Down an Unfamiliar Road

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

Chapter One (Lesson VII) 10/13/20

James McKnight (1721-1800) reminds us that the Apostle John is not merely describing “the word” but “the Living Word.” It is “the Word of God” clothed in human flesh to be seen, heard, and touched. Furthermore, this Word was not new; it existed from the beginning. Now the Living Word would be tested by actual encounters with wickedness and the temptations of the devil. It was proven to be real by baptism, the Holy Spirit’s descent in the form of a dove, and a voice out of heaven declaring Him to be God’s Son. He was no apparition because he walked, talked, ate, slept, and communed with humanity.^[1] In other words, the Word became real in the world’s eyes, more real than even their idols who could not do what He did to bring the message of salvation to a lost and dying people.

Samuel Eyles Pierce (1746-1829) tells us that the Apostle John wrote this First Epistle to address his concerns of the believer’s communion with God the Father and His Son Jesus the Anointed One through the grace and influence of the Holy Spirit. It is the very essence and utmost excellence of grace, either on earth or in glory. The Apostle John is part of God’s chosen people in the Final Covenant, while Daniel was among God’s chosen people of the First Covenant. Daniel was spoken to by an angel, “O man greatly beloved,”^[2] and John earned the reputation as the disciple whom Jesus loved. He was highly favored by our Lord Jesus the Anointed One. It is told that John rested his head on our Lord’s chest just like the Anointed One lay in the arms of His Divine Father before time began, and drew the love of His Father’s heart into His own, and reflects the full splendor of it, and mirrors the glorious shine of it on His church. And he was, thereby, most eminently qualified to write concerning one of the greatest of all subjects – communion with the divine Godhead, in the incomprehensible essence as they stand related to us, and are personally interested in us, according to their sovereign will and grace.[3]

Pierce concludes his sermon with eloquence by saying with the title, “Word.” John styles this most wonderful Anointed One as “the Word of life.” Yes, we have heard with our ears, we have seen with our eyes, we have looked upon, and our hands have handled “the Word of life.” We find these words recorded in the First Covenant, “By the Word of the LORD were the heavens made.”^[4] We also read the Word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying, “Fear not, Abram; I am your shield, and exceeding great reward.”^[5] David says, “For Your Word’s sake, and according to Your own heart, You did all these great things, to make your servant know them.”^[6] So the Word of Life has always been valuable.

In all these passages, our Lord bears the title of “the Word.” The Word is the index of the mind, by accounting for and expressing what the mind contains. So, the Anointed One, being one in the self-existing Divine Essence, speaks out the eternal Father’s intentions. The heavens and the earth were created, with His Almighty’s approval and all that surround them. It was by Him, all the secrets of the Most-High were proclaimed, and the invisible God brought out of His invisibility. So, says our Evangelist in the first chapter of his Gospel, “No one has seen God at any time: the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.”^[7] It is in Him the full revelation of Godhead is made known. By the Son of God’s union, with the man Jesus the Anointed One, there is the most apparent evidence given to us of the Trinity in Unity for us to understand. In the essential Word, all of God’s mind is opened; all the love of God expressed; the whole essence of God declared. It is as this essential Word, the only begotten Son of God shines forth as God-Man in His most glorious person, mediation, work, grace, and salvation, in the everlasting Gospel, and enlightens His Church so that in His light they can see the Light.^[8]

In 1823 Richard Rothe (1799-1867) received an appointment as chaplain to the Prussian embassy in Rome. In 1828 he was made Ephorus,^[9] at the preachers’ seminary of Wittenberg, Germany, and afterward professor in Bonn and Heidelberg. Rothe was considered one of the most profound thinkers of the century, equaled by none of his contemporaries in his speculation’s grasp, depth, and originality. As he sees it, the first four verses form a preface to the whole Epistle. They point to the contents of the communication of the writer and state its purpose. However, says Rothe, in the Epistle itself, we do not meet with this communication again. On the other hand, they are presented to us clearly and distinctly in John’s Gospel.

Rothe states that the words “That which was from the beginning,” signifies its original self-existence. Being eternally existent, therefore, the only real, actual existence of the Absolute. It adds to the manifestation of the Redeemer’s superior dignity and worth. With that being the case, John’s message’s essential thought means this self-existence is the real and eternal life of which John will speak in verse two. You could not have anything eternally futuristic unless it existed before the beginning. It is especially valid when speaking of God’s Son as the Divine Logos – the Word. Hence, His message was not new; it already existed and only need to be revealed. That’s John’s opening message.^[10]

German Lutheran Pastor and theologian Johann Eduard Huther (1807-1880) focuses on the Anointed One’s theological genealogy whom the Apostle John calls “the Living Word.” This thought, says Huther, is inconclusive in itself, but is more fully explained by the following relative clauses to this extent: “that which was from the beginning” is identical with that which was the subject of perception by the Apostle’s senses.^[11]

And English Bishop in the  Anglican Church and noted scholar, Christopher Wordsworth (1807-1880), notes that John begins this Epistle without mentioning himself. He appears to be unconscious of his individuality and so absorbed in contemplating the Divine Glory of the Anointed One that he heard, saw, and touched that he only sees the One who came down from heaven out of infinite love for His creation. We hear John reverting to the opening of the First Covenant: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”^[12] That was the beginning of the visible world. Then in his Gospel, John speaks of the beginning of the spiritual world.^[13] And here in his Epistle, he begins with Him who had no beginning but is and has been from the start. So, by seeing the Anointed One, John looked at someone existing before the commencement of the world’s creation.^[14]

William Graham (1810-1883) summarizes what the Apostle John was thinking while writing this letter to his readers. Graham has John saying, I taught you something of the nature and universality of sin, of the deceivers and hypocrites who say they have no sin. Still, it would be best if you did not misunderstand that sin is an element of our being. Neither is it attached to us as an absolute necessity or infused into us by God’s will or authority. Also, that resisting such might and dominion are vain and impossible. On the contrary, says John, the main object of my Epistle lies in four words, “that you sin not.”

It is the aspiration of my heart, says John, and the end of all my labors as an Apostle of Jesus the Anointed One, the divine Redeemer. You must not yield to sin but resist it to the uttermost, in the assurance that the grace of the Anointed One will be sufficient for you, and every fresh victory over it will prepare the way for new conquests until the crucifixion of the old self. We must bring every thought into subjection to the Gospel of the Anointed One.[15]

English Baptist minister, college head, and Biblical scholar Joseph Angus (1816-1902) says that we learn the true nature of our partnership with God. He is Light and Love, and being one with Him implies conformity to Him as the Light and purified humanity, redeemed, and holy.  And in conforming to His Love, they must love God and love one another. However, when we deny the Anointed One, all these blessings are lost. We discover the blessedness and duties of sonship. As a family, adoption is our privilege in the Anointed One, and again we are led to the same results. God is righteous: as His children, we too must be righteous! The Anointed One came to take away sin, and in Him is no sin; we must conform to Him. He gave His life for us, and herein His love is our model. Having His Spirit, we shall share His other blessings. Again, if Christ is denied, especially in His human nature, and these blessings are lost.^[16]

---

[1] James McKnight: On First John, op. cit., p. 24

[2] Daniel 10:19

[3] Pierce, Samuel E. Exposition of the First Epistle of John, Sermon 1, Vol. 1, London: J. Nisbet & Co., 1835, p. 1

[4] Psalm 33:6

[5] Genesis 15:1

[6] 2 Samuel: 21

[7] John 1:18

[8] Samuel Eyles Pierce: First Epistle of John, op. cit., pp. 8-9

[9] Ephorus is usually the head of an evangelical seminary or monastery supported by scholarships

[10] Rothe, Richard: Exposition of the First Epistle of St. John, The Expository Times, London, January 1890, p. 85

[11] Johann E. Huther, Epistles of James and John, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the General Epistles, Funk & Wagnalls, New York, 1886, p. 469

[12] Genesis 1:1

[13] John 1:1-3

[14] Christopher Wordsworth: The NT with Introduction and Notes, Vol. II, Rivingtons, Waterloo Place, London, 1872, p. 107

[15] Graham, W. (1857). The Spirit of Love, op. cit., p. 75

[16] Joseph Angus: The Bible Hand-Book: An Introduction to the Study of Sacred Scripture: New Edition, Thoroughly Revised and in Part Re-written by Samuel G. Green, The Religious Tract Society, London, 1904, p. 753

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

Chapter One (Lesson VI) 10/12/20

Œcumenius (circa 700-800 AD) believes that the Apostle John wrote this counter to the Jews and Greeks. They claimed that Christianity was a recent offshoot from Judaism, conspired by rebels like Peter, James, and John to declare a mystery too new to be taken seriously. John responds that this is older than Judaism. It has existed from the beginning. Not just before the Law, but before creation.^[1]

Isho’dad of Merv (circa 823-883 AD), Bishop of Hdatta, a city on the East bank of the Tigris in what is today Iraq, seems to be in the same camp by saying that what many have said about this Epistle have erred, supposing the Apostle John wrote it. Yet, if they investigated the matter, they would have seen that the thought, shape, and authority of this letter are vastly inferior to the sound words of the Evangelist.[2] To the end of the first millennium, there were disagreements among scholars as to who wrote this letter. We have no way of knowing exactly how their views influenced what branch of the early church’s theology. In any case, Isho’dad would be applauded by today’s liberal theologians while conservative and fundamental theologians would turn it thumbs down.

