1-3 John - 2nd John 1:7-9 False teachers - Part 1

So, in fact, I think even before we take on the verses today, let's, Roger, read one through nine, could you, today? Sure. Because I think the first six verses set the stage for seven through nine. The elders and the chosen lady and her children, for my love and truth, not only I, but also all who know the truth, for the sake of the truth which abides in us, in truth and love. He was very glad to find some of you, some of your children walking in the truth, just as we have received commandment to do so from the Father. And now I ask you, lady, not as writing to you a new commandment, but the one which you have had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments, and His commandments, just as He heard from the beginning that you should walk in it.

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves that you might not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teachings of Christ does not have God.

The one who abides in the teachings He has both a father and a son. Okay, seven through nine, packed with controversy, packed with interpretation, packed with modifiers versus the absence of modifiers in the text. This will be fun today. Looking forward to this class. You can come away from this totally Calvinistic or totally Arminian. This is fun. So if you look at the first six verses, particularly fourth through six, what words do you see that dominate those three verses? There are two. Truth and love. What's the most important thing? Is it faith? Love? Gifts? Truth?

Yeah, I think, you know, if you boil scripture down, you know, I'll say, well, love is the most important aspect of the Christian life and what God has offered each and every one of us. You know, the foundation is one of truth, is it not? I mean, truth is really what we seek first. And, you know, rightly dividing the word of truth and Christ Himself. I'm the way, the truth, and the life. Life, for sure, is Christ in each and every one of us. But truth is the foundation of our faith.

I came to the Lord at 30, and I'm in science. And what I do in the laboratory and what we do in human research is look for the truth of what science and medicine is all about. And I came to the Lord because I finally felt the simple gospel was the truth. I mean, I was seeking many other paths to who God was or if he even existed. But then a few things happened in my life where the truth of the gospel became clear. Keep in mind when we approach any aspect of scripture, it's truth that's the beginning of everything to follow.

So we want to rightly divide the word of truth. And today that's a challenge. So let's work together. So in verse seven, it says, for many deceivers have gone out into the world. And remember the foundation here is truth and love. Okay. Many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

So, as just mentioned in verses four through six particularly, the foundation of these verses is based on truth and love, and this has already and repeatedly been demonstrated. And I think a few weeks ago, one of my rare times of being here over the last couple of months, this whole issue of the importance of truth, John brings out to some extent in his first epistle, and also to some extent in the gospel of John, but boy, in second John, he nails it. I mean, there's seven times he uses, and third John too, we're going to see the truth comes out time and time again. So let's keep that front and center going forward.

So let's begin by defining deceivers. And the question to you is, what do you think? Who are the deceivers? One who doesn't believe in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Okay, so you're going to relate to the Incarnation. So anyone who does not accept the Incarnation. The virgin birth. The virgin birth. Okay. Others. Deceivers. I suppose we would say there's another way. There's another way? There are several choices. If we can pick one of them, they're all correct? Buddha and whatever.

Deceivers. Deception can take any form, but if you say that you believe in Jesus Christ, but you don't define what you believe about Jesus Christ, it's very easy to fall into deceit under that ministry. Alright, good start. from the Greek adjective planos, which is used for wandering, roving, misleading, or leading into error. So there's the original Greek term, and then the noun form, it's described as a vagabond, or a tramp, or an imposter, or a corruptor, and finally deceiver is one of many interpretations.

So lots of strong language here. Not a lot of beating around the bush, is it? Let's relate this to the Gnosticism of the time. So what did the Gnostics believe or not believe? There are kind of two, I think, essential aspects of the Gnostic positioning, if you will, in terms of things of the Lord. And what were those two things? One in particular, for sure. Well, Jack? He is the Son of God coming as a man. Yeah, that's right. I think Jack's hit that on the head.

In different terms, it's the fact that the main issue with the Gnostics was the fact that the flesh was so evil that God could not, in fact, indwell the flesh. So the concept of the God-Man, the Lord Jesus Christ, who walked perfectly in the earthly body was something they couldn't accept. That God is so holy and ultimately above the human existence that this wasn't possible.

