Down an Unfamiliar Road

• 

Have you ever heard someone respond to the question, “Why hasn’t this mess been cleaned up?” by saying, “That’s not my responsibility.” Responsibility is taking ownership of your behavior and the consequences of that behavior. Until you accept responsibility for your actions or failures, it’ll be very difficult for you to develop self-respect or even have the respect of others.

Psychologist Elizabeth Wagele says that responsibility means feeling it’s your duty to deal with what comes up, being accountable, and/or being able to act independently and make decisions without authorization. There are both moral and personal responsibilities.

Responsibility is having common sense, authority, leadership, and maturity; being reliable, trustworthy, dependable, and answerable. But we don’t all express our ability to be responsible in the same way. Wagele then points out how some people respond to their responsibilities and how it relates to others. For instance, there are Perfectionist who sometimes feel overly-responsible for their own or others’ behavior. This type includes a desire to improve self and others (to be good learners and teachers) and to worry about how things are going. Often these types of people are hard to get along with.

Then there are Achievers who often feel responsible for getting ahead in the world and for leading others to get things done. Their responsibility includes presenting a favorable image that will enhance others’ respect for them. But they can easily become Dreamers who feel responsible to themselves for honoring and expressing feelings and values and for finding beauty in life. If they slip up on their responsibilities, they are likely to feel ashamed.

Included in this list are Observers. They often have high ideals but are not as likely as most other types to push their ideals on others. They feel responsible to themselves, and sometimes to others, for determining what’s logical. Some psychologists define responsibility as being in the spell of the superego. They are joined by Questioners who keep looking for all the dangers in life. They look for bad things that might happen and try to avoid mishaps. Being loyal to others is one way of ensuring their own safety. Some explain that their security is built around responsibility. They realize the security within them is a gift of freedom for them and the people in their life.

And then there are Adventurers who often feel responsible for assuring the right conditions in which they live and play. Many feel responsible from a young age for staying happy themselves and for making other people happy. Right next to them are Asserters who feel responsible for enforcing rules and for standing up for they believe is truth and justice. They use their considerable strength to inform and protect others.

And then there are the Peace Seekers who feel a personal responsibility for promoting inclusion and fairness. They may have grown up with strict parents and considered responsibility an unknowable and undoable obligation. Eventually they realize they were taking responsibility for others as a matter of honor – but not for themselves. When they realized maturity meant taking responsibility for themselves, there was no going back.

You may be trying to identify yourself in this group. You may be like psychologist Jennifer Hamady who was always intrigued by the word ‘responsibility’ and how often it gets confused with blame, which of course implies that someone or something is at fault for a given situation. And it always has a judgmental flavor to it; no one opens up their arms and says, ‘bring on the blame!’  Quite the contrary… while many love to give it, they’re dislike getting it and will do almost anything to keep the hot potato of fault as far away from themselves as possible. 

Responsibility, on the other hand, is something vastly more powerful, as well as empowering. As the language suggests, it is a ‘response–ability:’ the capability to choose our response in every moment to all that is going on around us.  A choosing that allows us to claim ownership of the circumstances of our lives, and thereby, to contribute to making them better.

Then psychologist Robert J. Burrows talks about the delusion, “I am not responsible.” He says that such a lack of understanding cripples a substantial portion of the human population in ways that work against the possibility of achieving worthwhile outcomes for themselves, other individuals, communities and the world as a whole. So why does this happen and how does it manifest?

In essence, says Burrows, if a person is frightened by the circumstances of others or a particular set of events, their fear will often unconsciously delude them into believing and behaving as if they bear no responsibility for playing a part in addressing the problem. This fear works particularly easily when the person or people concerned believe that the problem is too far away for them to be responsible, or when the events occur outside their neighborhood. But it can also be expressed when the problem is close by, even in their home or at work.

Finally, DeAara Lewis, a freelance communications strategist and video/print journalist asks, have you ever gotten into an argument with someone and the error in their actions were as clear as night and day, but yet they would not admit any responsibility?  They made excuses or had a reason for everything they did, no matter who they violated in the process.  Or it was never their fault, it is ALWAYS somebody else.  Most of their relationships are chaotic.  They glorify and then quickly demonize someone and have a strong case of grandiose delusions. In psychotherapy, this is often labeled as Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NARC).  One of the main characteristics is the unwillingness of them to see the part they play in conflict or take responsibility for their actions.  Most of us know someone like this or perhaps have done this ourselves.

Taking responsibility is very tough because often times an abundance of shame comes with that.  Who wants to be the culprit or the reason someone else is hurt or some conflict is going on?  It’s easy to point the finger at others, it is tougher to point the finger back at ourselves. This is something we all struggle with – people who cannot see their part in a conflict.  It burns me up, says Lewis, and sends me into a rage and I have to work through this. You don’t have to like it, but you can’t control them or their behavior.  And if other people choose to believe this person without further investigation, there really isn’t much you can do about that either.  However, you can take some lessons.  Now you know these people are easily persuaded, probably meddle in gossip, and you’ll do better to stay away from them.

But what does the Word of God say about responsibility? Jesus told an excellent story that dealt with responsibility. Be like house servants waiting for their master to come back from his honeymoon, said the Master, awake and ready to open the door when he arrives and knocks. Lucky the servants whom the master finds on watch! He’ll put on an apron, sit them at the table, and serve them a meal, sharing his wedding feast with them. It doesn’t matter what time of the night he arrives; they’re awake – and so blessed!

Peter said, “Master, are you telling this story just for us? Or is it for everybody?” The Master said, “Let me ask you: What makes a manager dependable? It’s someone full of common sense that the master puts in charge of his staff to feed them well and on time? He is a blessed man if when the master shows up, he’s doing his job. But if he says to himself, ‘The master is certainly taking his time,’ begins maltreating the servants and maids, throws parties for his friends, and gets drunk, the master will walk in when he least expects it, give him the beating of his life, and put him back in the kitchen peeling potatoes.

The servant who knows what his master wants and ignores it, or disrespectfully does whatever he pleases, will be thoroughly punished. But if he does a poor job through ignorance, he’ll get off with a slap on the hand. Great gifts mean great responsibilities; greater gifts, greater responsibilities! That’s why the Apostle Paul said that while you are helping others, don’t forget to take responsibility for your own actions.[1] In another place, Paul says that if you plant a seed you must take responsibility for watering it.[2]

So, even though something happens because someone did not take their responsibilities seriously that can be detrimental to you and those around you, don’t brush it off by saying, “That’s not my responsibility.” Be like the medical doctor who was a passenger on a flight when a serious health problem developed with one of the passengers and the stewardess was asking if there was anybody who could help. If you have the talent and ability to do the job, take responsibility. There will be many who will thank you for standing up and taking responsibility for the outcome. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

---

[1] Galatians 6:5

[2] 1 Corinthians 3:8

• 

Have you ever heard someone respond to the question, “Why hasn’t this mess been cleaned up?” by saying, “That’s not my responsibility.” Responsibility is taking ownership of your behavior and the consequences of that behavior. Until you accept responsibility for your actions or failures, it’ll be very difficult for you to develop self-respect or even have the respect of others.

Psychologist Elizabeth Wagele says that responsibility means feeling it’s your duty to deal with what comes up, being accountable, and/or being able to act independently and make decisions without authorization. There are both moral and personal responsibilities.

Responsibility is having common sense, authority, leadership, and maturity; being reliable, trustworthy, dependable, and answerable. But we don’t all express our ability to be responsible in the same way. Wagele then points out how some people respond to their responsibilities and how it relates to others. For instance, there are Perfectionist who sometimes feel overly-responsible for their own or others’ behavior. This type includes a desire to improve self and others (to be good learners and teachers) and to worry about how things are going. Often these types of people are hard to get along with.

Then there are Achievers who often feel responsible for getting ahead in the world and for leading others to get things done. Their responsibility includes presenting a favorable image that will enhance others’ respect for them. But they can easily become Dreamers who feel responsible to themselves for honoring and expressing feelings and values and for finding beauty in life. If they slip up on their responsibilities, they are likely to feel ashamed.

Included in this list are Observers. They often have high ideals but are not as likely as most other types to push their ideals on others. They feel responsible to themselves, and sometimes to others, for determining what’s logical. Some psychologists define responsibility as being in the spell of the superego. They are joined by Questioners who keep looking for all the dangers in life. They look for bad things that might happen and try to avoid mishaps. Being loyal to others is one way of ensuring their own safety. Some explain that their security is built around responsibility. They realize the security within them is a gift of freedom for them and the people in their life.