Bulgarian theologian Theophylact of Ohrid (1050-1108) believes that the Apostle John is saying that those who have heard this before from the initial teaching, go on to see Him, not bodily, but rationally, and not with physical eyes, but with their mind’s eye. And to “touch” the Word of Life means we now have that life through the Word.^[3] It also might be reasoned about the Word, says Theophylact, that it initially existed because we heard it from the Law and the Prophets that the Word would come. When the Word came embodied in the flesh, we saw Him. For God, as He is in Himself, “no one has ever seen.”^[4]

Theophylact goes on to say that we joined the appeared Word not frivolously, but, as already stated, after touching, that is, after searching in the Law and the Prophets, we believed the Word that appeared in the flesh. We saw and felt not what the Word “was” (for “who will explain His kind?)”^[5] What the Word “became,” we touched and mentally touched with our senses, for example, as Thomas did after the resurrection. He was united and indivisible, forever the same, visible and invisible, both encompassing and immense, untouchable and tangible, broadcasting like a man, and wonderworking like God. It is how we speak of the Word because of the close union of God with the flesh.[6] Keep in mind; this is what was being taught in the Church almost 1,000 years ago. No wonder the Spirit brought Reformation to the Church by the 1400s.

English Augustinian spiritual writer Walter Hilton (1340-1395) wonders whether or not a particular love of Jesus is necessary for salvation, and how. Of course, he knew that some would oppose such an idea. They would object: If what you say is true, it doesn’t match what we find in the writings of other holy men. Some of them say, (as we understand them), that the person who cannot love this blessed name “Jesus” nor find and feel its spiritual joy and delight with sweetness will be an outsider to the bliss of Heaven and never get there. Hilton’s explanation is in the style of writing in his day and may be hard to understand if left in its original form. So, I have attempted to make it more understandable for today’s reader. I hope you’ll take the time to read his response slowly.

When I read these words, says Hilton, they astonished me, making me anxious. I hoped (as they said) through the mercy of our Lord, they would be safe by keeping of the commandments. Also, by true repentance for their former sinful life, but who never felt any spiritual sweetness, in the name of Jesus. Therefore, I marvel even more to find them saying (as I interpret it) contrary to what I believe. To this, I answer that what (in my opinion) they’re saying (if I understand it correctly) is accurate, and not a bit contrary to what I have said, for this Name, Jesus is nothing else in English but Healer or Health.

Hilton goes on to say that every person that lives is spiritually sick, for there is no one that lives without sin, which is a spiritual sickness, as the Apostle John said: “If we say we have no sin, we beguile ourselves, and there is as no truth in us.” Therefore, they can never come to the joy of heaven until cured of this ghostly sickness. But no person may have this spiritual healing except they desire it, and love it, and enjoy it, just as much as they hope to get it. 

Now, the name of Jesus brings nothing else but spiritual health. They indeed say that no person can be safe unless they love and adore the name of Jesus for no one can be spiritually healed until they love and desire spiritual wellbeing. The same is true of a sick individual who feels that no earthly thing is so dear, nor so needful, nor so much cherished, as bodily fitness.

The conclusion is simple, says Hilton. If you would give them all the self-esteem and riches of this world and not make them whole, they will not be satisfied. In the same way, a person that is sick spiritually, and feels the pain of conviction; nothing is so dear, nor so needful, nor so coveted, as is spiritual energy, and that is Jesus, without whom all the joys of heaven cannot please them. Accordingly, it appears that none can be saved unless they love salvation, have it through the mercy of our Lord Jesus, and only by the merits of His suffering which love they may have even though they live and die in poverty.^[7]

In the early days of the Protestant Reformation, William Tyndale (1494-1536) was an English scholar and became a leading figure in the Protestant Reformation in the years leading up to his execution. He is well known for his (incomplete) translation of the Bible into English and makes an interesting point when he states that the Son of God, who was Everlasting Life, did not yield to the condemnation of the death sentence demanded by the Law. He died on our behalf, not His own. Therefore, since He overcame death by rising from the dead, now that we are alive in union with Him, we too are freed from the Law’s condemnation.^[8] The Lord did not win victory just for Himself, but for us.^[9] This truth certainly puts a new light on what Jesus said at the last supper concerning His body and His blood.^[10] So, says Tyndale, there is a big difference between believing there is a God and believing in the God who is there.^[11]

Scottish philosopher and Church of Scotland theologian Hugh Binning (1627-1653) makes a statement about the circumstances in his day that might be applied to our situation today. He notes that some pretend to possess more precise knowledge of creation and things of the past, including religion. As Binning sees it, most of this is pretention in having an expanded understanding of divine things. They claim to have brighter perception than those in the past, which they describe as “Times of ignorance and darkness, which God winked at.”^[12] If that were so, says Binning, we would count the days we live in now as happy and blessed.^[13] I doubt if anyone will have a better relationship with God today than Abraham did in his day, without first getting to know Jesus.

Daniel Whitby (1638-1726)^[14] paraphrased verse one as follows: “That which was from the beginning (of the Gospel-dispensation, that) which we have heard, which we have seen (namely, discerned as clearly as if we had seen it) with our eyes, (that) which we have looked upon, and our hands have (as it were) handled, of the Word of life, (declare we to you).” He explains that he rendered it as “From the beginning of the Gospel dispensation;” because he finds that is the constant use of the phrase in this Epistle, and elsewhere, where it relates to what Christians heard and saw. He mentions that John’s term “From the beginning” is used nine times in his first two epistles.^[15] For Whitby, this is the best argument against those who claim new light or a more profound revelation of the Messiah than what John testifies.^[16]

English Bible expositor and evangelical churchman William Burkitt (1662-1703) states that by John saying here in verse one, “That which we have looked upon,” certainly exceeds “That which we saw.” To “see” involves a sudden transient act, but to “look upon” is a fixed and deliberate act, and usually a pleasing and delightful act; we looked upon Him as the rarest object, as the desire and the delight of our eyes.^[17] We can make the same comparison between “reading” and “studying,” between “heard” and “hearing.”

---

[1] Œcumenius: Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. XI, op. cit., p. 167

[2] Isho’dad of Merv: Bray, G. (Ed.), 1-3 John, op, cit., p. 167

[3] John 14:6

[4] Ibid. 1:18

[5] Isaiah 53:8

[6] Theophylact Bulgarian; Archbishop of Ohrid, Interpretation 7 of Epistles of Apostles Peter, John, and Jude (New Testament Scripture Interpretations) (Kindle Locations 2143-2160). Kindle Edition.

[7] Walter Hilton: The Scale of Perfection, Bk. 1, Part 3, p. 73

[8] John 3:16

[9] 1 Peter 2:6

[10] John 6:35-40

[11] William Tyndale: Expositions and Notes (1536), The University Press, Cambridge, Published by the Parker Society, pp. 145-146

[12] See Acts of the Apostles 17:30

[13] The Works of Mr. Hugh Binning, Printed by R. Fleming and Co., Edinburgh, 1735, p. 483

[14] Whitby was a controversial English theologian, Biblical commentator, and Arminian priest in the Church of England

[15] Cf. 1 John 1:1; 2:7, 13, 14; 2:24; 3:8, 11; 2 John 1:5, 6

[16] Daniel Whitby: Critical Commentary and Paraphrase on the Old and New Testament, Vol. VI, Printed by J. F. Dove, London, 1822, p. 421

[17] William Burkitt: Expository Notes with Practical Observations, on the New Testament, Vol. II, Published by James Dinnis, London, 1832, p. 753

It’s been a long time since I played on a schoolyard during recess and heard someone involved in a game accuse another person of not being fair in their scoring. The other person was giving themselves an advantage by changing the rules. Psychologist Melanie Greenberg tells us that humans are inherently social beings. We don’t only care about material and financial rewards, but also about social status, belonging, and respect. Research studies show that our brains automatically evaluate the fairness of how rewards are distributed. We seem to have a happiness response to fair treatment and a disgust or protest response to unfairness. This brain wiring has implications for life, happiness, relationship satisfaction, raising kids, and family or social leadership. We must look at how our brain processes experiences of fairness and unfairness and how to cope with life’s unfair moments.

