indicative mood of the verb ginōskō (γινώσκω), “we know” and once with the verb nikaō (νικάω), “you have overcome.”

In , the conjunction is coupled once more with the indicative mood of the verb ginōskō (γινώσκω), “we know” and once with the verb eimi (εἰμί), “you are” and once with the verb nikaō (νικάω), “you have overcome.”

Now, the conjunction hoti can be interpreted as either causal or declarative.

The former would indicate the reason why John wrote whereas the latter would be telling his readers what it is that he has to say to them, which is identified.

With the causal interpretation, we have to identify whether John is referring to the contents of this entire epistle or which has just preceded.

In other words, did John write the contents of this epistle because the sins of the recipients of this epistle were forgiven and were experiencing fellowship with the Father and the Son and victory over Satan?

Or, did he write 1 John 1:1:2-11 for this reason?

Did John write the contents of the epistle because their sins were forgiven or did he write because their sins were forgiven?

It would appear that John is referring to since shares or alludes to the same themes which appear in such as the forgiveness of sins, and knowing the Father and the Son experientially.

In , John affirms that the recipients of this epistle are experiencing victory over Satan which would be accomplished by walking or living their lives in the light rather than the darkness.

Walking in the darkness is mentioned in , and 11 whereas walking in the light is mentioned in and 2:10.

Walking in the light speaks of the believer living their life according to the standards of God’s holiness which is love and obedience whereas walking in the darkness speaks of living one’s life according to the standards of Satan’s cosmic system which is sin and hate.

Lastly, in , John affirms that his readers are strong as a result of obeying and applying the Word of God in their lives.

In , John teaches that the believer will experience fellowship with God by obeying God’s Word and if they don’t obey His Word, then they will not experience fellowship with Him.

Therefore, when John asserts in that he was writing to the recipients of this epistle, he is referring to his teaching in since the themes he mentions in these verses appear or are alluded to in .

The causal interpretation of hoti in would indicate that John wrote in view of the fact or on the basis of or because his readers were presently experiencing the forgiveness of their sins through confession of sin, fellowship with the Father and the Son and victory over the kingdom of darkness.

However, this causal interpretation is incorrect since he has already told his readers why he wrote in these very same verses.

In , he informs his readers that he wrote in order that his readers might continue to regularly experience fellowship with him and those who adhere to his apostolic teaching as well as with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.

In , John tells his readers that he wrote in order that he might experience joy to the maximum.

In , John informs his readers that he wrote in order that his readers would not enter into committing sin but if they did, they still had Jesus Christ as their Advocate with the Father.

Lastly, in , John teaches his readers that they must obey the Lord Jesus Christ’s commands in order to experience fellowship with Him.

These commands can be summarized by the command to love one another.

Then, in , John affirms that the command to love one another was presently being fulfilled in the lives of the recipients of this epistle or in other words, they were obeying the Lord’s command to love one another.

As we noted, the declarative interpretation of hoti would indicate that the word is introducing a clause which identifies for the readers what it is that John has to say to them.

The hoti clause would be the direct object of the verb graphō.

In , this would then indicate that John is informing the recipients of this epistle that their sins were presently existing in a state of being forgiven as a result of confessing their sins to the Father and which forgiveness is based upon the merits of the person and work of Christ on the cross (cf. ).

Therefore, this interpretation of hoti would have John affirming the recipients of this epistle were remaining faithful to his apostolic teaching and had rejected the false teaching propagated by the proto-Gnostic teachers, thus, this view of hoti has John commending the recipients of this epistle for their faithfulness.

The declarative interpretation of hoti in would indicate that John is telling the recipients of this epistle that they were presently existing in the state of experiencing fellowship with Jesus Christ and victory over Satan.

It would also indicate that they were presently existing in the state of knowing the Father experientially.

Therefore, again this interpretation of hoti would have John affirming the recipients of this epistle were remaining faithful to his apostolic teaching and had rejected the false teaching propagated by the proto-Gnostic teachers.

Thus, this view of hoti has John commending the recipients of this epistle for their faithfulness.

This interpretation in would also indicate that John is telling the recipients of this epistle that they knew Jesus Christ experientially and were thus experiencing fellowship with Him.

It would also indicate that they were strong because of applying God’s Word in their lives and were thus experiencing spiritual victory over Satan.

Again, this interpretation of hoti would have John affirming the recipients of this epistle were remaining faithful to his apostolic teaching and had rejected the false teaching propagated by the proto-Gnostic teachers.

Thus, this view of hoti has John commending the recipients of this epistle for their faithfulness.

Therefore, the declarative interpretation of hoti would indicate in that John was simply telling the recipients of this epistle that their sins were presently existing in the state of being forgiven based upon the merits of the name of Jesus Christ.

This would be the result of confessing these sins when necessary.

It would also indicate that they were presently existing in the state of knowing the Father and the Son experientially, which is a reference to fellowship with the Father and the Son.

Lastly, it would indicate that they were presently existing in the state of experiencing victory over the kingdom of darkness.

The implication for each of these hoti direct object clauses is that John is affirming that the recipients of this epistle were faithful to his apostolic teaching and had not been deceived by the false teachers.

Therefore, each of these hoti direct object clauses would serve to commend the recipients of this epistle for their faithfulness to the gospel and for rejecting false doctrine propagated by the proto-Gnostic teachers.

The causal interpretation would work in if we interpret the intensive perfect form of the verb aphiēmi as referring to the present state of experiencing the forgiveness of sins as a result of the past action of being declared justified by the Father through faith in His Son Jesus Christ.

However, it would not fit the context because the verb ginōskō in verses 13 and 14 speaks of fellowship since knowing the Father and the Son experientially is one of the ways John describes the believer experiencing fellowship with God.

It could work with the verb nikaō as referring to the recipients of this epistle existing in the present state of experiencing victory over Satan as a result of the past action of being declared justified by the Father through faith in His Son Jesus Christ.

Positionally, this is true and in a perfective sense this will be true in a resurrection body.

However, they would lose this experience the moment they sin though positionally they remain victorious and in a perfective sense they will be victorious.

Therefore, it is more fitting with the context that the intensive perfect tense of each of these verbs in viewed in relation to fellowship or in other words, the believer experiencing their sanctification after their justification or conversion.