And then there are Adventurers who often feel responsible for assuring the right conditions in which they live and play. Many feel responsible from a young age for staying happy themselves and for making other people happy. Right next to them are Asserters who feel responsible for enforcing rules and for standing up for they believe is truth and justice. They use their considerable strength to inform and protect others.

And then there are the Peace Seekers who feel a personal responsibility for promoting inclusion and fairness. They may have grown up with strict parents and considered responsibility an unknowable and undoable obligation. Eventually they realize they were taking responsibility for others as a matter of honor – but not for themselves. When they realized maturity meant taking responsibility for themselves, there was no going back.

You may be trying to identify yourself in this group. You may be like psychologist Jennifer Hamady who was always intrigued by the word ‘responsibility’ and how often it gets confused with blame, which of course implies that someone or something is at fault for a given situation. And it always has a judgmental flavor to it; no one opens up their arms and says, ‘bring on the blame!’  Quite the contrary… while many love to give it, they’re dislike getting it and will do almost anything to keep the hot potato of fault as far away from themselves as possible. 

Responsibility, on the other hand, is something vastly more powerful, as well as empowering. As the language suggests, it is a ‘response–ability:’ the capability to choose our response in every moment to all that is going on around us.  A choosing that allows us to claim ownership of the circumstances of our lives, and thereby, to contribute to making them better.

Then psychologist Robert J. Burrows talks about the delusion, “I am not responsible.” He says that such a lack of understanding cripples a substantial portion of the human population in ways that work against the possibility of achieving worthwhile outcomes for themselves, other individuals, communities and the world as a whole. So why does this happen and how does it manifest?

In essence, says Burrows, if a person is frightened by the circumstances of others or a particular set of events, their fear will often unconsciously delude them into believing and behaving as if they bear no responsibility for playing a part in addressing the problem. This fear works particularly easily when the person or people concerned believe that the problem is too far away for them to be responsible, or when the events occur outside their neighborhood. But it can also be expressed when the problem is close by, even in their home or at work.

Finally, DeAara Lewis, a freelance communications strategist and video/print journalist asks, have you ever gotten into an argument with someone and the error in their actions were as clear as night and day, but yet they would not admit any responsibility?  They made excuses or had a reason for everything they did, no matter who they violated in the process.  Or it was never their fault, it is ALWAYS somebody else.  Most of their relationships are chaotic.  They glorify and then quickly demonize someone and have a strong case of grandiose delusions. In psychotherapy, this is often labeled as Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NARC).  One of the main characteristics is the unwillingness of them to see the part they play in conflict or take responsibility for their actions.  Most of us know someone like this or perhaps have done this ourselves.

Taking responsibility is very tough because often times an abundance of shame comes with that.  Who wants to be the culprit or the reason someone else is hurt or some conflict is going on?  It’s easy to point the finger at others, it is tougher to point the finger back at ourselves. This is something we all struggle with – people who cannot see their part in a conflict.  It burns me up, says Lewis, and sends me into a rage and I have to work through this. You don’t have to like it, but you can’t control them or their behavior.  And if other people choose to believe this person without further investigation, there really isn’t much you can do about that either.  However, you can take some lessons.  Now you know these people are easily persuaded, probably meddle in gossip, and you’ll do better to stay away from them.

But what does the Word of God say about responsibility? Jesus told an excellent story that dealt with responsibility. Be like house servants waiting for their master to come back from his honeymoon, said the Master, awake and ready to open the door when he arrives and knocks. Lucky the servants whom the master finds on watch! He’ll put on an apron, sit them at the table, and serve them a meal, sharing his wedding feast with them. It doesn’t matter what time of the night he arrives; they’re awake – and so blessed!

Peter said, “Master, are you telling this story just for us? Or is it for everybody?” The Master said, “Let me ask you: What makes a manager dependable? It’s someone full of common sense that the master puts in charge of his staff to feed them well and on time? He is a blessed man if when the master shows up, he’s doing his job. But if he says to himself, ‘The master is certainly taking his time,’ begins maltreating the servants and maids, throws parties for his friends, and gets drunk, the master will walk in when he least expects it, give him the beating of his life, and put him back in the kitchen peeling potatoes.

The servant who knows what his master wants and ignores it, or disrespectfully does whatever he pleases, will be thoroughly punished. But if he does a poor job through ignorance, he’ll get off with a slap on the hand. Great gifts mean great responsibilities; greater gifts, greater responsibilities! That’s why the Apostle Paul said that while you are helping others, don’t forget to take responsibility for your own actions.[1] In another place, Paul says that if you plant a seed you must take responsibility for watering it.[2]

So, even though something happens because someone did not take their responsibilities seriously that can be detrimental to you and those around you, don’t brush it off by saying, “That’s not my responsibility.” Be like the medical doctor who was a passenger on a flight when a serious health problem developed with one of the passengers and the stewardess was asking if there was anybody who could help. If you have the talent and ability to do the job, take responsibility. There will be many who will thank you for standing up and taking responsibility for the outcome. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

---

[1] Galatians 6:5

[2] 1 Corinthians 3:8

• 

MAKE HURT TEMPORARY, KEEP JOY FOREVER

My heart and mind filled with compassion, questions, and disgust as I read about this struggle. But that is what life offers us somethings in order to learn more about how God deals with things. It may not be a world you are familiar with, but it is out there. And we cannot help those who need rescuing if we ignore them because theirs is not a pretty story. Read this with compassion.

Jane’s father was a violent alcoholic. One night, in a drunken rage, he raped her mother. When he found she was pregnant, he beat her and threw her down a flight of stairs, attempting to end the pregnancy.

After Jane (not her real name) was born, she became a living reminder to her mother of her alcoholic father’s abuse. Jane lived in constant fear of her mother’s tongue-lashings, and beatings were common. But the abuse didn’t stop there.

When Jane was just three, an uncle, a great-aunt, a cousin, and even a man who made friends with her in the school park sexually abused her. When she was seven, her mother married a pedophile. Over the next five years, Jane suffered raped hundreds of times in what should have been her bed’s safety. She learned to dissociate, to disconnect from herself. It was the only way she could cope.

Jane tried to go on and leave it all behind. But years later, married and with her children, it overwhelmed her. She couldn’t sleep because of flashbacks. Vivid memories crashed in without warning. Any loud noise sent terror flowing through her. She felt hollow inside.

Jane asked some hard questions along the way. Why did God let this happen? Why didn’t He stop it when she begged for protection? Would she ever be able to live a normal life without the flashbacks and terror? “I was angry and depressed. Then I became suicidal,” she admitted. “I realized if I wanted to live to see my children grow up, I needed help.” That admission started her on a long road to healing.

So she sought out a Christian counselor to help her. During one session, she asked what she thought the word “protection” meant. She told him: being kept from harm and not having her worth as a person shattered from the earliest moments of her existence. The counselor told her to try looking at protection through God’s eyes. “God doesn’t protect us by shielding us from pain,” he said. “He protects by keeping the pain from destroying us. And because of His sovereignty, He takes the worst things and eventually uses them for good.”

In healing, she had to do two things. First, she had to teach herself to think differently. She kept track of negative thoughts and worked to replace them with positive ones. She tried to follow Romans 12:2: “. . . let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think (NLT).” The second step was much harder. She needed to forgive those who abused her. She resisted, thinking, “Isn’t forgiving the same as saying the abuse was no big deal? It was a big deal! It hurt me!”

But bitterness was destroying her from the inside and affected those she loved most. She had to give it up. She didn’t want to forgive, but she started at first by asking God to help her become willing to think about forgiveness. It took her a long time.

With God’s help, she experienced a renewal of her mind and spirit. “Today,” she says, “I can honestly say I have forgiven those who hurt me. I don’t know why these things happened. But I know that God is good. He was with me through the worst of times and has brought more healing than I dreamed possible. Now He’s using what I endured and what I have learned to help others.”

Sadly, people have to go through such torture. It would make anyone question whether or not God cared. I’m sure Joseph felt the same way when his brothers sold him into slavery. And what about David when the killer King Saul hounded him? And look at Daniel thrown into the lion’s den. And look at what Jesus and then His disciples went through being martyred for their faith. If you ever read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, it will send chills down your spine.

I remember reading in 2014 what a Carmelite missionary priest said that during an attack on a mission station in Africa near the border with Chad, where members of the rebel group, Seleka sexually assaulted two religious sisters, originally from Europe, and a voluntary helper. Fr. Gazzera said: “One of the rebels who invaded the mission station held his gun to the head of one of the Sisters and forced her to undress. The other Sister and the voluntary helper were also sexually molested.”