And so on that basis they also claim to be the progressives and the advanced thinkers and were really just totally anxious to relegate Christ to the past and move on with their own philosophy about what God was all about. So they missed the fact that this verse speaks to is the fact that Christ came in the flesh. They ignored that truth. And so, if you will, the whole Gnostic view of God and of Christ was, in fact, representing the deceiver that's described in these verses. So John, again, existing in a very Gnostic environment, this could be perhaps specifically what he was talking about, but I think It goes far beyond that. In context, what does the verse say?

Well, they say they've gone out and entered into the world system. So are we not in the world system? All right. So not too much to say there, but presumably their view was in fact being pronounced and really publicized in the world system. And the verse says they do not confess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh.

Coming, present, middle, which is frequently interpreted as an active participle. Now, this next question for the class. Is this the first or second advent? Present active participle, meaning coming kind of now, maybe, present. At least they're stating that he hasn't come in the flesh. And inactive, meaning that he's participating in this coming. He's involved.

So, first or second advent? That's a good question because he might be thinking of the second coming, second advent. And if we think in terms of the Antichrist, which is really part of the text we're studying today, we've got to think maybe this is all second coming.

Let's just look at a couple of possibilities here, and I'm not sure that anybody's certain about this, but the first is in Matthew 11.3, "...and said to him, Are you the coming one, or do we look for another?" Maybe a little bit out of context, but the coming one is clearly his first. Advent, correct? Or maybe the Jews looking for the second coming too. I mean you could use that either way, but here Christ is walking the earthly paths, right? Are you the coming one? Are you the one we're expecting? And you're here, but are you that coming one? I.e. first Advent.

That's the way I interpret that. I know the Jews don't think that Messiah is coming. I know by hand. Yeah, yeah, Roger. Another thing is you know, we have the advantage of the revelation of both his first and second coming. It seemed to me the Jews had kind of combined that and that's part of the confusion they had. They combined first and second together so there was only one coming and so first or second is something that we understand because we have knowledge of that. We got the rear view mirror, right? That makes sense. You know it's funny that, let's see, which place was this? I guess it's the American Heart Association meeting last week.

I was having dinner with this very, very kind of conservative slash orthodox Jew. And this was the focus of our conversation, this whole, you know, coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Anyways, it was fun. You know, I have greater conversations with serious Jews than I do with almost anybody about the Lord. But anyway, none of them are rapidly becoming converted, I must say. It's still great, maybe a little bit of intellectualism there too, but anyway.

Okay, so the second advent, I turn to Hebrews 10.37, it says, for yet a little while he who is coming will come and will not tarry. Clearly related to the second advent, right? I mean, this is his ultimate coming as Lord and King for the nation. an occupation which we in fact will be servants at his right hand, exemplified in earthly existence. What are your thoughts? First or second? Or both? Could it mean both? There's no wrong answer here everyone. Does anybody have a feeling for this? No, I'd say first. You'd say first. How many for first? How many for second? And how many didn't vote? You always do, honey. Many times they're not questions either. I could tease her, this is where we're good.

So, in the second coming though, is the Lord really coming totally in the flesh? I mean, and we're coming with him, but don't we have new bodies? I mean we are new creatures at that point. They're creatures now actually. Is he though going to be the same kind of flesh like he walked the earth in the first coming?

Tom's got an answer. Tom? I mean we don't have any evidence of that. I'll wait for this to settle down. As he was on the cross, so we were with we, as he will be, so shall we be. So I guess that's when he comes again, we'll be there with him. Yeah, but it doesn't say whether it's the same physical kind of body. And this is, because we know we have new bodies. He left and he'll come back in the same way. It says in the first part of Acts, he says he will come exactly the same way. So you could argue that he may come in the clouds. I guess I just am not convinced there is enough evidence to say what that body will look like.

We have a statement to be made from the left side bleachers over here. This particular thing says Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh and that's The reason for your question is, in the flesh was obviously the first coming, right? In the flesh then not be the second coming? I don't know anything that says the words, in the flesh, when he comes in the second coming.

He'll be in a glorified body, will he? Not just like we look at him. is that flesh obviously walked through walls when he was in his glorified body, right? These are good points actually. Roy, what are your thoughts here? Just that when our Lord manifested himself to the disciples, he came and he ate and they touched him. It was not immaterial, it was material that they were touching. Glorified bodies are bodies. in nature and it is not decaying. God wanted it to be.