Psychologist Jennifer Verdolin notes that in relationships, in families, and at work, fairness seems to have a bad name. When someone shouts, “That’s not fair!” we are quick to respond with, “Too bad! Sometimes life isn’t fair.” And that’s the message, isn’t it? Don’t expect life to be fair. You’ve got to take what you can get, and if it’s unjust to another, so be it. If life gives you a lemon, make lemonade out of it.

The paradox is that we are capable of detecting inequality instantly and are extremely sensitive to it. In relationships, we call it keeping score. Usually people dislike score-keeping, and strangely it is the people that are ahead of the game who resent it. Why? Because keeping score is a way to balance the scales and restore equality.

Psychologist E. Paul Zehr explains that we all want fairness, whether it’s in daily life or sporting competition. The term “level playing field” is used in regular conversation to capture this idea of equity and fairness. Central to the idea of fairness is the idea of catching out and preventing folks who want to cheat or seek an advantage against others. Those are all great motivations for trying to use technology and support to make sure that the correct calls or decisions are made.

But we also know that sometimes equality of outcome isn’t the right measure. If every party to a deal is satisfied, regardless of any objective measure of equality, then there is no unfairness. But this isn’t the only measure of fairness — we’re also offended by cheating, i.e. breaking rules to gain an advantage. Taking a broader view, the emotions around unfairness perhaps hold society together by calling greed and cheating to account.

Psychologist Sherrie Bourg Carter shares her experience in dealing with unfairness. She recounts that while in college she received a call from a family member telling her that her mother was in the hospital. It was a surprise to hear because her mom was young and healthy as far as anyone knew, but she was told that she needed to come home. Although she lived less than two hours away, when she got to the hospital, her mother was unconsciousness and she passed away soon after she arrived. She had suffered a severe brain aneurysm and doctors told her there really was never any chance that she would survive.

Dr. Carter said it was hard to understand and she had a difficult time getting past the unfairness of it all. Although it’s natural for people feel this way when they lose something very important to them, as the days, weeks, and months passed, she was unconsciously letting herself become preoccupied by the unfairness of life. It seemed like everything even marginally negative that happened was interpreted by her as unfair. If she got a parking ticket on campus, it was unfair (even though she parked in a zone where she wasn’t supposed to park). If it was raining on a day she had to walk to class, it was unfair (even though she was living in a city where rain was common). If she accidentally stubbed her toe, it was unfair. Having that kind of negative mindset, of course, was adding considerably more stress to her life, but at the time, she couldn’t see it.

Fortunately, a few months after her mother’s death, she found the strength to go through some of the things her grandmother left behind, and among them she found a small card with the Serenity Prayer written on it: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.” The message struck her and stayed with her. Instead of immediately going to “that’s unfair” in her head whenever something negative happened, she found herself thinking about whether she had control over it, and if she did, what she could have done to change the outcome. In fact, finding that card led to a series of changes to her mindset that not only changed her mental direction, but she also suspects it was the impetus underlying many of the personal and professional choices she had made and continue to make on her journey through life.

I found some suggestions on how to deal with unfairness, and one of them is, “Stop jabbering about how unfair things are and start listening to sound advice.” Another tip was, “Don’t always give a long explanation of why you are right.” Also, “Take steps to deal with the unfairness privately, not publicly.” Also, “Apologize and make the necessary change needed to get beyond the unfairness, don’t pretend.” And finally, “Keep a positive attitude even though being treated unfairly is a hard thing to handle.”

If you are to put the unfairness in the past and move on, you must take time to find out the root of the problem. Then, determine what control you have over the situation. Furthermore, take responsibility for your behavior. Don’t keep blaming yourself for circumstances beyond your control. Don’t be indecisive, make up your mind that you are internally focused on what you need to do. Then put aside any conclusions you jumped to at the beginning. Take the moral high ground instead of letting it become a street fight. Look for what is still good, fair, and right. Forgive whoever may be responsible for being unfair, even though they were wrong. To forgive means, giving up on any punishment that might be appropriate.

So, what does God’s Word have to say about fairness? Initially, you begin with yourself. Don’t be unfair with someone who you know cannot fight back.[1] Also, keep things balanced so that you own your part of the circumstance.[2] In His prayer, Jesus said to forgive others of their wrong doing so that you will be forgiven of yours.[3] The Apostle James warns us that when we know the right thing to do but fail to do it, we become unfair and that is a sin.[4] And the Apostle Paul tells us to be fair with those over which he have influence so that our heavenly Master will be fair with us.[5] Keep in mind the lesson that the Apostle Peter learned, that God shows no partiality but is fair in all things.[6]

Once we know how to deal fairly with others, we will be able to handle any unfairness done to us. It wasn’t fair that they beat, tortured, and hung Jesus on the cross for doing everything that was right. But He dealt with it by asking His Father in heaven to forgive them because they did not realize how unfair they being with the Son of God. In other words, he took their unfairness and covered it with His own blood so that it would not continue to be a hindrance to the purpose for which He came into the world. So instead of lecturing, scolding, or plan to punish someone who treats you unfairly, do what Jesus did, neutralize it with Love. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

---

[1] Exodus 23:6

[2] Proverbs 11:1

[3] Matthew 6:14-15

[4] James 4:17

[5] Colossians 4:1

[6] Acts of the Apostles 10:34

THE ROAD OF HARD KNOCKS

Renee Mercer loved her calling as a pastor’s wife. She was content in the background, serving next to her husband, Dave, a Wesleyan Methodist pastor. They had just celebrated 30 years of “I do’s” and were looking forward to the next thirty. They had a home with three teenage boys and one girl newly married. Their church was bursting with possibilities and new people.

A knock on the door in the wee hours of Sunday morning shattered their lives. When Renee answered, she received the news that her husband had died while on his mission trip to Nicaragua. Time seemed to stop at 5:20 a.m. as she cried out, “No, this can’t be!”

Renee soon began to ask questions: Where is God’s will in this? David still had so much to do. I can’t do life without him! When no answers came, she did what many of us do in the silent mysteries of suffering: blame ourselves. Did I not pray hard enough? Did I not love him enough, or did I somehow deserve this? God, what did I do wrong? God, what’s going to happen to my kids?

“I don’t think this hurt will ever go away,” Renee said. “Sometimes, the sorrow is so deep all I want to do is throw up. It’s hard to move on when every moment feels like 5:20 a.m. when the news of Dave’s sudden death blindsided me.”

“At my lowest moments, God’s grace often appears clothed as ordinary people who not only grieve for me but with me,” she said. “The first night of being single, he caused someone to slip a verse onto my pillow: ‘God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble’” (Psalm 46:1). Then, in three days, people helped us sell our house and find a new one near my family’s home in just three weeks.

“Some days, I want to sit down and quit because this is too hard, but God’s grace scoops me up and helps me keep doing the next thing. My children and I struggle in our unique ways with the ongoing grief, and as their mother, I wish I could ‘fix it.’”

Many tiptoe around another person’s suffering to not make them cry. But Renee knows crying is part of her healing. She recounts the Apostle Paul’s statement that “My grace is sufficient for you” (2 Corinthians 12:9). Renee said, “We are learning to daily lean on God and limp at our own pace.”

There are two parts to dealing with a loss like this. First is the grieving process. Here’s one definition of “grief:” It’s what you feel when you reach out to hug someone near and dear to you, and they are not there anymore. The second is bereavement. It is when you try to put your life back together with a piece missing. Renee found out that she couldn’t replace that piece, so she let God do it. You keep your precious memories of the one you lost, but you rebuild your life on what God gives you as a new foundation.

As the Psalmist said, the Lord is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit. He heals their broken heart and bandages their wounds. (Psalm 34:18; 147:3) And the Apostle Peter advises us to place all our anxieties on the Lord because He cares for us. (1 Peter 5:7) So, whether your loss involves a spouse, sibling, friend, even a job, place the words of an old but blessed hymn in your heart that reads: “Does Jesus care when my heart is pained too deeply for mirth and song. As the burdens press and the cares distress and the way grows weary and long. Oh, yes, He cares, I know He cares, His heart is touched with my grief. When the days are weary, the long nights dreary I know my Savior cares.” – Dr. Robert R Seyda

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

Chapter One (Lesson V) 10/09/20

Now we come to the text itself. First, by Exposition, we will examine what else we find in the Scriptures that harmonizes with what John says here in His epistle. Commentary of Church scholars will follow from the earliest years after the Anointed One’s ascension to our present era. They are in chronological order, so you can see how theology and interpretation have evolved.