Terrible isn’t it! But what does God say through His Word? Jesus knew what His disciples were going to face once He ascended back into heaven. So, He told them, “I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world, you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”[1] And the Apostle Peter made it known that “After we have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.”[2] And the Apostle James tells us to “Count it all joy, my brothers and sister, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”[3]

Furthermore, the Apostle Paul urges us to, “Keep an open mind when we suffer, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.”[4] And he goes on to share that he “Consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”[5] Also, remember that “For those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.”[6] Besides, Paul warns that “All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,  while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.”[7]

But in his vision, the Apostle John declares that “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, because what’s past is past and will bother us no more.”[8] Think about it; this body will not follow us to heaven; we will receive a new body and a new mind free from all these hurtful memories. Nothing will gain entrance into heaven that can hurt us or make us sad. That’s God’s promise, so we must live and hold onto that guarantee. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

---

[1] John 16:33

[2] 1 Peter 5:10

[3] James 1:2-4

[4] Romans 5:3-5

[5] Ibid. 8:18

[6] Ibid. 8:28

[7] 2 Timothy 3:12-13

[8] Revelation 21:4

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XV) 10/23/20

Paul W. Hoon (1910-2000), in his exposition on this first verse, calls the opening “A Christian Manifesto.” He suggests starting with verse three, followed by verse one, with verse three being an afterthought. That way, you declare what John’s purpose was for writing the epistle, what he was planning to proclaim in the letter, and evidence that he was qualified to do so. He wanted everyone to know and remind the believers that his message concerned God’s reality revealed in the Anointed One. So, there was no need to listen to the heresies and misinterpretation of facts and false doctrines going around at that time. There is no need to be fooled when you have all the evidence you need to prove your point.^[1]

Warren Wiersbe (1929-2019) says that if you look up the word propitiation in the dictionary, you may get the wrong idea of its meaning. The definition we find says, “to appease someone who is angry.” If we apply this to the Anointed One, we see an angry God about to destroy the world and a loving Son of God, giving Himself to appease His irate Father in heaven. It is not the Bible’s picture of salvation! Yes, God is angry at sin more than He is at the sinner. Otherwise, we would not have John 3:16.  Propitiation means the satisfying of God’s holy Law. That’s why the Anointed One came as the Light to open our eyes to sin. God is love, not hate, and wants to save all sinners who accept His Son as their redeemer. That, says John, is what Jesus did on the cross at Calvary.[2]

I like the way Hawley and Comfort (1930-) stress the poetic style of the first three verses:

            As to what was from the beginning

            as to what we have heard

            as to what we have seen with our eyes

            and what we have gazed upon

            and as to what we have touched –

            it is the Word of life.

John’s experience was so life-changing and so memorable that he used four perfect tense verbs to convey the idea that the Apostles’ experiences with the God-man, the incarnate Son of God, was still vivid and present with them. Should this not be the same with all born-again believers? When humanity touched divinity, and the outcome was the same as the incarnation. We changed from being children of humans into children of God.^[3]

We add what Scottish New Testament scholar, Professor Emeritus of New Testament Exegesis at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, Ian Howard Marshall (1934-2015), said on this subject. He tells us that “What the writer [John] states most emphatically of all is that certain people can testify to these facts because they had a personal experience with Jesus. They heard and saw Him, they even touched Him, and they say in Him was the incarnation of divine life. There cannot be any real doubt that the writer claims to have been an eyewitness of the earthly ministry of Jesus.”^[4] As mentioned before, John felt inspired to write this letter because of Gnosticism’s growing influence gaining attention in his day.

John Painter (1935-) says that verse one concentrates on the topic of life while verse two elaborates on the theme of Life. It reveals Everlasting Life. It spells out the implications of the Word of Life. Reveal is a more comprehensive image than Word because the Word was not only heard; He was seen and handled. The manifested Life is the source of the Everlasting life that is at the heart of the purpose of John’s First Epistle.[5] When this happens, we go from racing on our time to running on God’s time.

Dr. Wayne Allan Barber (1943-2016), the longtime pastor of Woodland Park Baptist Church in Chattanooga, TN, gives us some insight into Gnosticism and its effect upon believers during John’s ministry. He tells us that Gnosticism was one of the most significant threats to the Gospel during that era. It was in several forms, and it is challenging to describe it in its full sense because it depends on the sect you were dealing with and exactly which direction they went with it.

No matter what factions you’ve dealt with, says Barber, Gnostics say saved individuals result from their knowledge of God rather than Jesus’ work on their behalf on the cross. Some mysterious transformation takes place to gain this knowledge. It would be best if you were taught; you cannot find it on your own. A form of Gnosticism is alive today in some churches where people believe they become children of God by way of some rite or ritual – such as baptism or going through catechism. Back then, it involved a myth that once you had a revelation of this knowledge, that brought you into what they called a salvation experience. Salvation was in knowing. Jesus was not necessary for the picture because He didn’t die. He wasn’t the “propitiation” for our sins. You see, the Gnostics believed that all flesh was evil; therefore, God would never have inhabited a human body. Jesus came and died, but He was strictly the physical, natural son of Joseph. He was not truly the Son of God.

The particular brand of  Gnosticism that John is dealing with came from a man named Cerenthus, who said that Jesus was the natural-born son of Joseph, and one day, at His baptism, the Anointed One, the Messiah, the heavenly Spirit of a deity known as God’s Son, came and indwelt Him and lived in Him until right before the crucifixion. Then it departed from Him. Therefore, Jesus, when He died on the cross, died as a confused human, and poor, misfortunate creature!^[6]

William R. Loader (1944) says that the opening of this epistle makes two things very clear. It represents the emotional issues at stake among believers. On a personal level, joy and pain are critical. It is not an exercise in speculation; it requires pastoral care. And secondly, the heart of that concern is the community – shared Christian life. This community life is with God through the Anointed One and especially the community of Christians with one another, and the two are inseparable.^[7]

Judith Lieu (1951) sees this epistle’s opening, sounding two notes that will echo throughout the argument. They are “the beginning” to that which is already assured and appeal to “we” and to “our” experience. At this point, says Lieu, the ability to relate to “the beginning” apparently characterizes the “we,” the voices of the Apostles heard here. Later, John will command his readers to recall what they had from the beginning and continue to live by those principles.^[8] Dr. Lieu points out that John’s messaged drew from that which came from the beginning and passed it on to those who were joining God’s family for the future. Things said from the beginning of time apply to every new-born believer and will be their guide for the rest of their lives.[9]

We see this same reasoning today in the word “revival.” Some think that it involves an evangelistic campaign. But the name itself reveals its properties: Revival is increased spiritual interest or renewal in the life of a church congregation. Revivals restore believers and the church to a previous vital and vibrant relationship with God after a period of moral decline. I would say that for earnest believers, their prayer is, “O Lord, send a revival now and let it begin in me!”

Current Bible writer and pastor David Guzik feels that by using the Logos’ idea – the Word – it was important for John to explore his day’s Greek and Jewish literature. For the Jew, God was often referred to as the Word because they knew God perfectly revealed Himself in His Word. Greek philosophers have spoken for centuries about the Logos – the basis for organization and intelligence in the universe, the Ultimate Reason, which controls all things. It is as if John said to everyone, “This Logos you have been talking about and writing about for centuries – well, we have heard Him, seen Him, studied Him, and touched Him. Now, let me now tell you about Him.” I like the way Guzik puts it:  John wrote, it is not the beginning of this world, nor is it the beginning of creation. It is the beginning revealed in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. Before there was anything, this beginning existed, to begin with when all that existed was God and in God.^[10]

---

[1] Hoon, Paul W., The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. XII, Abingdon, Nashville, 1957, p. 216

[2] Wiersbe, Warren W., Be Real (1 John): Turning from Hypocrisy to Truth (The BE Series Commentary), pp. 40-41

[3] Hawley, Wendell C., Comfort, Philip W., op. cit., pp. 330-331

[4] The Epistles of John, I. Howard Marshall, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, loc. cit., p. 106

[5] Painter, John. Sacra Pagina: 1, 2, and 3 John: Volume 18 (Kindle Locations 3223-3346). Liturgical Press. Kindle Edition

[6] Sermons by Wayne Barber: loc. cit.

[7] Loader, William: Epworth Commentaries, The Johannine Epistles, Epworth Press, London, 1992, p. 3

[8] See 2:24; cf. 3:11

[9] Lieu, Judith, The New Testament Library, I, II, & III John, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, 2008, pp. 37-38

[10] Guzik, David: Enduring Word, loc. cit.