Everybody's kind of where I was out of yesterday on this. Okay, so we're good. I think you could look at this through both pair of glasses. I don't think either is wrong and both are relevant here. I don't think we need to micro dissect this anymore, but I thought it's an interesting question. Is this coming the coming that has been accomplished? He came in the flesh, clearly. Or is it coming, is the second coming really, as Hebrews stated, going to be done very quickly and And he won't tear you when he decides to do that.

So anyway, we'll leave that open for further discussion. But the gospel is clearly stated. Keep in mind that John's a man of truth, like we all are. So what does the gospel say? I just pulled this as one of many, many verses, but I really like it. 1 Timothy 3.16. And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifested in the flesh. justified in the spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, and believed on in the world, and received up in glory." Wow.

Hey, Tom, why don't you take it from here? You want to change it over here on the computer right now? So again, he came in the flesh, and this is presumably what was being doubted, and the Gnostics clearly put that position. How could God become flesh?

So, do you think that the deceivers denied, or continue to deny as we look at them today, if these people still exist, his earthly existence, or who he was, or claimed to be. Where's the deceiving? Is the deception in the fact that he came like the Gnosics claimed, or are most deceivers in fact just denying who he said he was going to be?

Donna? I have a question too. The deceivers, are they... Do we know who they are? Are they Jewish? Who are they? The definition indicates they're people who don't believe he came in the flesh. And who would those people be during that time period? Did the majority of Gentiles care? Well, we're going to drill down a little bit more in terms of how to define these people. Are there many deceivers? Are there many Antichrists? I think there are.

But then there's the modifier of Antichrist that says THE Antichrist. And that's what Roger's version read. And there's a variety of translations that have THE in there and those that don't. Some describe it as a deceiver, some have nothing before deceiver, meaning Antichrist, and the other ones have the Antichrist. So let's proceed, Don, and maybe we're going to answer your question a little bit better.

Antichrist is a strong term, isn't it? I mean, so, you know, we're told that ultimately that these deceivers are a form of or the Antichrist. The interlinear Greek puts ho before Antichrist, indicating the Antichrist, and that's what Roger read. So if you look at the original Greek as the God-given translation, then this is one and only Antichrist.

But are there not others who take on the position that this verse describes who are not the Antichrist? Of course. Roger, your thoughts about that? Well, the world is full of antichrists in a sense. You mentioned Christ, and you don't get a neutral reaction many times. People either say, Amen, or they say, I have a problem with that. Christ is a divider of men. He said he would be. So back to this question then that relates to this, Roger and everyone else.

Are these deceivers people who denied that he ever came, or people who, for the most part, know that he existed? but just deny the claim he made as being the Son of God, the Son of Man. I think the latter, don't you? I mean, how many people have said, oh, Jesus Christ lived, but he was just a prophet, or a teacher, or some other, you know, human existence. He was not God-man who, in fact, was crucified for the sins of the entire world and for each one of us and our sin natures. It's hard to dispute that he actually was here. There's too much, you know, historical information outside the Bible that say who he was.

I mean, the Mormons are, I think, a perfect example of big deceivers, because they acknowledge that he lived, that he was a prophet, but they certainly don't acknowledge that he was the son of God. And they profess, I mean, if you read or you listen to them, they profess to be Christians. And if we think this was targeted in part to the Gnostics, The Gnostics didn't deny that Jesus Christ lived, they just didn't believe he could be the Son of God and dwell in earthly flesh, right?

You know, it still comes to my mind as the scene there after the resurrection and the two disciples are walking He broke the bread and all of a sudden he opened their eyes. Isn't that one of the greatest stories in scripture? Yeah. Picturing these people telling him about the events that have just taken place. You have no idea what he looks like. That gives me tingles in my spine, thinking of that story, how profound that is. But does that fit here, the idea that this is the Antichrist only that we're speaking about? I don't think so. Notice that many deceivers is what the verse states up front. There are many deceivers.

So if we take that position, we need to return to Scripture to see if we can support this. Let's turn to 1 John. Why don't we just read 18 through 23? I left a couple of verses out there, but I think if we read all those, Pat, can you get that for us? It's 1 John chapter 2, verses 18 or anybody gets it, just go ahead and read that.