1:1a We want to tell you about the Word that gives life – the One who existed before the world began.

EXPOSITION

The concept of things existing in eternity before they appeared on earth was not new to John. The prophet Isaiah speaks about how God called out God’s creation and humankind from the beginning. And who did this? The answer came, “I, the Lord, am the one. I was here at the beginning, and I will be here when all things are finished.”[1] And the prophet Micah was told why God chose Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Anointed One. God’s message to him was, “His coming was planned long ago, from the beginning.”[2]

When Luke wrote his Gospel, he mentioned that he used the eyewitness reports circulating among the early disciples.[3] No doubt, one of those disciples was the Apostle Peter. He wrote in his second letter: “We had nothing to do with man-made stories when we told you about the power of our Lord Jesus the Anointed One and of His coming again. We have seen His great power with our own eyes …We heard this voice come from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.”[4]

Even after our Lord’s resurrection, some believed that those who saw Him alive were seeing a ghost. But Jesus visited the upper-room and told them, “Look at my hands and my feet. It’s really me. Touch me. You can see that I have a living body; a ghost does not have a body like this.”[5] That’s why John mentioned in his Gospel that the Anointed One became a human being and lived here on earth among us and was full of loving forgiveness and truth, and some have seen His glory – the glory of the only Son of the heavenly Father![6]

So the Apostle John is on solid ground when he begins telling his readers what he personally knows about the Son of God who came as the Word to earth so that we could know for sure what God wanted to do through His plan of salvation, and how we can receive that salvation by faith in what His Son was going to do on the cross and in the grave. That is why John sounds so confident in what he is saying because he has many other witnesses to back up his story.

COMMENTARY

One of the earliest known commentaries on John’s first Epistle was by Christian theologian and philosopher Clement of Alexandria (150-216 AD). Commenting on verse one, Clement says the phrase “In (from) the beginning” in the Gospel refers to the beginning of creation. In John’s Epistle, “That which was from the beginning,” speaks of the Son who co-existed with Father before creation. As such, says Clement, John points to an eternity without a beginning. It also means that the Son of God, who is equal in substance with the Father, is also eternal and uncreated. That explains why John started his Gospel by saying, “In the beginning was the Word.”

What an incredible impact this gives to John’s claim that “we have seen Him with our eyes.” Not only saw Him present in the flesh but also, “Whom we touched with our hands.” For Clement, this not only means they saw and touched His flesh, but the virtues of God’s Son, like the sunbeam which penetrates to the darkest places – the sunbeam coming in the flesh became seeable, hearable, and discernable to the disciples.^[7] And just think, now we can say that the Spirit of this same Son of God now lives in our hearts. That should make Him more real to all of us.

Over one hundred years later, Egyptian Christian theologian and church statesman Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373 AD), – who writes more like a Greek philosopher than an avid Bible scholar – mentions that John indicates here that the Word was coeternal with God. No other word, such as the Greek adjective gennēsis (meaning, “to engender,” “to birth”), can express the relationship of the Word, to God. But because of the Divine Purpose of Creation and Redemption, there is a process stirring within the divine Godhead. The phrase “Divine energy” can also define God’s eternal power becoming Reality, a moving force in God that never ceases. Thus the word “engender” began the great drama of the Universe rising to the height of the Incarnation. After the system is complete, it restores a fallen person to the family of God, which was lost. After Jesus returned to the Father, the Son received the Kingdom for God to be all in all.^[8]

Didymus the Blind (313-398) reveals that many in his day believed this phrase refers to the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus. John spoke of himself and other disciples who also heard the Lord was raised from the dead and saw Him with their own eyes. They touched His feet, His hands, and His side; Thomas felt the nails’ imprint in His hands. 

However, Didymus believes that the Apostle John is speaking of the Word of life, which was from the beginning, and who said to Moses, “I am that I am and always will be.” He is the One of whom the Law and the prophets spoke, saying that He would come. He came and manifested Himself in the flesh. After much handling of the scriptural texts which bear witness to Him, says Didymus, this is what we believe about the Word of Life.[9]

In other words, the divine potential that is always at work in the Creator did not end with creating the universe. That was just the beginning of a Divine Plan to bring forth a Son, born of a woman, to be His personal Living Word to His creation. But it didn’t stop there; this same force continued with humanity’s regeneration from a fallen, desperate, and lost creature into children of the Living God.

The Bishop of the Roman province of Ravenna on the northeast coast of Italy and known as the “Doctor of Homilies,” Peter Chrysologus (380-450 AD) stated so clearly: How can anyone believe that what already existed began later on?^[10] And one day, this same power will cause the Son to return to gather all those regenerated to rise and be with God in eternity where it all began. As the song goes, “Oh, what a mighty God we serve!”

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) makes a valid point by saying it must be sweet and healthy for a Christian’s heart that enjoys the Bread of God to hear what the Apostle John says here. Not only that, but it should always be in the mind of God’s holy church, the body of the Bread of Life.^[11] That means, whatever is already in one’s heart by faith gets excited when the believer hears it spoken by someone physically present with the author of the Gospel.

The Patriarch of Antioch, Severus (459-538 AD), and head of the Syriac Orthodox Church, says that considering that the Apostle said that “No one has ever seen God,”^[12] who can assure us that the Living Word of life has been seen and touched. Severus opposed what was known then as the “Chalcedon theory.” It conflicted with the dual God/Man oneness nature of the heavenly Son of God and earthly Messiah. It was in the incarnate form He was seen and touched. All doubts about Him were proven to be true of Him in that way, for He is the same indivisible Word, both visible and invisible. Without diminishing in either respect, He became touchable in both His divine-human nature. He worked His miracles in His divinity and suffered for us in His humanity. It was in His incarnate form that He was visible and touchable. Not only that, but John also said that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.^[13] How did he know? Because Jesus said, if you have seen me, you have seen the Father.^{[14] [15]}

Bede the Venerable (672-735 AD) seems convinced that the Apostle John wrote this Epistle as a warning to churches about heretics like Cerinthus (who flourished around 50-100 AD).^[16] He was an early gnostic who called himself a Christian but did not believe that the Supreme God made the physical world or that the Anointed One descended from the Father. The Father anointed a man, Jesus of Nazareth, to be His Messiah. Also, Marcion of Sinope (85-160 AD) taught that the God who sent Jesus into the world was a different, higher deity than the creator god of Judaism. He does so by conveying the Lord’s teaching in His own words and confounding the heretics’ foolishness with His apostolic authority.^[17]

---

[1] Isaiah 41:4

[2] Micah 5:2

[3] Luke 1:2

[4] 2 Peter 1:16, 18

[5] Luke 24:39 – Easy to Read Version (ERV)

[6] John 1:14 – The Living Bible (LB)

[7] Clement of Alexandria: Comments on the First Epistle of John, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 1160

[8] Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 4,: Ch, 2, The Situation After the Council of Nicaea, p. 77

[9] Didymus the Blind: Bray, G. (Ed.), op. cit., 1-3 John, p. 166

[10] Peter Chrysologus: On 1 John, Sermon 57, Bray, G. (Ed.). op. cit., p. 166

[11] Augustine of Hippo: Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, N.T. Vol. XI, Ed. Gerald Bray, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 2000, p. 166

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

[13] Ibid 1:1

[14] Ibid 14:9

[15] Severus of Antioch: Bray, G. (Ed.), op. cit., pp. 166–167

[16] Cerinthus flourished around 50-100 AD

[17] Bede the Venerable: Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. XI, op. cit. p. 167

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

Chapter One (Lesson IV) 10/08/20

Frederick Denison Maurice (1805–1872) was an English Anglican theologian, a prolific author, and one of the founders of Christian socialism, and makes an interesting point here. He observes that many call this manuscript an Epistle. It’s because no salutation greets the reader as done in other letters by other Apostles. He does not address it to any particular body of believers or any specific person. The author does not introduce himself, nor does he send any greetings, such as you would expect of someone far from his friends. In these respects, it differs from the other Epistles in the New Testament. German Theologian Friedrich Düsterdieck (1822-1906) does not see this as an actual letter, but only a brief discussion.^[1]

The words “These things we write to you,” and others like them, do not allow us to suppose that it was a discourse delivered with the lips. Otherwise, says Maurice, we might have fancied an aged man standing up in an assembly of men among whom he pastored and mentored a long time, to remind them what lessons he learned, and for what end he pursued a long life. There is a likelihood that his age and feebleness kept him from verbalizing what was in his heart. Nor should we count out his sufferings on his exile on the isle of Patmos. The Spirit inspired him to put his thoughts into writing for us to profit from them as much as those who lived in his day.[2]

Daniel Steele (1824-1914) tells us that false teachers began to spread the theory that sin exists only in the body. Still, the spirit inside is perfectly pure and always must be. The orthodox disciples under John’s leadership opposed this heresy imported from the pagan Orient. One of their arguments was that it denied the sinlessness of Jesus, the Anointed One who had a physical body. If He were to have been sinful, His sinfulness would have revealed the human’s tendency to do wrong. The Dualists,[3] also called Gnostics, got around this critical point by denying the Anointed One’s body’s reality. They boldly asserted that He was a phantom, like the various theophanies, (appearances of God, in human form in the Old Testament). In other words, the incarnation was a sham.