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XIV) 10/22/20

Let us make this a little clearer by comparing various translations:

WYCLIFFE PURVEY VERSION (1384)	TYNDALE VERSION (1526)	KING JAMES VERSION (1611)	ENGLISH REVISED VERSION (1885)	AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION (1901)
That thing that was from the beginning [Which thing was from the beginning], which we heard, which we saw with our eyes, which we beheld, and our hands touched, of the word of life;	That which was from the begynninge concerninge which we have hearde which we have sene with oure eyes which we have loked vpon and oure hondes have hadled of the worde of life.	That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;	It was there from the beginning; we have heard it; we have seen it with our own eyes; we looked upon it, and felt it with our own hands: our theme is the Word which gives life.	That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life.
REVISED STANDARD VERSION (1946)	NEW ENGLISH BIBLE (1961)	NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE (1971)	NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (1973)	ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION (2001)
That was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we gazed upon and our hands handled, concerning the word of life.	It was there from the beginning, we have heard it; we have seen it with our own eyes; we looked upon it, and felt it with our own hands; and it is of this we tell. Our theme is the word of life.	What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—	That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.	That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life.

This difference of treatment appears in the older English versions. It has its origin solely in taste or convenience, not at all in the Greek Text. It is objectionable because it limits that which was from the beginning to what John heard. In other words, it implies that which “was heard” did not exist before the beginning. It also goes for what was seen and touched. It was the manifestation of the pre-existing Son of God before He and His Gospel was ever preached.

To make this even more apparent, if we read the ESV, it means that what John revealed as something he saw and was a witness to, so that he could proclaim the eternal Father and made manifest to him and the other disciples are something “which was.” So, the next question is, what happened to Him? As Bishop Archibald Robertson (1863-1934), who served as Principal of King’s College, London and was elected to serve as Vice-Chancellor of the University of London,  puts it, strictly speaking, the neuter relative here is not personal.^[1] But by looking at the RSV, John is telling us that the life which appeared to him, that he saw and witnessed, is what he is now pointing out is the Eternal Life which at one time was only with the Father but presented to him and the other apostles. So, there is no question of what happened to Him, but where is He? And that makes it very personal.^[2]

Philip Mauro (1859-1952) says that none is more significant of the many statements that the Bible makes concerning God’s Word. Indeed, none is of greater importance to dying sinners than the truth that the Word of God is a LIVING WORD. In Philippians, we have the expression, “The Word of Life,”^[3] which is the same expression utilized here in verse one. John uses it here of Jesus the Anointed One, the Incarnate Word, whereas, in Philippians, it is the WRITTEN WORD of which Paul speaks. The WRITTEN WORD and the INCARNATE WORD are identified in Scripture so that it is not always clear to which it refers.

We hear the same things said of each, and the same characteristics attributed respectively. The fundamental resemblance lies in the fact that each is the tangible expression of the Invisible God. As the written or spoken word expresses communication, the invisible and inaccessible concept, so Jesus the Anointed One as the Incarnate Word, and the Holy Scriptures as the Written Word, express and share knowledge of the invisible and inaccessible God. “Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father.” “Believe Me when I say that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me.”^{[4] [5]}

James Morgan (1859-1942) focuses on the fact that this Being, the Anointed One, who was from eternity, became human. The assertion is a contrast to the preceding one. It confirms the view taken of the former; for it is clear the Apostle wishes to convey the idea that it was a marvelous thing that He should appear as a man who had been from the beginning, from eternity. Strange, however, as it was, it was true. There is more than enough evidence to back up this truth. The ears of men heard Him; their eyes saw Him; their hands felt Him. Clearer or surer proof could neither be asked nor given. The expression, “our hands have handled,” refers no doubt to the words of the Anointed One after His resurrection – “Look at My hands and my feet. It is I Myself! Touch Me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see, I have.”[6]

It is a happy suggestion, says Morgan. The Anointed One’s nature that He took when He was born of Mary, He lifted out of the grave at His resurrection. Therefore, we have a Savior who not merely became a man but wears his glorified humanity in heaven. His incarnation is thus associated with the redemption of man. He took our nature, stood in for us, and took possession of heaven as our inheritance. Therefore, we have everything in His eternity and deity to inspire our confidence; we are assured of His sympathy by His humanity. “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet He did not sin.”[7] Nothing is lacking in Him; He is a suitable and sufficient Savior. He accounts for “all our salvation” and “all our longing.”[8]

G. K. Chesterton (1884-1936), an English writer, philosopher, lay theologian, and literary and art critic, wrote about St. Francis of Assisi. He responded to a horrified bishop about the living conditions of the Little Brothers at Portiuncula.[9] He complained that they existed without comforts, possessions, eating anything they could get, and sleeping on the ground. Chesterton said that St. Francis answered him with “curious and almost stunning shrewdness which the unworldly can sometimes wield like a club of stone.”^[10]

Similarly, the Apostle John speaks the truth with such simplicity, clarity, and boldness that it often shakes the reader. A person who hates their brother is a murderer! If you don’t love others, you don’t know God! I love the way Lawrence R. Farley puts it: This beloved disciple writes compellingly of love, and the starkness of the truth hits us like a club of stone. It provides a much-needed blow, for it can knock the lethal self-delusions out of our heads.[11]

Amos N. Wilder (1895-1993) says that one writing in the Final Covenant is not formally recognized as poetic. And that is John’s First Epistle. When one attentively reads this letter, they are struck by the recurrent features of balanced phrasing. He points to verse one. It features an opening statement followed by several rhetorical phrases:

                                                That which was from the beginning,

                                                            Which we have heard and seen with our eyes

                                                Which we have looked at

And our hands have touched …

In his explanation of this verse, Wilder states that the Greek tense of the last two verbs, looked at and touched, reinforces their emphasis on actual personal observations, preceding the different verbs of heard and seen. They bring out the continuing significance of the witnessed facts. Those who heard and saw remain impacted by the experience and qualify as genuine witnesses.^[12] Let us compare this to what Ananias said to Paul in Damascus after his conversion, “You will be His witness to all people, telling them about what you have seen and heard.”^[13] And then we have Paul’s words, “I am an apostle, God’s messenger, responsible to no mere man. I am one who has seen Jesus our Lord with my own eyes.”^[14] Of course, we know that Paul conversed with and heard the Lord at that same time.^[15] So what does it take to be a witness? Having contact with the Lord by His Spirit and hearing Him speak through His Word.^[16]

---

[1] Robertson, Archibald: Word Pictures in the New Testament, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Grand Rapids, P. 1941

[2] Revised English Scriptures with Notes: The Second Epistle of Peter the Epistles of John and Judas and the Revelation, American Bible Union, New York, 1854, p. 27

[3] Philippians 2:16

[4] John 14:9, 11

[5] Mauro, Philip: Life in the Word, The Fundamentals, R. A. Torrey (Ed,) Vol. 2, Ch. 7, p. 125-126

[6] Luke 24:39

[7] Hebrews 4:15

[8] Morgan, James: An Exposition of the First Epistle of John, T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1865, pp. 6–7

[9] Portiuncula was a small Catholic church located about 4 kilometers (2.5 mi) from Assisi, Umbria (central Italy). 

[10] Chesterton, G. K., St. Francis of Assisi, Hodder and Stoughton Ltd, London, 1923, p. 115

[11] Farley, Lawrence R., Universal Truth: The Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, Jude, and John (Orthodox Bible Study Companion Series) (Kindle Locations 2309-2310). Ancient Faith Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

[12] Acts of the Apostles 4:20

[13] Ibid. 22:15

[14] 1 Corinthians 9:1

[15] Acts of the Apostles 9:3-6

[16] Wilder, Amos N., The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. XII, Abingdon, Nashville, 1957, pp. 217-218

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XIII) 10/21/20

John Stock (1817-1884) makes a curious statement that we are indebted to skeptics, who unintentionally do good to the truth by provoking examining the facts. The academic skills they employ reveal false assertions of poorly-taught people, professing themselves to be wise, have brought to light things that might otherwise have remained hidden. It’s like iron striking against iron that produces bright sparks. So, the assaults against the authenticity of the Gospel by nonbelievers only serve to make the principles more visible and revelation more conspicuous.

In the kind foresight of God says Stock, the error was allowed to show itself. It demonstrates how the mystery of ungodliness infiltrated the congregations in the Apostles’ time. Later, from the Church in the middle ages arose many misguided ideas as dangerous wolves entered the Anointed Shepherd’s flock to rob and steal.[1] Therefore, the Apostles’ inspired truth preached and written might help arm the Church and save it from backsliding.