And read it slowly, make sure we understand the importance of these verses. Little children, it is the last time. And as you have heard, the Antichrist shall come. Even now there are many Antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us. But they went out, so that they might be made manifest, that they were not all of us. But you have an unction from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written unto you, because you know not the truth, but because you know it. and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist that denies the Father and the Son. Whosoever denies the Son, the same has not the Father, but he that acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Pretty to the point, isn't it, here? I think, you know, my comment is this is much more applicable here. The verse says they're deceivers, plural. And if you will, I'm going to interpret the Antichrist, if that's truly the way the original Greek should be translated. The Antichrist is a prototype. of those who would follow. And I was thinking about going down a rabbit trail, ultimately, in terms of the Antichrist and all that. We don't need to spend time there right now. I think we just need to appropriately interpret the verse. We could interpret it as this is pointing only to the Antichrist, but the verse says that anyone who believed that Christ wasn't who he said he was is ultimately a deceiver, an Antichrist.

It takes many and puts them into the the. It puts the Antichrist as a class of people. Actually it says that in 21, because it has the death of the article in 21 as well. This is the Antichrist in 22b here. So it takes a group of people and says, that's the Antichrist. So it seems a little strange. And I think we can all be reasonably comfortable with that interpretation. I just chose 1 John 4.

It says, in every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, not of God and this is the spirit of the Antichrist which you have heard was coming and is now already in the world. I mean does that verse not say that the Antichrist himself ultimately is the prototype of many many Antichrist today and anyone who's not a believer really is an Antichrist right? They're deceivers. Yes Roy.

We've sort of but that he wasn't God, that he was an angel, that he was a messenger, that he was a special sent one, and we have the secret knowledge about him, and you better believe what we believe, because we know who he really was, and that they thought he was superior in knowledge about who he was. You should phrase it that way, because Jesus himself All right, now that we've conquered verse 7, let's move on to 8.

Look to yourselves, and everyone here can do this, look to yourselves that we do not lose those things we've worked for but that we may receive a full reward. Okay, first question, are we working for our rewards? How you doing here? You keeping track? But God, I deserve the gold ribbon. You only gave me a white one. What is all this anyway?

All right, look to yourselves, present active imperative. It doesn't say kind of occasionally if you think about it, it said look at yourselves. Now again, we're not here to measure our own performance. That's not it. The issue is abiding and that really is what we're talking about here. No messing around here. That means do it.

This just says we got a life that's worth examining and that's really a life that ultimately again exists by faith. Philippians 3 says beware of the dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation, which really is a theme of the world system and the deceivers around us, right? We're to beware of that. We're to put up our little antenna and spiritually weigh what we're hearing from potential deceivers that are all around us. Sometimes we can be misled, even when we're well founded in biblical truth and doctrine.

All right. That we do not lose. Aorist, active, subjunctive. So how do we interpret that Greek tense? It says that we do not lose those things we've worked for. Aorist, kind of one point in time typically, right, with sometimes ongoing implications? Active? Lose? And subjunctive? Potential.

Yeah, we could lose them, we could not. Now, what do you interpret this losing the things we've worked for? What's that all about? Well, We could lose those things we've worked for. Aorist middle imperative. We won't spend time there. What are these things that we've worked for?

I think that the first would be truth. Yeah, truth. That's what I would say. The things which are truth. Yeah. Any other thoughts? I like that, Gail. I think that says it right the way it was intended. So the Greek verb means things we work for, things to do or that we work out. Now, keep in mind, working out and doing are kind of a little bit different things. I mean, working out is working out doctrine and faith and truth by belief. Is it not to do is making a list. There's nothing about Paul's epistles that say we're keeping a list on how well we're doing here.

I mean, God's grace demands faith. And John's whole theme in all of his books was about fellowship and abiding and Understanding who you are so that you're abiding in that truth. And it's manifested by truth and then ultimately love, and that love is not of our own effort, is it not? It's ultimately who we are and how that's being manifested in our lives. So to translate and ultimately provide an understandable verb tense, exercising, performing, committing, and all those could be the working out of the faith in our lives, right?