To believe that, removes the cornerstone of Christian theology – Jesus as our Mediator. It makes Him only human. The atonement in His blood then becomes an illusion since He only had the appearance of death, and His resurrection must be unreal if He only appeared to die. John’s main controversy with these Dualists centered on the question, was the body of Jesus real flesh and bones? It accounts for the emphasis John puts so often in this Epistle on believing in John’s proclamation: “Christ come in the flesh.”

It also accounts for the first words of the Epistle containing the theme which John proposes to amplify. Namely, his divine Master’s real humanity, just as he states the proposition of the Lord’s humanness, proven in John’s Gospel. That is the Son of God’s Supreme Divinity, His being the Logos, who was with God and therefore had the distinct personality of one who was God. We have one Gospel and one Epistle, both by the same author, announcing their subject in their treaties’ opening sentence.[4]

Michelle Murray tells us that the earliest attestation of 1 John occurs in the Christian author Polycarp’s letter, a disciple of John,^[5] to the Philippians dated around 117–120 AD. Polycarp warns, whoever does not confess that Jesus the Anointed One came in the flesh is an antichrist. Not only that, but anyone who does not acknowledge the cross’ message is of the devil. And finally, any person who misinterprets the Gospel to cover their immoral behavior by saying there is no resurrection and judgment is the firstborn of Satan.^[6] It is very much what John was saying here in this first letter. While some argue that 1 John predates John’s Gospel (circa 90-100 AD), the majority of experts place its composition to sometime after the writing of the Gospel, therefore putting its date of composition at approximately 100-110 AD.[7] While these dates are only suggestive, they do come relatively close to what we’ve learned from history.

Harry A. Ironside (1876-1951) says that if you want truth concerning God’s kingdom in its present characteristics, you will find it in the Epistles of Peter, James, and Jude during the days when it is still a mystery. If you desire the truth concerning God’s ecclesia,[8] Christ’s body, formed by the Holy Spirit during the dispensation of Grace, you will find that in the writings of the Apostle Paul.  But if you seek truth for the family of God – the believer looked upon as one born again into the divine family – you find that particularly in the letters of the Apostle John. Ironside goes on to say that in the Gospel of John, we have everlasting life as manifested in the Son of God. In the Epistles of John, we have everlasting life, as demonstrated in the children of God.^[9]

At first glance, we must acknowledge that there is no salutation, as most letters contain. Few people write a letter without beginning with “Dear Mom or Dad,” “Dear Friend or Sirs.” It is not out of line to see this more as a message writing to address some current situation or problem. These words by John naming a part of God, or attribute of the Almighty, existing before the beginning of the world is not new to Jewish thought. King Solomon spoke of Wisdom, which is the Living Word of God as preexisting before the universe’s foundation. What he says about Wisdom is the personification of the Messiah Himself.

“The Lord made me in the beginning, long before He did anything else. I was formed a long time ago before the world was made. I was born before there was an ocean before the springs began to flow. I was born before the mountains and hills were set into place before the earth and fields were made before the dust of this world was formed. I was there when he set up the skies when he drew a circle in the ocean to make a place for the land I was there when he put the clouds in the sky and made the deep springs flow. I was there when he set the limits on the sea to make it stop where he said. I was there when he laid the foundations of the earth I grew up as a child by his side, laughing and playing all the time. I played in the world He made and enjoyed the people he put there. So now, O sons, listen to me, for happy are they who keep my ways. Hear my teaching and be wise. Do not turn away from it. Happy is the person who listens to me, watching every day at my gates, waiting beside my doors. For he who finds me finds life and gets favor from the Lord. But whoever does not find me, only hurt themselves. All those who reject me love death.”[10]

You might say, “King Solomon was smart!” But remember, he prayed for wisdom, and it was God’s wisdom he received.^[11] That same inspiration inspired the Apostle John to embody Wisdom in the One who came as the Light and Life and Word – God in the flesh.

Moses was the first to hear this new of a preexisting God when at the burning bush on Mt. Horeb in the Sinai desert, he asked God who He was. The Hebrew response was Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, which means “I Am that I Am and always will be.”^[12] The prophet Isaiah also had a similar revelation of who God was as the First and the Last. That means there was no God before Him, and there will be no God after Him. And the reason is that God has always existed and always will exist,^[13] and His Son is just like Him.^[14]

Furthermore, when the prophet Micah was inspired to announce a new king’s birth would be in Bethlehem of Judea, he said that this new king has been alive from eternal ages past.^[15] It is the same John who wrote the Gospel, starting with the words: “In the beginning, the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.”^[16] And when this Living Word came to earth in human form, He informed His fellow Jews that He was in existence before Abraham was born.^[17] So it’s no wonder that in his vision, John recognized Him right away when He said I am the Alpha and the Omega, Who was and was to come.^[18]

No doubt, John recalls the precious days when he walked side by side with the Master. The very thought of it brings excitement to his voice. Though no longer so young, his heart is still tender to the touch of memories as he thinks on those exciting days. Yet, he does not indicate a wish to go back. His desire now is to propagate what he heard and how it has stayed with him over the years. John is not looking back as much as he is looking forward.

John did not hesitate to express his confidence in the One who existed before the universe was formed and brought everything to existence. No doubt the Apostle remembered the prophetic words of Isaiah: “Who was able to make all this happen?  Who controlled the lives of everyone from the beginning?  I, the Lord, am the One. I was here at the beginning, and I will be here when all things are finished.”^[19] The same Spirit that inspired him to write the opening to his Gospel ^[20] now motivates him to write this letter to those who believed. That’s why he could write this opening with assurance, that the One who spoke the words: “The fact is, before Abraham was born, I Am,”^[21] was the One with whom he walked and talked for over three years.

---

[1] Düsterdieck, Friedrich: Critical and Exegetical Handbook on the Revelation of John, Trans. Henry E. Jacobs, Funk and Wagnalls, New York, 1887, p.24

[2] Maurice, F. D., The Epistles of St. John: A Series of Lectures on Christian Ethics, London; New York: Macmillan and Co., 1893, pp. 19–20

[3] Dualism is not biblical. Scripture does not teach that there are two coequal eternal forces existing together. God alone has existed eternally.

[4] Steele, Daniel: Half Hours with St. John’s Epistles, Christian Witness Company, Boston, 1901, pp. 2–3

[5] See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. III, Ch. 3:4, See Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1.

[6] Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 7:1

[7] Murray, Michelle, Levine, Amy-Jill; Brettler, Marc Z., The Jewish Annotated New Testament, p. 448. Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.    

[8] Ekklesia (or ecclesia) is the Greek word translated in the New Testament as “church.” It comes from “ek,” meaning “out from and to” and kaleo, meaning “to call,” and has to do with a group of people called out from one place and to another. It is an assembly or a congregation. 

[9] H. A. Ironside. The Epistles of John and Jude, op. cit., (Kindle Location 39)

[10] Proverbs 8:22-36

[11] 1 Kings 3:9

[12] Exodus 3:14; See

[13] Isaiah 40:28-41:4

[14] Hebrews 13:8

[15] Micah 5:2

[16] John 1:1-2

[17] Ibid. 8:58

[18] Revelation 1:8, 11, 17-18; 2:8

[19] Isaiah 41:4

[20] See John 1:1-13

[21] Ibid. 8:58

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

INTRODUCTION (Lesson III) 10/07/20

Maybe after reading this touching story, you will see things about love here in John’s first Epistle that you never saw before. Why is God’s love so consequential and loving God, and each other is so necessary? I’m willing to believe that this young man’s experience provides the element of respect for which all Christian families can identify with when a child, once dedicated to God, goes astray. Still, the Holy Spirit was able to lead them back to their rightful place in the congregation of believers.