It happened when the Ebionites,^[2] Cerinthus,^[3] and others, called Docetæ,^[4] began to attack the Apostles’ traditions after the Romans banished the Apostle John to the Isle of Patmos. When he returned, the congregation requested that He write this Epistle to breathe the truthfulness about the Anointed One once again. These revelations exist for our sanctification and preservation from people worse than wolves. By these same certainties, under God, we are saved from Arians[5] who positioned themselves against the Anointed One’s deity. Also, from the Apollinarians[6] who maimed and misinterpreted that which belongs to His human nature. And from the Nestorians[7] who tore the Anointed One apart and divided Him into two persons, and from the followers of Eutyches[8] who put down those things that need emphasizing His distinguished divine and human characteristics.[9]

Paton J. Gloag (1823-1906) declares truth can’t be of greater magnitude than that the Eternal God took upon Himself human nature and appear in the Person of Jesus the Anointed One, is a declaration of astounding importance and must fill our minds with amazement and awe. There can hardly be any doubt that John believed in and taught the divinity of Jesus the Anointed One, that He was the Son of God in a peculiar, mysterious manner, the partaker of the divine nature, the sharer in the divine attributes with the Father. John repeatedly asserts the preexistence of the Anointed One. Our Lord Himself declares that He existed before Abraham and that He shared in the glory of the Father before the world began.^{[10] [11]}

The Bishop of the Church of Ireland’s Diocese Derry and Raphoe, William Alexander (1824-1911), has an appealing comment when discussing the Anointed One described by John as “the Word.” In his mind, this certainly does not mean the word, written or preached, whose subject is spiritual and eternal life. It is the “Personal Word,” the Logos, whose attribute is that He is also the Life. Therefore, He is at once both the Word and the Life.^[12] So it seems rather logical that since He is both Word and Life, and that He became flesh, then the Word gives life to the flesh. So, by seeing Him, hearing Him, and touching Him, they could perceive the Word and Life in human form. So again, does this imply that the Word of Life means the preaching of eternal life? John’s words that follow refer, not to the doctrine of Life, but the manifestation of the Life.^[13]

Speaking about creation, Augustus Strong (1836-1921) says we must distinguish between idea & plan, plan & execution. Much of God’s plan is not yet fully implemented. The beginning of its implementation is as easy to conceive as it is still being carried out. But the beginning of the enforcement of God’s plan is creation. Active will is an element in creation. God’s will is not always active. He waited for “the fullness of the time”^[14] before He sent down His Son. As we trace back the Anointed One’s earthly life to a beginning, so we can trace back the life of the universe to its origin.

Those who date creation interpret, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,”^[15] as meaning eternity. They also apply the same interpretation to “In the beginning was the Word.”^[16] However, neither of these texts has this meaning, says Strong. In each case, it carries us back to the beginning of creation and asserts that God was its author and that the Word already existed.^[17] In my estimation, what Strong is trying to say is that we can date creation to “from the beginning,” but we must date the Word “before the beginning.”

J. A. McClymont (1848-1931) offers another thought on what the Apostle John says here about hearing, seeing, and touching Jesus the Anointed One in the flesh. He suggests that if that is not enough, then go to Thomas, the doubting disciple. What was it that convinced him that the Lord is risen from the grave? Yes, he, too, heard Him, saw Him, but was allowed to touch Him in an unusual way. The Lord told Thomas to touch the nail prints in His hand and the wound on His side. Stop doubting and believe!^[18] Instead of “doubting,” McClymont hears the Master telling Thomas, and the other disciples, not to be faithless but believing.^[19]

George G. Findlay (1849-1919), head of the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society, compares the Greek philosopher’s concept of God and John’s knowledge of God. He says that these philosophers conceived of the Divine nature as exalted above human aspiration and infirmity. But the conceptions of Plato or Plutarch were too speculative and idealistic to affect the ordinary mind; they were powerless to move the heart, to possess the imagination and will. These enlightened men scarcely attempted to overthrow the public’s idols, and their teaching offered a feeble and slight resistance to the tide of moral corruption. False religions can be destroyed only by that which is real. The concrete and actual are displaced by the more exact, never by random thoughts.

Findlay continues: It was faith in a true and living God, in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus the Anointed One as the supreme deity of the universe, the enthroned Almighty’s all-holy will to bless and save humanity that struck down idols. It also transformed society and reversed the stream of history. It’s not belief in some “Divine entity” as the highest category of thought, nor the unseen substance behind the phenomena of creation. He is more than an unknown and unknowable source of the collective powers of nature. Such ideas, at best, shed but a cold, flickering light on the path of daily labor and suffering; they proved themselves composed yet frightened, all too faint to encounter the shock of passion for mastering the turbulence of human nature. Neither in the name of Pythagoras or Plato did the Greeks find salvation.[20]

The Revised Version (1885) translators point out an essential fact in verse one we should consider when interpreting this passage. They note that the English Standard Version (2001)^[21] translates “That which,” at the beginning of verses one and three, as a compound relative,[22] and in the intermediate instance in verse two as a simple relative.^[23]

---

[1] Matthew 7:15

[2] The Ebionites were largely Jewish and remained attached to Jerusalem while the mainstream church spread throughout the Roman Empire. Irenaeus, the exiled bishop of Lyons and leading polemicist against heresies in the second century, wrote about them that they understood the scriptures “in a peculiar way: they practice circumcision, continue to observe the customs commanded by the law, and in their Jewish way of life even venerate Jerusalem as the house of God.”

[3] Cerinthus was probably born a Jew in Egypt. Little is known of his life save that he was a teacher and founded a short-lived sect of Jewish Christians with Gnostic tendencies. He apparently taught that the world was created by angels, from one of whom the Jews received their imperfect Law. The only New Testament writing that Cerinthus accepted was the Gospel of Matthew. Cerinthus taught that Jesus, the offspring of Joseph and Mary, received Christ at his baptism as a divine power revealing the unknown Father. This Christ left Jesus before the Passion and the Resurrection. Cerinthus admitted circumcision and the sabbath and held a form of millenarianism.

[4] Docetæ were heretics who held that Christo’s body was merely a phantom, an apparition.

[5] Arianism, concerning the doctrine of Christ taught that Jesus, as the Son of God, was created by God of a similar or different substance to that of the Father. It was proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius and was popular throughout much of the Eastern and Western Roman empires, even after it was denounced as a heresy by the Council of Nicaea (325 AD)

[6] Apollinarianism was a concept proposed by Apollinaris, Bishop of Laodicea (died 390 AD) argues that Jesus had a normal human body but a divine mind instead of a regular human soul. It was deemed heretical in 381 AD and virtually died out within the following decades.

[7] Nestorians were a Christian sect that originated in Asia Minor and Syria stressing the independence of the divine and human natures of Christ and, in effect, suggesting that they are two persons loosely united. This off-shoot of the Church formed following the condemnation of Nestorius and his teachings by the ecumenical councils of Ephesus (431 AD) and Chalcedon (451 AD)

[8] Eutyches (born c. 375—died 454 AD), revered head of a monastery in the Eastern Orthodox Church, at Constantinople, who is regarded as the founder of Eutychianism, an extreme form of the dual-personality heresy that emphasizes that in the person of Jesus Christ there is only one nature (wholly divine or only subordinately human), not two in one.

[9] Stock, John, An Exposition of the First Epistle General of St. John, London; Oxford; Cambridge: Rivingtons, 1865, pp. 1–2

[10] John 8:58; 17:5

[11] Gloag, Paton J. Introduction to the Johannine Writings, op. cit., p. 243

[12] Ephesians 4:18

[13] Alexander, William: The Expositor’s Bible, W. Robertson Nicoll, Ed., On Epistles of John, op. cit., p. 303

[14] Galatians 4:4

[15] Genesis 1:1

[16] John 1:1

[17] Strong, Augustus H: Systematic Theology, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 32-33

[18] John 20:27

[19] McClymont, J. A., The New Testament and its Writers, Adam & Charles Black, London, 1893, p. 257

[20] Findlay, G. G., Fellowship in the Life Eternal: An Exposition of the Epistles of St. John, Hodder and Stoughton. London; New York; Toronto, 1909, pp. 96–97

[21] The English Standard Version (ESV) is an essentially literal translation of the Bible in contemporary English.

[22] The words whoever, whatever, whichever, however, whenever and wherever are called compound relative pronouns. These are used to mean ‘it doesn’t matter who/what/which etc.’ A compound relative pronoun has a double function. It acts as a subject, object or adverb in its own clause; it also acts as a conjunction joining its clause to the rest of the sentence. For instance, “Whoever comes to the door, ask them to wait.”