You know, if our rewards were based on our earthly efforts and the power of the atom nature to be transformed, we're going to be disappointed. And we could turn to 1 Corinthians 3 and look at all that, the wood, hay, and stubble that many of us are about when we work in the power of the flesh. And again, I think, again, John In my strong opinion, John is for the mature believer, the one who's eating meat and not drinking milk. This is not, I mean, if you put a new believer under in first or second John as their first book, I mean, you know, this concept of doing. is going to be ultimately a misleading scriptural text for them, I really think. So again, we want our lives to be reflecting of His glory, and that's by the power of faith.

And there that turns into works, doesn't it? But we're Not in the business of getting rewards by an earthly performance to some series of tasks that God gives us. I think that's wrong interpretation of this. Now, another interpretation of this word is to cause to exist or produce. So this, if you're working out the faith, ultimately that is performing. a working out or ultimately a pause to exist in our lives that's reflected and the glory be given to him.

Roy? Well, the person here is first person plural. It's we. And so I think he's including himself here that we agonized over. That you don't lose yourself, the things that we agonized over for you. I mean, he's addressing them as being the recipients of things he worked over for them. Yeah, you know, some versions interpret this as you, not we, and that gets a little bit confusing too, but I like we better just for the reasons you just said. So I think we is probably the better translation.

Second Corinthians 6.1, we then as workers together with him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain." In a sense, that's what this points to, isn't it?

The grace of God in vain is then when we, in fact, say, let go, let God, and we go about our own path, and we're not really abiding. Therefore, the rewards are really not capable because our life is driven by earthly and fleshly things. So working at our salvation is a work of grace by our faith and ultimately not a series of tasks. Remember, it's not what we do but who we are and the Lord himself is the fruit examiner. Alright? It's not what we do, it's who we are. And that's the metric I think that our rewards relate to. Who's we are? What's that? Who's we are? Who's we are? Who's, okay, I'll capitalize M and then we'll put who's we are.

Alright, so what's this full reward that John's speaking about here? The full reward, partial rewards, quarter rewards, gold and silver and white ribbons, blue ribbons, red ribbons. Don, I always think about what Mike says, I'm going to come back to it in a second. It's a grace, not of debt, and achieved by faith and our labor of truth and love.

It's the exchange life in Galatians 2.20. I'm crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, but not I, but Christ who lives in me. That's where the rewards come from. How's that life being matured in each one of us?

And then do Galatians 2.21. Well, it says, if we live by law, then Christ died in vain. Actually, I mean that's a paraphrase of the verse. Let's think through this a little bit further. I like JFB, the Jocelyn Fawcett Brown interpretation, and I'm going to read this to you.

It says, there are degrees of heavenly reward proportionally to the degrees of capability of receiving heavenly blessedness. Each vessel of glory hanging on Jesus shall be fully happy, but the larger the vessel, the greater will be the capacity for receiving heavenly bliss. He who with one pound made ten received authority over ten cities. He who made five pounds received five cities, each according to his capacity of rule and in proportion to the faithfulness.

And I went ahead and pulled 1 Corinthians 3.8. Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.

I mean, what Mike says, and I really liked it the first time he said it and continue to dwell on it, you know, when we leave these earthly bodies, we will all be perfectly content and happy. And, you know, the relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ in heavenly places, may be, in fact, the reward in terms of everybody's happy. First of all, we're all content and totally, really pleased with the Lord's great grace. But then those who are closer here in terms of that act of faith and living the life with more rewards, presumably, may be closer in heavenly places. It makes us think of degrees, but it's kind of like everybody will be content. That's kind of a paraphrase.

Roger, your thoughts? It seems like he wants to give everyone, no matter where they are, a full reward. He wants to maximize it, whether you trust in the Lord, many times, only a few times, he wants to maximize that reward. The full reward, I think, is the life of the Lord Jesus Christ completely lived out in the believer by faith.

Donna, your thoughts? I was kind of thinking a different tack. I don't know if there's any validity to that, but if your faith is focused on Christ and you're believing what he says, you're receiving that in, there's a huge benefit to you as a believer, walking around in Europe, the peace, the, you know, the fruit of the Spirit, all of that is a benefit. And, I mean, we pray for our kids that way and people that we love, that they would understand. because if you're better grounded, and I think of that as a reward. So you're thinking more earthly rewards in terms of how these are manifested. I think that's possible. I didn't think of it that way, but I think it's very possible that our earthly rewards are in fact furthered based on abiding and by our faith. Roy?