It is essential to know that John Chrysostom also validates this story of John’s young friend while assisting Theodore of Mopsuetia, who fell away into heresy. When believers petitioned Theodore to help those in his area suffering through a famine, he refused by saying he was far from having any confidence he could do so because his sins were always on his mind as though they had just taken place. In other words, Theodore felt unworthy to believe God could use him in that way. So, when Chrysostom went to guide Theodore back to the truth, he listened to everything he experienced. He then persuaded him to pray for those dealing with the famine. So, Theodore prayed, and God put an end to the drought.

Chrysostom then relates what happened to that young man who was at first a disciple of John, the son of Zebedee, but afterward became a robber chief for a long time. However, once the blessed Apostle John held the young fallen brother with holy hands, he returned to his former level of Christian virtue. In the same way, Chrysostom encouraged Theodore not to misunderstand. He knew as much about the truth as Chrysostom did. The preacher often heard Theodore admiring the Apostle John’s great humility and how, first of all, John kissed the young man’s blood-stained hand. Then, embracing him, he brought him back to his former spiritual condition.^[1]

We also find an interesting discussion on the subject respecting Easter, Baptism, Fasting, Marriage, the Eucharist, and additional Ecclesiastical Rites. It had become an issue because not all the congregations of believers celebrated these holy days on the same day. Early church scholar, Socrates Scholasticus (380-439 AD), notes this routine in his Ecclesiastical History. Eusebius addressed the celebration of Easter after the vernal equinox and his book “The Life of Constantine.” Rome issued this order so that the churches in Western, Southern, Northern, and some in the East of the Roman Empire were to observe this protocol. Emperor Constantine chose the date of March 21 to celebrate Easter.

Therefore, says Socrates Scholasticus, this date was observed in Rome, throughout Italy, Africa, Egypt, Spain, France, Britain, Libya, Greece, the diocese of Asia and Pontus, and Cilicia. That is despite the fact there are plenty of other churches in these areas that did not. Some said, in picking the right date, we must have nothing in common with the treacherous Jews. Yet, what is most interesting is that according to Socrates, most Christians in those days celebrated Easter on the 14^th day of the Jewish month of Nisan (late March to early April). They say that this date was given to them by the Apostle John, whereas the vernal equinox’s celebration was the Apostles Peter and Paul’s preference.^[2]

Polycarp (69-155 AD) was a disciple of the Apostle John and ordained by him as Bishop of Smyrna and chief Bishop of Asia. Many Apostles that saw Jesus in the flesh became teachers under John’s supervision. Specific questions arose concerning the Passover’s day, so John went to Rome in the time of the emperor Antoninus Pius while Anicetus ruled the church in that city. He led many believers who were deceived through Marcion and Valentinus’s persuasion^[3] back to the faith. One day, Marcion and Valentinus met Polycarp by chance and asked, “Do you know who we are?” Polycarp replied, “Yes, I recognize the firstborn of the devil.”

But that wasn’t the only time John rebuked a heretic. Eusebius writes that there was an unbelieving agnostic named Cerinthus (50-100 AD) around this same time.^[4] He was the author of several heretical books by revelations he pretended were written by some great apostle, revealing marvelous things that he falsely claims were shown only to him by angels. He claims that after the resurrection, the Anointed One will set up His kingdom and that people dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures.

According to Irenaeus (130-202 AD), in the first book of his work Against Heresies, he mentions some more horrendous false doctrines written by Cerinthus. Then, in Irenaeus’ third book he relates a story which deserves to read. He says, on the authority of Polycarp, that the Apostle John once entered a bath to bathe; but, upon learning that Cerinthus was inside, he jumped up rushed out the door, for he could not bear to remain under the same roof with him. And he advised those that were with him to do the same, saying, “Let’s run just in case the bath collapses with Cerinthus inside, for he is the enemy of the truth.”^[5]

Afterward, during the reign of Marcus Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus in the fourth persecution after Nero, Polycarp was brought to court at Smyrna and all the people in the Amphitheater cried out against Polycarp to be burned. This Christian hero wrote a valuable Epistle to the Philippians, which believers read to the present day in Asia’s meetings.^[6] In other words, just like the Apostle John, his mentor, and Jesus, his Master, Polycarp, did not mince words. He told the truth and, as a result, died as a martyr of the faith.

Leaping from Polycarp in 200 AD to Reformer John Calvin, in 1500 AD, Irenaeus makes this observation: In this first epistle, the Apostle John wants to set before us the only true contentment God was willing to confer on us through His only Son. John meant this to lift our thoughts to things above. To do this, it requires that the truth must be absolute and provable. Thus, it became the main subject of what he says here in these opening verses.

When we examine these words from John: “what we have seen, what we have heard, and what we have looked on,” it strengthens our faith in the Gospel. John does not make such assertions without any reasoning. Our salvation depends on the Gospel and its reliability to the highest degree. We all know by experience how hard it is sometimes to believe what we cannot see. As Calvin says: To understand is not lightly to form an opinion or to assent only to what is said, but a firm, absolute conviction, so we may dare to subscribe to the truth as fully proven. It is for this reason that the Apostle heaps together so many things in confirmation of the Gospel.

James Macknight (1721-1800), well known for his Harmony of the Gospels, gives us a clear picture that the John who wrote the Gospel and the John who wrote this Epistle was the same. He compares a Scripture verse in both documents to show their similarity: Following Verses come from the NIV.

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN	GOSPEL OF JOHN
1:1 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;	1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God 1:4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
2:5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him:	14:3 Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.
2:6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.	15:4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me
2:8 Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and in you because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining.	13:34a A new command I give you: Love one another.
3:11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another.	13:34b As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
2:8 Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and in you because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining.	1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 1:9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.
2:10 Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble.	11:10 It is when a person walks at night that they stumble, for they have no light.
2:13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one.	17:3a Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God.
2:14 I write to you, dear children because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men because you are strong, and the word of God lives in you, and you have overcome the evil one.	17:3b And Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
2:29 If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of him.	3:3 “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” 3:5 “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.”
3:1 See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.	1:12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God
3:2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.	17:24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.”
3:8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.	8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
3:13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you.	15:20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.
4:9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.	3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
4:12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.	1:18  No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known
5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. This is the confidence we have in approaching God	20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
5:14 If we ask anything according to his will, he hears us.	14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
5:20 We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.	17:2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

---

[1] Chrysostom: On the Priesthood, Ascetic Treatises, Select Homilies and Letters, Homilies on the Statues, The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9, An Exhortation to Theodore After His Fall, Letter 1, p. 184

[2] Socrates Scholasticus: The Ecclesiastical History, Bk. 5, Ch. 22, p. 302

[3] Marcion believed that Jesus was the savior sent by God, and Paul the Apostle was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. The doctrine, practices and beliefs of Valentinus and the Gnostic movement that bore his name were condemned as heretical by proto-orthodox church leaders and scholars. Prominent Church Fathers such as Irenaeus of Lyons and Hippolytus of Rome wrote against Gnosticism. Because early church leaders encouraged the destruction of Gnostic texts, most evidence for the Valentinian theory comes from its critics and detractors, most notably Irenaeus, since he was especially concerned with refuting Valentinianism.

[4] Agnostic refers to a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

[5] The Church History of Eusebius, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1, Bk. 3, Ch. 28, p. 240

[6] Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, Ch. 17, p. 741

• 

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

INTRODUCTION (Lesson II) 10/06/20

Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (BC 25-50 AD), noted for his comprehension of the early congregations of believers and the writings of the Final Covenant, especially those of Paul, John, and Hebrews. We must not forget that the Final Covenant documents were written in Greek by authors who were Jews (of course, now committed to understanding Jesus as Lord, the Anointed One) who were part of the Hellenistic culture of the Græco-Roman world.^[1]

Another thing we find out about the Apostle John was that one of his followers was Papias (60-163 AD). He was Bishop of the Congregation in Hierapolis, a city of Phrygia close to Laodicea and Colossæ. Later, writers affirmed his martyrdom about 163 AD, some say in Rome and others in Pergamos. Papias was a disciple of the Apostle John and on close personal terms with many who knew the Lord and His apostles. From them, he gathered the stories going around about the sayings of our Lord and wove them into a book divided into five volumes. This work was not limited to an exposition of the Anointed One’s sayings but also contained much historical information. Eusebius speaks of Papias as a man most learned in all things, and well acquainted with the Scriptures. In another passage, he describes him as having a small frame.^[2]