[23] A relative pronoun is a pronoun that introduces a relative clause. It is called a “relative” pronoun because it “relates” to the word that its relative clause modifies. Here is an example: The person who phoned me last night is my teacher.

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XII) 10/20/20

So, it appears quite clear that the Epistle of John had a significant effect on early Christian scholars’ hearts and minds. Given this impact, it undoubtedly led to what Severus, a Greek monk-theologian of Antioch (465-538 AD), repeated that John also said, “No one has ever seen God,”^[1] so how can he assure us that the living Word of life was seen and touched? Clearly, it was in the human form that made Him visible and touchable.^[2]

When we share our testimony, how can we get the door to an unbeliever or doubter’s mind to open?  One way would be to knock! So how do we knock? By making it possible to include Jesus in every answer to any question, they may ask us. It’s almost like what Jesus said to Thomas, “Touch the scar in my hand with your finger. Feel the scar here in my side with your hands. Stop doubting and believe.”^[3]

That’s how John felt, so he tells his readers, …We watched Him perform miracles and touched^[4] Him with our hands.  Bible scholar Origen of Alexandria, Egypt (184-253 AD) already knew about this epistle by John because he quoted from it in several places. In his manuscript, he spoke out against Celsus’ charges, an anti-Christian Greek philosopher (circa 177 AD). Origen is giving examples of how humanity perceived God through visions and voices from above; he then adds: “And by a sense of touch, by which John says that he ‘handled with his hands of the Word of life.‘”^[5]

Œcumenius (circa 700-800AD) believes that John wrote this first verse against both the Jews and the Greeks because they were protesting that the mystery which appeared among them was too new to be taken seriously. John, therefore, answers them by saying that, in fact, it is very old and has been there from the beginning. It is superior to the Law and even surpasses creation itself because while creation has a beginning, “the Life” already existed.^[6] It is hard for people today to accept, especially those who believe that the universe resulted from a chance cosmic explosion of gases. The problem is they don’t know from where these gasses originated.

I like the way Johann A. Bengel (1687-1752), German Lutheran theologian and biblical scholar,  the founder of the Swabian[7] holiness movement and a pioneer in the critical exegesis of the Final Covenant, puts it: “He gave Himself in the flesh to our eyes, ears, and hands.”^[8]

Alfred Plummer (1841-1926), Church of England clergyman and biblical scholar, adds that the similarity of the opening of John’s Epistle to the introduction of John’s Gospel is obvious: but the thought is somewhat different. In the Gospel, the Word existed before Creation; here in the Epistle, the Word existed before the Incarnation. Plummer says, the Socinian’s^[9] interpretation, “that which” means the doctrine of Jesus, and not the Incarnate Word, cannot be defended: the verbs, “have seen,” “beheld,” “handled,” are fatal to it. In using the neuter. John takes the most comprehensive expression to cover the attributes, words, and works of the Word and the Life manifested in the flesh.^[10]

William Lincoln (1825-1888) points out that there are four verbs used here: “Which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life.” It copies the Psalmist’s use of parallelisms to enhance a point. Here, we have a sandwich parallel:

We have heard

     We have seen

     We have looked upon

We have handled

If you analyze this, you will see the Lord Jesus the Anointed One draws nearer to us, not we who are drawing closer to Him. Lincoln goes on to explain that “heard,” even from a distance before you can see them. “Seen” represents a nearer place within sight.

But that is not enough, John says, “with our very own eyes.” “Looked upon” means to contemplate attentively. The more you look at Him, the more you see the glories which are in Him. “Handled” is instead a peculiar term. It is doubtless in allusion to what John says in his Gospel^[11] about Mary Magdalene “handling Him.” This epistle of John begins where the Gospel leaves off. Did you ever observe in the Gospel of John where it starts with the Anointed One in the Father’s bosom, and at the end of the Gospel, a sinner is seen in the bosom of the Anointed One, showing us where our Father would have us be?”[12]

Influential English scholar Thomas Scott (1749-1821)^[13] notes that the Apostle began this epistle, in the same abrupt manner as he did his Gospel, and without any particular address or salutation, and he wrote as a witness or a messenger, in a censoring declaration style, and not in an argumentative manner. That essential good, that uncreated and self-existent excellency, which were from the beginning, as coequal and co-eternal with the Father, and finally appeared in human form for the salvation of sinners. It was the main subject concerning what the Apostle wrote to his brethren. If we then understand John to mean the Anointed One as the Son of God, it must be from the beginning, which denotes from eternity for if the creation and time were coequal, that which was from the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth must have also been eternal.^[14]

Charles Simeon (1760-1851) confesses that it is impossible to read these words and not be impacted by the Apostle’s earnestness in his mode of giving the testimony before us. Somebody must have challenged the truth of John affirms. The evidence on which they rested their case John calls into question. And the fact was that many heresies had arisen even while the Anointed One was still alive. Some went so far as to deny Jesus ever died and rose again. They asserted that all those transactions, which the Evangelists recorded, took place in appearance only, and not in reality.

Against such absurd and condescending conceits, the Apostle John, now at a very advanced age, maintained his testimony with a zeal suited to the occasion. He was the only surviving witness of the events to which he refers. Hence, John repeats the evidence he had, again and again, respecting the validity of all that he affirmed. He urges the whole Christian Church to receive his testimony by representing the incalculable benefits given to all who believe.^[15]

Johann Eduard Huther (1807-1880) looks at the opening, “That which was from the beginning,” which is unlimited in itself, is more fully explained by the following relative clauses to this extent, that “that which was from the beginning” is identical with that which was the subject of perception by the Apostle’s senses of hearing, seeing, and touching. In other words, the appearance of the Anointed One to the disciples was not an apparition or abstraction, but as a real person. Huther says that some interpret John’s words to imply what the Apostle John witnessed were that which from eternity appeared in the Anointed One. But Huther disagrees and joins other scholars in saying it did not represent the Anointed One but that He was the Life and the Light.^[16]

Daniel D. Whedon (1808-1885) was a professor of Ancient Languages at Wesleyan University, studied law, and had some pastoral experience. He was editor of the Methodist Quarterly Review, a scholarly theological magazine, for more than twenty years. He wrote a commentary on the entire New Testament. Here in John’s first letter, he points out that the Apostle uses the Greek perfect tense of the first two verbs, have heard and have seen; but the aorist tense,^[17] without the words [we have], looked upon and handled. It is a significant change of tense, lost in our English translation. It indicates that the Apostles have seen and have heard, which remains in effect as a permanent fact. But they also specifically and at the moment looked upon, that is, contemplated and the inner nature intensely studied to appreciate the bodily substance of the Lord profoundly. This specialty is enhanced by how the first was done with physical eyes, not dreams, and the last with hands, the surest instruments of touch. Though He was from the beginning and was indeed the Word of life, He submitted Himself to bodily perception to share his determinate personality.^[18]

---

[1] John 1:18; 1 John 4:12

[2] Severus of Antioch: Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament Volume XI, Edited by Gerald Bray, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, loc. cit., p. 166

[3] John. 20:27

[4] C. Haas, M. de Jong, and J. L. Swellengrebel: In a Handbook on the Letters of John, United Bible Societies (UBS), Translation Notes on 1 John, they note: “Therefore ‘and which we ourselves (actually) have touched’ is a perfectly legitimate rendering of the clause. Such a rendering will be especially useful where the combination ‘to touch with the hands’ would be unduly redundant.” 

[5] Origen: Contra Celsus, Bk 1, Ch. XLVIII, (See also Book 7, Ch. XXXIV)

[6] Œcumenius: on 1 John, Bray, G. (Ed.)., op. cit., p. 167

[7] Swabia is a province in central Germany that includes the city of Stuttgart, near where I once lived

[8] Bengel John Albert: Gnomon of the New Testament, Vol. II, Perkinpine & Higgins, Philadelphia, 1862, p. 788

[9] Socinianism is an unorthodox form of non-trinitarianism that was developed around the same time as the Protestant Reformation (1517-1648) by Italian humanist Lelio Sozzini and later promulgated by his cousin, Fausto Sozzini. In modern times Socinianism has been referred to as psilanthropism, the view that Jesus was merely human (from the Greek psilo meaning “merely/only” and anthropos meaning “man/human being”), a view rejected by the First Council of Nicaea.

[10] Plummer, Alfred E.: Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Epistles of John, Cambridge University Press, 1892, p. 72

[11] John 20:17

[12] Lincoln, William., Lectures on the Epistles of St. John, J. F. Shaw & Co., London, 1871, pp. 10–11

[13] Thomas Scott was a minister and author, principally known for his best-selling works, A Commentary on The Whole Bible and The Force of Truth, and as one of the founders of the Church Missionary Society.