Really from the standpoint here, And if we are looking at Christ and not believing that He is God, or in some degree less than what the truth is, believing about Him, then they're not manifesting Christ in the flesh here now. They're revealing a false Christ. They're revealing who He really isn't to the world.

And so, God rewards us not on the basis of works, but of His work, and how much He I'm thinking on the terms from his perspective. We think that we're going to get something and we can measure that in quantity. I don't think he works that way. From scripture it says that he manifests himself and he does this in the measure that we let reward that he is glorified. So the full reward would be that he is fully manifested in truth.

I tended to put on heavenly glasses when I looked at this, but maybe in fact John is really pertaining to the earthly existence here too, or maybe only, I don't know. All right, let's go on to verse 9. Now we get into another kind of verse with lots of controversy here that's been fun to dissect. Whosoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. Roger, this takes us back to 1 John, doesn't it? He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. So is this a life pattern or a single act of transgression? So what's it mean to transgress, first of all?

To fall away. It falls short of God's perfect glory, right? But is this condition or position? Well, we're going to come to this. You looked at the notes. So, if we transgress and we don't abide in the doctrine of Christ, we don't have God. Does that mean it's temporarily we don't have God?

I don't think so. Well, we certainly don't have fellowship and we don't have the peace and rest that Donna was mentioning when we transgress. But someone who transgresses obviously had it to begin with or was in that fellowship. So I don't know that I think this is anything but condition as opposed to position. It says they don't have God, right? Well, but does that mean they don't have fellowship with God or they're not abiding right now? What is that talking about? But we all have God, don't we?

And we have transgressions. We fall short by both acts of omission and acts of commission, right? So, then if we put a metric on this in terms of, gee, I wonder what a life of too many transgressions looks like? All right, John 15.6 says, if anyone does not abide in me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered, and they gather them and throw them into the fire and they are burned. So here's this truth and concept of abiding, right? and is abiding measured with a yardstick. Okay, let's further this.

Transgressions and abides relate to the doctrine or teaching, present active participle, meaning now, meaning we're performing it, and it relates to ultimately the foundation that we've been taught, and that's the doctrine and teaching of the gospel. So, abides, not to depart, And it means to continue to be present. So abiding is kind of ongoing presence of these truths. And it's to be held and kept continually. Our abiding is something that we're called to by position. And ultimately, we do fall short in our condition. But the abiding establishes into an eternal relationship, doesn't it, with the Lord Jesus Christ and our Heavenly Father. And by the way, look at the verse. Those are equated. The doctrine of Christ has it both in the Father and in the Son.

Now 1 John 2.6, he who says he abides in him ought himself also to walk just as he walked.

So in other words, here's the call. The abiding is a positional truth that we're declared capable of, and now we need to respond to that by faith, right? So the transgression is conditioned, but in fact, if we fall short, our position is still established. All right, let's continue. So here's the issue. Doesn't it relate to both position and condition? We can't abide unless we're positionally placed, right?

So in John 1.9, it says we confess our sins, our transgressions. He's faithful and just to forgive our sins. He's already done it. So this is not kind of, you know, some or less than some or most of the time. I mean, we're created in a position to abide. Abiding is conditional, but requires a position that's already established, is my point here.

And I don't think we're in a position here to, you know, think that every transgression is one in which we've in fact not become and remain believers. And the resolve of the doctrine of Christ relates to how Christ and God are one. So this really, in other words, is kind of, again, the union, the eternal union between the Father and the Son. So, thoughts here.

Transgressing and abiding. One way to look at abiding is at home in. You're comfortable in. You're dwelling there. You're abiding. And if you're not comfortable with the doctrine of Christ, if you're not at home there, you're not believing it. That sounds like Calvinism. Let's look at the verse again. Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.

It's almost like black and white, isn't it? Well, John's pretty black and white, remember? Roger, your thoughts? Well, one question is, is he pointing back to these deceivers? Is he nailing them with that? He says, those are deceivers and that's a problem right there. Their doctrine is all messed up.