About A.D. 100, Justin Martyr was born. The anonymous Epistle to Diognetus was written during his time. Six of its chapters contain indisputable recollections of John’s first Epistle. Martyr wrote the Epistle to the Churches of Vienne and Lyons in 177 AD. He quotes 1 John 3:16. Carpocrates, the Gnostic, lived in Alexandria, Egypt at the beginning of the second century. He tried to pervert 1 John 5:19, “The whole world lies in [control of] the evil one.” Irenæus cites three passages from John’s first Epistle, mentioning its author, and Eusebius says this piece of evidence in precisely the same manner as that from Papias. Clement of Alexandria was born about 150 AD. Like Irenæus, he quotes passages from John’s first Epistle, naming the author. So also, Tertullian, born about the same time, Origen, and the succeeding Fathers. About 170 AD, a Canon of the New Testament was drawn up by a teacher to use catechumens. The name now attached to it is Muratori, who discovered and printed it in 1740 AD.[3]

Papias was one of the foremost leaders in Asia Minor found written about in Eusebius, Irenaeus, and Polycarp’s writings.^[4]  Further, historical accounts inform us that other apostolic leaders would make the trek to Ephesus to hear John recount stories about Jesus and listen to the Apostle’s teaching. Ancient traditions originating in Ephesus also inform us that John’s tomb is in Ephesus. Therefore, it is not speculation to assume that the Apostle John was an evangelist, congregation planter, and pastor in the Mediterranean world whose firsthand knowledge of Jesus’ life, and who interlaced His teachings and ministry into this first Epistle.  As to the audience, we will say more about them as we examine this Epistle further, but there is little doubt that John directed it toward Christians who were already part of the Body of the Anointed One.

Furthermore, Hermas (115-140 AD) cites or alludes to this Epistle. It was also named as authentic by Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD), Cyril of Jerusalem (315-136 AD), and Augustine (400 AD). So, this was not something penned during medieval times in John’s name. Such admiration for these early church scholars can only add to our respect and reverence for what John wrote here in this Epistle. Tertullian, a prolific early Christian writer from Carthage in Africa between 155-240 AD, made this comment: “Read the testimony of John: ‘That which we have seen, which we have heard, which we have looked upon with our eyes, and our hands have handled, of the Word of Life.”^{[5] [6]} Not only does Tertullian quote from John’s first Epistle, but does so as though it was already accepted as genuine and known among early believers as a message from a true apostle of the Anointed One.

We find that Bible researchers have assembled many Scriptural passages from this epistle representing a summary of Biblical faith to use in answering the question, “What do you believe?” One of the fifteen they included is where John says: “Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus the Anointed One came to earth in human form is from God.”^[7] To deny this, says John, is inspired by the spirit of antichrist.^[8]

Then we have a narrative shared by church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD), about the Apostle and evangelist John while he was still living in Asia and governing the congregations of believers of that region. After he returned from his exile on Patmos Isle following the death of Roman emperor Domitian, his being alive at that time can be established by the testimony of two witnesses. They should be trustworthy who have maintained the Church’s orthodoxy, and such indeed were Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.

Eusebius first lists Irenæus in his second book, Against Heresies. There we read that the elders associated with John bear witness this story, John told them, while he remained with them until the time of Emperor Trajan. And in his third book on the same subject, he attests the same thing in the following words: “The church in Ephesus, which was founded by Paul, and where John pastored until the time of Emperor Trajan, is also a witness of this story which was part of apostolic tradition.” Clement likewise, in his book entitled “What Rich Man Can be Saved?” indicates the time and attaches a narrative that is most attractive to those that enjoy hearing what is beautiful and rewarding.

Eusebius then suggests that we read the account, which runs as follows: Listen to this story, which is not a simple fairytale, but an accurate narrative concerning John the Apostle, handed down and treasured up in memory. After the Roman tyrant Trojan’s death, John returned from the Isle of Patmos to Ephesus. He received invitations to visit the neighboring Gentile territories. There he appointed Bishops, and in some places, set congregations in order. In other areas, they asked him to choose for the ministry the ones pointed out to him by the Holy Spirit.

When John arrived at one of the cities not far away, he counseled the brethren on several matters. Then, he spotted a young man of powerful physique, of pleasing appearance, and striking character. Turning to the Bishop, John said, “In all earnestness, I present this young man to you in the presence of the congregation, with the Anointed One as my witness.” The Bishop accepted the charge and promised to do his best; John repeated the same injunction with an appeal to the same witnesses and then departed for Ephesus.

This narrative by Eusebius is long, so I’ll summarize it. He took the young man he chose home with him. There he looked after him, baptized, and taught him. As the boy grew older, John relaxed his strict routine, satisfied that the Lord’s seal he placed on him provided perfect protection. But some young men of his age, idle, immoral, and accustomed to doing wrong, were able to make friends with him. At first, they took him along and paid all the costs for entertainment. They then talked him into going with them at night to commit robbery to pay for their expenses.

Finally, they demanded that he join the gang to commit even greater crimes. He gradually became accustomed to such practices. Like a horse freed from its harness, he rushed fast down into the depths. By so doing, he quit reading and meditating on John’s teachings lost all interest in serving God. As a result, he became a bold bandit-chief, the most violent, most bloody, cruelest of them all. So when the elders of the churches he visited earlier sent someone for John to send back the young man to help them in the ministry. That’s when John groaned and burst into tears as he said, “He’s dead! “How did he die, they asked?” “He is dead to God!” moaned John.

Nevertheless, John called for a horse and asked that he be taken to these robbers’ den. But the lookouts captured him when he entered their safe area and quickly took him, prisoner. But John did not resist or try to escape. He told the sentinels that he came to see their leader. Word reached the chief bandit, standing defiantly, holding his weapons. But as soon as he recognized the Apostle John, he turned in shame to flee, cutting his hand as he dropped his dagger. But John, forgetting his age, pursued him crying out, “Why, my son, are you running away? I’m your spiritual father, I carry no arms, and I’m old. Have pity on me, for I still believe there is hope for you. Someday I will have to give an account to the Anointed One for you. And if I must, I’ll gladly die for you even as the Lord died for us. Believe that the Anointed One has sent me to get you.”

When the young man heard this, he stopped, he threw away his weapons and trembled as he wept bitterly. And when John approached, he embraced him with both arms while the young man only embraced him with one arm as he confessed his sin with remorse as best he could. As a result, with tears of repentance, he submitted to be rebaptized. The young man, falling to his knees, pleaded with the Anointed One for forgiveness. Then John reached out and took the bloody hand the young man was holding behind his back and kissed it to show that he was still worthy of God’s love. They left the robber’s den, and John took him back to the congregation. There they found the believers making intercession for him with many prayers. They say that John did not leave until he restored the young man to the congregation, which furnished everyone as a great example of true repentance and a great example of regeneration, a perfect illustration of a spiritual resurrection.^[9]

[1] Philo, The Works of, Hendrickson publishers, 1993, Trans. C. D. Yonge, An Introduction to Philo Judæus of Alexandria, Forward by David M. Scholer, p.10

[2] Introduction to the Fragments of Papias: The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, pp. 278

[4] Polycrates: Letter written to Victor, Bishop of Rome, in late second century as recorded in Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History 3:31.3; 5.24.2

[3] See Tregelles’ Canon Muratorianus, Oxford, 1867, pp. 1, 81-89

[5] Cf. John 1:1

[6] Tertullian: A Treatise on the Soul, Ch. 17: “Fidelity of the Senses, Impugned by Plato, Vindicated by Christ Himself.”

[7] 1 John 4:2

[8] Creeds of the Church: Bible Creeds, Books For The Ages, op. cit., p. 5

[9] Eusebius, Church History, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1, Bk. 3, Narrative Concerning John the Apostle, Ch. 23, pp. 232-233

---

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

INTRODUCTION (Lesson I) 10/05/20

It is a historical fact that theologians traditionally held that the Apostle John composed these three epistles at Ephesus, as part of his ministry as Bishop, following his exile on the Isle of Patmos. The content, language, and writing style are very similar to the Gospel of John. In fact, by the 1800s, Bible scholar Ernest DeWitt Burton (1856-1925) wrote that there could be “no reasonable doubt” that the same author wrote John’s first Epistle and his Gospel.^[1] And theology professor Amos Wilder (1895-1903) said that “Early Christian tradition and the great majority of modern scholars have agreed on the common authorship of these writings, even when not identifying the Apostle John as the author.” This majority view is typified by the Swiss Reformer Johannes Œcolampadius (1482-1531), who, in summarizing the career of the beloved Apostle, refers to his first Epistle as “the purest Gospel.”^[2]

However, other modern scholars have challenged this position. But they are not the first. Isho‘dad of Merv, Bishop of Haditha (c. 850 AD), complains that many erred by supposing the Apostle John wrote it. Had they investigated the matter, they would see that the thought, shape, and authority of this letter are significantly inferior to the sound words of the Evangelist. Although John’s authorship of the three epistles is still almost universally accepted, Bible scholars such as Heinrich Julius Holtzmann and Charles H. Dodd have maintained that different authors wrote the Epistles and the Gospel. There are at least two principal arguments for this view. First, the Epistle often uses a demonstrative pronoun at the beginning of a sentence,^[3] then a particle or conjunction, followed by an explanation or definition of the pronoun at the end of the sentence. John does not use such stylistic techniques in his Gospel. The second is that the author of the Epistle “uses the conditional sentence” in a variety of hypothetical rhetorical figures which are unknown to the Gospel.