[14] Scott, Thomas: With explanatory Notes, Practical Observations, and Copious Marginal References on the Old and New Testaments, Vol. VI, James Nisbet and Co, London 1866, p. 481

[15] Simeon, Charles: Horæ Homileticæ, Discourses, Vol. XX, James to Jude, 6^th Edition, Henry G. Bohn, London, 1844, p. 356

[16] Huther, Johann Eduard: Hand Book on the General Epistles, op. cit., p 468

[17] The aorist tense expresses action without indicating it completion or continuation such as “I walked.”

[18] Whedon, Daniel D. Commentary on the NT, Vol. 5, Jennings & Graham, New York, 1880, p. 253

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

Chapter One (Lesson XI) 10/19/20

COMMENTARY

When examining quotes from the past, we find that the Latin or Greek manuscripts translated into English are hard to understand because of the early English grammar and vocabulary. But there is a great benefit when we read them slowly and look for the moral lesson. It takes patience, but it is worth it. 

Greek story-teller Aesop (620-564 BC) shares an insightful story about a fox chased by hunting dogs, who came across a woodcutter cutting down an oak tree. The fox begged him to show him a safe place to hide. The Woodcutter advised him to take shelter in his nearby hut, so the Fox crept in and hid in a corner. The huntsman soon came up with his hounds and inquired of the woodcutter if he had seen the fox. He declared I haven’t him, while all the time was pointing and winking toward the hut where the Fox lay hidden. The huntsman took no notice of the signs, but believing his word, quickly went forward in the chase.

As soon as they were far enough away, the fox came out of the hut and trotted away without even looking at the Woodcutter. So, the Woodcutter called out to the fox and reprimanded him, saying, “You ungrateful fellow, you owe your life to me, and yet you leave me without a word of thanks.” The fox replied, “Indeed, I should have thanked you fervently if your deeds had been as good as your words, and if your hands had not been traitors to your speech.”^[1] The Apostle John knew there were many false teachers around already telling different stories about Jesus. So, John accuses them of the same thing; they were saying one thing but meaning another. However, John could say, “I knew Jesus; I walked with Him for over three years; you do not understand what you are teaching.” The same is true of us today. Some say they know Jesus, and yet they’ve never met Him.

Dionysius of Alexandria (248-264 AD) was the Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, during the third century. A convert to Christianity at a mature age, he led the Alexandrian Catechetical School  before becoming the bishop of Alexandria. He was called Dionysius the Great by Church Historian Eusebius of Caesarea In his arguments against Nepos’ writings, a bishop in Egypt (circa 200-250 AD) teaching that to understand promises given to holy men in the Scriptures, it must be from the Jewish perspective. He affirmed that there would be some kind of a millennial period, filled with imagined delights, upon this earth. Dionysius makes a comment, that “The evangelist, on the other hand, did not attach his name to this catholic epistle; but without any hesitation commenced at once with the mystery of the divine revelation itself in these terms: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes.”^[2]

Caius (275-350 AD), a Presbyter of Rome and Christian author who lived at the end of the 2^nd century AD and beginning of the 3^rd century AD, in a fragment of his writings makes this claim: “There is no difference as regards the faith of believers since all of them are related under one majestic Spirit, which concerns the Lord’s incarnation, His passion, His resurrection, His conversation with His disciples, and His twofold advent,— the first in the humiliation of rejection, which is now past, and the second in the glory of royal power, which is yet in the future. What marvel is it, then, that John brings forward these things so consistently in his epistles, saying of his own experience, what we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, that have we written.  He professes himself not only to be an eye-witness but also a hearer, and besides that, the historian of all the wondrous facts concerning the Lord as they happened.”^[3]

Add to this what Christian theologian Didymus the Blind of the Coptic Church in Alexandria (313-398 AD) has to say. He writes: “There is an important difference between seeing and contemplating. For what people see can be told to others, which is not always the case with things contemplated.”^[4] Didymus goes on to say that many think these words here in verse one apply to the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. They say that John is speaking of himself and the other disciples who first of all heard that the Lord had risen and afterward saw Him with their own eyes, to the point where they touched His feet, His hands, His side, and felt the imprint of the nails. Even if Thomas was the only one who made physical contact with him, he was representative of the others, for the Savior told them all to touch Him and see for themselves.^[5]

But others, says Didymus, take these words in a deeper sense, noting that they do not merely speak about touching but also about handling the “Word of life which was from the beginning.” Who can this refer to, other than to the One who said: “I Am that I Am”?^[6] Another interpretation is that we have now openly seen with our own eyes the one who was “at the beginning,” of whom the Law and the prophets spoke, saying that He would come. He arrived seen in the flesh, and the scriptural texts bear witness to him; this is what we believe about the Word of life.^[7]

And Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), in one of his sermons on this text, made this comment: “Well then, the Life was manifested in the flesh because it was exhibited, so that which we can only see by the heart, should be seen by the eyes also, that it might heal the hearts. For only by the heart is the Word seen: but the flesh is seen by the bodily eyes also. We had what was needed to see the flesh, but did not have what was needed to see the Word: the Word^[8] was made flesh, so we might see the Word by being healed.”^[9] To this, we can add what one current commentator had to say in echoing Augustine’s thought. He writes: “Jesus’ incarnation is the central doctrine of the Christian faith. Embracing this historical Jesus and continuing to bear witness to Him (seeing/touching/hearing) should be at the center of our lives together. Jesus Christ as God-in-flesh cannot be marginalized.”^[10]

Augustine also has an interesting comment here on what John says in verse two. Perhaps, he says, some of the believers who are not acquainted with the Greek noun martyrs, translated as “witnesses.” It is a term used by all Greek and Final Covenant writers in religious reverence. In my [Augustine’s] language [Latin], we call them witnesses. Now, where is the person that never heard of martyrs, or where is the Christian who never spoke the word martyrs? And where is the believer who is also not committed to being a martyr for the cause of God’s Kingdom and the message of salvation to a lost and dying world?

Well, John did not have any problem announcing that he and the others have seen and are witnesses, is like saying, we have seen and are martyrs. It was for bearing witness of that which they saw, bearing witness of that which they heard from them who did see, that, while their testimony itself displeased the men they delivered it to, the martyrs gladly bore all they suffered. The martyrs are God’s witnesses. It pleased God to have humans for His witnesses, that others also may have God to be their witness.^[11] And as we know from Church history, all but John died as martyrs for the sake of the Anointed One.

Vincent of Lérins (390-456 AD) comments on what the Apostle John said “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of the life,” proves that old testimonies confirmed by new testaments are as ancient prophecies confirmed by contemporary preaching. As the prophet Isaiah said: “Stop relying on humans, in whose nostrils is a mere breath – after all, they don’t count for much, do they?”^[12] That’s why John says: we’ve seen Him, we’ve heard Him, we’ve touched Him. What was once part of the Messiah’s mission was now part of the Messiah’s message.

Isaiah also tells us that as humans, the Jews would inflict whippings and wounds on the Messiah,^[13] but John declared that He was touched by human hands dispensing healing. Isaiah proclaimed that the Son of God would become the son of man. It is clear then, says Lérins, they both show the Lord Jesus the Anointed One to be both God and man; and that the same person who became man had always been God, and thus He was God and man because God Himself became man.

What perplexed Lérins the most was that some could not comprehend that He, who was invisible from the beginning, was now seen in the flesh. He was not a phantom as the Marcionites and Manicheans claimed. John declared that He was real. The Word made flesh and came to live among us. The author of Hebrews proclaims: “Jesus the Anointed One is the same yesterday, today and forever.”[14] In other words, the same person who existed before the commencement of the world is the same person who will go on living when the world ends; Jesus is the same in the present as He was in the past, for He is the same through all the ages, as He was before all the ages. And all this is seen in the incarnate Lord Jesus the Anointed One.^[15]

---

[1] Aesop’s Fables, Books for the Ages, AGES Software, Albany, OR, Version 1.0, 1997, p. 51

[2] Dionysius: From the Two Books on the Promises, I:4

[3] Caius: Canon Muratorianus, Part 1

[4] Didymus the Blind: Ancient Christian Commentary, loc. cit., p. 167

[5] Luke 24:10

[6] Exodus 3:14

[7] Didymus the Blind: On 1 John, Bray (Ed.), op. cit., loc. cit.