Yeah, and I would say here we're talking about a life pattern, not a single transgression. Right? I'm talking about people who in fact don't accept the gospel for what it is. their life is only one of transgression. And I think we're looking here at a life pattern. We're not looking at a single falling short of God's glory.

But don't you think the word transgress implies that at one time they were something and now they have fallen away from it? I mean doesn't that, the word transgress, I mean I don't know, maybe it's semantics here. Transgress means here's over it and they step over it. That's what it literally means.

Well remember deceivers, these are people who potentially could have influence over the body of Christ, right? I mean these are people that potentially surround us and within the body even at times could be actively deceiving even though we think they're saved. But Maybe I'm putting a definition on the word transgress that is not... It's a very legal term, right?

I totally understand what you're saying about transgress and that's what it implies to me also, but from what Roy indicated it should be. break the rules or break the law rather than change behavior. Yeah, because it's almost as if transgress means this is a change of behavior. They were something once before and now they're no longer that.

But that's not the meaning of it. No, I don't think so either. I think it's not, but that's what it also implies. I mean, you could get into a very lose your salvation kind of perspective here, right? Right. It's not scriptural. No, that's right. Well, that's why I think maybe the word transgress is really not what this word actually... I mean, the way we define it is not what that definition is. Actually, other translations have it. Like, New York Standard goes too far. Yeah, that's what you read this morning. I'm not seeing that. Where did that word come from? It actually seems like it's almost transgress and goes too far. It doesn't really seem to wind up where I was talking about. I haven't really looked at it.

The best words that I've heard here today indicate that this is about the deceivers and it's not about believers. Right, that's what it would seem. Yeah, we're trying to contrast the deceivers from those who are not deceivers, right, or those in the body. Ingrid? My version is kind of like Roger's.

It says anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God. And down below it explains that This running ahead means a reference to the Gnostics who believed that they had advanced beyond the teaching of the Apostles. Remember the second point I made, these were progressive thinkers going beyond who Christ was, let's get on with life. The continuing would suggest that you have to begin, right? So if you haven't begun, you can't continue in the doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ. So I think we've kind of circled around this, but drilled down on the fact that this really relates to the deceivers who have been defined as those who do not believe in the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. I think that is probably the best interpretation here.

So as we transgress, we're in fact, we're positionally put in a position of abiding. We fall short at times, and Paul describes this well. I mean, we're reckoning ourselves not dead into sin, risen with him, and then it's alive. We fall short. We have an Adam mindset at times that is not driven by the Holy Spirit or the new creation.

That is, if you will, if you think of legal principles transgressing, but God sees us in Christ. And he's calling us, John is calling us to say, you've been put in a position of abiding, wake up. Look at yourselves. Don't fall astray into these doctrines of people who in fact are not of you, not of the body. So, I mean, how does our position become our condition?

It boils down to faith. And faith is, again, most simplistically, do we believe what God has revealed? And it's really an incredible truth that it's God's view of us as positioned in the Lord Jesus Christ. And now do we believe that in terms of all that's been written that the Spirit led life, in fact, is abiding. And don't get distracted, but examine yourselves as to whether that relationship is maintaining.

It's not a work of the intelligence. It's a work of the Spirit in each one of us. Tough verses, really, aren't they? A lot of discussion about these verses. You can correct this statement if you want, but whenever we have trouble with John, I think we fall back on Paul a bit. If we think of the truths that Paul has taught, then John becomes easier and clearer. If we allow you know, John's black and white, to really put us into kind of this threshold of falling too far astray, then we're getting into trouble. And that's not what the Lord intended. He did not intend confusion. He intended truth. And that truth is made simple by faith. We don't want to get overly distracted by thinking, gee, have I sinned too much today?

We're positioned to Christ eternally. And that's a security we can count on. So, you know, I was excited to think about studying 1st, 2nd, 3rd John for a year. I'm going to be ready to get back into the Philippines after the 1st of the year. Let's close this in prayer. Roy, could you close this please?

My Heavenly Father, we sincerely thank you for giving us your Son, our Savior. We thank you, Lord, in teaching us through John today, You have again manifested how good you are, how gracious and full of not just truth but full of giving us that truth in a way that we can comprehend you and know you personally. We thank you for that. In Christ's name, Amen.