[8] The word Logos is the term by which Christian theology in the Greek language designates the Word of God, or Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Before John consecrated this term by adopting it, the Greeks and the Jews used it to express religious conceptions which, under various titles, exercised a certain influence on Christian theology, and of which it is necessary to say something. (Cf. Genesis 1:3; Psalm 32:9)

[9] Fathers of the Church: Augustine of Hippo, Homily on the First Epistle of John

[10] Burge, Gary M., The NIV Application Commentary, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, op. cit., p. 56

[11] Augustine, op. cit.

[12] Isaiah 2:22 – Complete Jewish Bible

[13] Isaiah 53

[14] Hebrews 13:8

[15] The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11, Bk. 5, Ch. 6, pp. 1173-1174

We’ve all heard about staying humble. It means not letting something making us big-headed and see ourselves as better than others. But that may be more like humility. So, what is the difference? Humble and humility are two words that confuse many people since they have similar meanings. Both humility and humble come from the same Latin root word, “humilis.” Humilis is for “low or close to the ground,” and refers to having or showing a modest or low estimate of one’s importance. The difference between these two words lies in their grammatical categories. Humble is an adjective whereas humility is a noun. This is the key difference between humble and humility. It is also important to note that the word humble also has other meanings in addition to modesty.

Psychologist Mark Leary tells us that most researchers suggest that humble people have an accurate view of themselves, acknowledge their mistakes and limitations, are open to other viewpoints and ideas, keep their accomplishments and abilities in perspective, have a low self-focus, but not a low self-esteem, and appreciate the value of all things, including other people.

And Psychologist Beverly D. Flaxington lets us know that a lot of people spend a great deal of time trying to figure out others – “What did they mean by that?” “What were they thinking?” “Why would they make that choice, versus another choice?” People do this and think of it as “knowing others.” You might say, “I get people – I am wise.” But knowing one’s self leads to mastery of one’s self, and that is where true power of humbleness lies.

Flaxington goes on to say that being humble does not come naturally to most people, so she offers the following steps in being a humble person. First, “Step outside yourself from time to time in relationship to others.” People get into a rut; in the way they operate with other people. In other words, instead of saying “What does that mean?” we say, “Why am I thinking like this?”

Second, “Listen instead of speaking.” Put your attention on the other person rather than on yourself. Don’t just listen to the words from your frame of reasoning; listen to what’s underneath their words. What do they need from you in the moment they are speaking? Stay humble; get focused on what you can give, not on what you can get.

Third, “Watch your emotions and understand your triggers.” When you get angry – what provokes the anger? When you are sad – what stimulates the emotion of sadness? When you feel joyful – what contributes to your joy? Stay humble. Become interested in your own emotional response. Instead of just responding next time, consider your response and what it connects to. Every emotion has a learning inside it.

Fourth, “Give joyfully.” Many people give out of guilt or responsibility or a connection to being “a nice person.” This can lead to resentment and frustration when others don’t give, or you think you give too much. When you give, remain humble. Let go and give to your heart’s content – be a cheerful giver.

Fifth, “Start over every day.” Most people are not taught to be humble. It can be confused with simply putting ego to the side, or giving so much of one’s self that there is little left! True humbleness is knowing who you are and having the calm confidence in yourself that you are able to be other-focused, without sacrificing all that matters to you. It’s not easy. It takes practice. Look for ways each day to practice “being humble and kind.”

Then David Nield, contributing journalist at ScienceAlert, says that psychologists have identified an important trait that could be shared by truly humble people – something called “hypo-egoic nonentitlement.” That simply means that you don’t believe your positive qualities and life achievements entitle you to any kind of special treatment from others. That’s slightly different to having a tendency to downplay your strengths and your achievements, which you might ordinarily associate with being humble, and it gives us a new insight into the essence of humility.

In other words, accept the fact that there are people out there that are smarter and more educated than you are on a variety of subjects. So, don’t act like a “know-it-all.” But at the same time, you stand alone when it comes to the lessons and insights you’ve learned over time. That belongs to you. Be humble, use it wisely, don’t insist on everyone agreeing with you or that everybody should follow your advice. Offer what you know and leave the response up to them.

But what does the Word of God have to say about being humble? Solomon tells us that “When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom.”[1] And the prophet Micah calls out, “O people, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”[2]

Jesus taught that “Whoever exalts themselves will be humbled, and whoever humbles themselves will be exalted.”[3] And the Apostle Peter advises that we “Humble ourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time He may exalt us.”[4] Also, the Apostle James notes that “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”[5]

But the most notable emphasis on being humble comes in God’s answer to King Solomon’s prayer for the first Temple. The LORD said, “If my people who are called by My name humble themselves, and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”[6] We need to follow this divine advice today more than ever before in our history. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

---

[1] Proverbs 11:2

[2] Micah 6:8

[3] Matthew 23:12

[4] 1 Peter 5:6

[5] James 4:6

[6] 2 Chronicles 7:14

I DID IT GOD’S WAY

This story touched me as a husband and father; I’m sure it will impact your heart if you are a wife and mother.

For Sarah Cochran, infertility brought sadness that took root deep in her heart.

For years, Sarah prayed to God, “I will do whatever you want me to.” She had fallen in love with Tom the summer after high school graduation, and three years later, they were married. She felt blessed and happy to join him in his call to ministry.

But one thing afflicted her. She often jumped out of bed, screaming with abdominal pain or bending over while strolling through a store or driving. Doctors diagnosed her with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), and Sarah soon learned that conceiving children would be difficult. Bearing children became a goal to be achieved to make the physical pain worthwhile. Sarah began to withdraw from people. Symptoms of depression began to appear as she and Tom pursued fertility treatments month after month without any result.

One morning, after years of trying to conceive and yet another failed pregnancy test, Sarah locked herself inside their bathroom and screamed. She repeatedly banged her head against the wall. Sarah vomited out of pain–caused by nausea from the fertility drugs and her disgust and rage. She cried out to God to let her die. Her prayers felt as though they bounced off the ceiling, mocking her every thought. How could she have faith in a God that would not heal? She was weary of the pain and tired of praying for others, doubting that God even cared. She became cynical and bitter. She had built her life around a God who cared, but she could see no evidence of that care in her situation.

One morning, as questions swirled in their minds, Tom sat down in the bedroom, while Sarah was still lying in bed, and began to play his guitar and sing: “The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love…the Lord is good to all, and He has compassion on all that He has made. As far as the east is from the west, that’s how far He has removed our transgressions from us…”[1] At that moment, they could feel God’s presence in the room.

A seed of faith and hope began to take root in Sarah’s heart. It expanded and grew over the next decade. God was answering Sarah’s prayer: “God, I will do whatever you want me to.” Sarah realized God was asking if she meant it. He did care for her, but did she care about God’s purpose, His plans, and His people, or was she entirely focused only on her desires and comfort? God wanted her to surrender her full attention, plans for her future and family, and aspirations for education and a career. Could she submit her entire life to God?

After Sarah said, “Yes, Lord, I’ll do whatever you want me to do,” God called Sarah to return to school and become a pastor. She now says confidently, “God’s grace is sufficient to forgive my sins. He is sufficient for me. God does care, though He does say ‘no’ sometimes. God’s perspective is not our perspective. His is bigger and better!”

You may not have gone through what Sarah experienced, but no doubt, there have been times in your life when you prayed, even begged God, to give you something you thought you needed to bring you satisfaction and joy in living for Him. You saw how others were having their prayers answered, and the happiness it brought them. It made you wonder if God was ignoring you or that; perhaps, you were asking for the wrong thing even though it was a legitimate request. I experienced that but found out later why God led me the way He did.

You remember what King Solomon said about trusting the LORD completely, and don’t depend on what you think you know. With every step you take, think about what He wants, and He will help you go the right way.[2] Solomon also stated that you may have plans in your heart of where you want to go, but the LORD will plan out your steps to get there.[3]

The prophet Jeremiah seemed to be having the same problem as Sarah in finding God’s will for his life. So, the LORD told him: “I have good plans for you. I have no intention on hurting you. I plan to give you hope and a good future.”[4]

And the Apostle Paul put it this way: “We know that in everything God works for the good of those who love Him. These are the people God chose, because that was His plan.”[5] I know this to be true because if I had not surrendered my ideas and accepted God’s plan, I would not be sending you this Serendipity at the age of 82. I wanted to find a straight path to reach my goal, but God took me down a winding road because there was so much more for me to learn before He gave me what I wanted. Remember, even if you give up on God, He will never give up on you.[6] – Dr. Robert R Seyda

---

[1] Ord, Graham. (1998) The Lord is Gracious and Compassionate. Vineyard Music.

[2] Proverbs 3:5-6

[3] Ibid. 16:9

[4] Jeremiah 29:11

[5] Romans 8:28

[6] Philippians 1:6