However, I find too many similarities in the way the author of John’s Gospel and the Epistles express faith and belief in the Word being none other than Yeshua of Nazareth, the Messiah. Therefore, it is hard to imagine anyone being able to duplicate that so frequently. None of the early Apostles or the disciples of John, such as Polycarp, knew about this. If they knew, they failed to mention it. Perhaps John, like Paul, used a stenographer to write what he dictated. But the sense and feeling of what they wrote are that of the Evangelist John.

Wilhelm Martin Leberecht De Wette (1780-1849) notes that the author of this composition does not call himself the Apostle John, nor does the author of the fourth Gospel, merely an eyewitness of the history of Jesus. However, in the Second and Third Epistles, he calls himself an “elder.” It may not be a title, but it probably distinguishes him from a younger writer by the same name. We can be sure that both the Epistle and Gospel flow from the same quill. That is because both bear the distinct stamp of personal relationships. Not only that, but the text also has the same style of writing and development of thought. Both the Epistles and Gospel cast similar congenial spells of human feeling over the reader. Leberecht goes on to note that this Epistle is attested to by unanimous voices of antiquity. Papias, Polycarp, and Irenaeus, Polycarp’s disciple.^[4]

In 1889, at a theological conference at Giessen, Germany, on the 20^th of June, Protestant theologian Emil Schürer stated that the two parties, those who maintain and those who deny the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel were now approaching reconciliation.^[5] This agreement and confidence in the Apostle John being the writer should bleed over into his Epistles. Unfortunately, the “deny” party seems to have grown. As to the period in which John wrote this manuscript, there is consistent evidence that after visiting or starting congregations in Asia Minor,^[6] he relocated to Ephesus during the Jewish War of 66-70 AD.

There is some hint that Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-100 AD), who lived at the same time as the Apostle John, may have been familiar with Apocalypse writings in the Book of Revelation.^[7] For instance, “For there broke out an extraordinary storm during the night, with the utmost violence, and powerful winds, with the most massive showers of rain, with frequent lightning, terrible thunderings, and amazing concussions and bellowings of the earth, that was in an earthquake. These things were a visible indication that some type of destruction was coming upon humanity when the world system brought disorder, and anyone could guess that these wonders foreshowed some grand calamities on their way.”^[8]

When John speaks about the dividing of Jerusalem into three parts,^[9] we see that Josephus used similar language. He told that the uprising at Jerusalem started up again and parted into three factions. These factions began fighting one another. This partitioning of evil forces, says Josephus, may be said to be a good thing and the effect of divine justice. Furthermore, John mentions about an incredible hailstorm with large hailstones weighing one talent. Josephus said that the hailstones covered two furlongs^[10] and farther. The pounding they brought was unmanageable, not only by those that stood in the way but by those that were beyond them for a great distance. As for the Jews, they at first watched the coming of the hail, for it was white, and could, therefore, was not only perceived by the loud noise it made but seen by its brightness.

Furthermore, if you have read any of my other commentaries, you noticed that I seldom use the title “Christ” because I prefer the term “the Anointed One.” Here is an excellent article laying out the reasons for that decision and will help give more depth to an understanding of how the original meaning of what Christ means got lost in the translations. Here is an explanation:

One of the interpretive debates about 1 John among scholars today is how to construe the Greek word the Anointed One referencing Jesus. The Greek adjective derives from the cognate verb chriō, which means to anoint. In the First Covenant, the word Messiah similarly derives from the Hebrew verb “to anoint.” So, in the ancient Greek translation of the First Covenant (the Septuagint (LXX)), references to the Messiah were translated with the Greek word the Anointed One.   In the Final Covenant, the sense of the word develops as the true nature of Jesus is progressively revealed. In the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles the Anointed One was often used to identify Jesus as the Messiah, “This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah [Christou] the son of David, the son of Abraham;”[11] or in Peter’s answer, “You are the Messiah [the Anointed One].”[12] After His resurrection and further spiritual illumination, the appellation, the Anointed One, came to have a significance that went beyond any expectations for the Messiah of Israel. It shifted from designating the title of God’s anointed leader of Israel to a proper name that reflected the divine nature of the Son of God incarnate as Jesus the Anointed One.[13]   There is a debate about when, or even whether, this shift occurred. German historian of religion, Martin Hengel, thinks that even in Paul’s writings, the Anointed One is used almost entirely as a proper name with only “a glimmer of its use as a title.” Representing another side of the debate, English New Testament scholar Nicholas T. Wright argues that “Jesus’ Messiahship remained central and vital for Paul” and, in fact, persisted throughout early Christianity. However, the idea of the Messiah has been transformed in at least four ways, according to Wright, when applied to Jesus: (1) it lost its ethnic specificity and became relevant to all nations; (2) the messianic battle was not against worldly powers but against evil itself; (3) the rebuilt temple would be the followers of Jesus; and (4) the justice, peace, and salvation that Messiah would bring to the world would not be a geopolitical program but the cosmic renewal of all creation. It is to this transformed sense of the Messiah as the Son of God himself that the appellation the Anointed One refers to the time John writes his Gospel and letters.   More to the point for John’s first Epistle, which does John mean when he writes, “Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Anointed One? This one is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.[14] Is the liar the person who denies that Jesus is the Messiah? Or is it those who deny the divine nature of Jesus designated by the compound name Jesus the Anointed One? The answer to that question has far-reaching implications for understanding the historical setting and interpreting First John.   If John is insisting that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah against those who are waiting for another, then John’s original message goes against a Jewish audience, some of whom had become Christians but then changed their minds about Jesus. But if the Anointed One had come to designate the divine nature of Jesus that went beyond all Jewish expectation for the Messiah, then he writes against any who deny that divine nature.[15] So as we can see, the inner meaning of the Anointed One is the essence of His being “the Anointed One.” When forgotten, then the Anointed One becomes a title or surname, and His designation as the Anointed One becomes lost in translation.   By the early 1700s in English speaking countries, the term “Christ” became a surname. Even if they would have inserted “the” it would have changed the connotation to Jesus the Christ. Nevertheless, we must never forget that each time we say the word “Christ” we are actually saying, “the Anointed One.” – the Messiah.

---

[1] Burton, Ernest De Witt: The Records and Letters of the Apostolic Age, Acts, Epistles, and Revelation, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1895 (1881 Version), p. 206

[2] Œcolampadius, Johannes: Sermons on the First Epistle of John: (A handbook for the Christian Life), Trans. Timothy Matthew Slemmons, 2017

[3] A demonstrative pronoun is used to point to something specific within a sentence.

[4] Leberecht De Wette, Wilhelm Martin: An Historico-Critical Introduction to the Canonical Books of the New Testament, translated by Frederick Frothingham, Crosby, Nichols, and Company, Boston, 1858, pp. 354, 356

[5] Gloag, Patton James: Introduction to the Johannine Writings, James Nisbet & Co., London, 1891, p. viii

[6] These may be some of the churches he wrote to during his exile on the Isle of Patmos. See Revelation, Chapters 2-3

[7] Revelation 16:18

[8] Josephus, Flavius: Wars of the Jews, Bk. 4, Ch. 1, Sections. 286-287, pp. 1590-1591

[9] Revelation 16:19

[10] Approximately 660 feet

[11] See Matthew 1:1

[12] Mark 8:29

[13] Colossians 1:22

[14] 1 John 2:22

[15] Jobes, Karen H., 1, 2, and 3 John (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on The New Testament Series Book 18) (p. 53). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.  Jobes, Karen H. 1, 2, and 3 John, op. cit., pp. 54-56

Recently I saw a very deserving American hero awarded the Medal of Honor by the President. While reading what this selfless soldier did to rescue and protect his fellow soldiers was remarkable. There was no doubt, this soldier was a man of great courage.

But I don’t know if we really know what courage is. Psychologist Melanie Greenberg tells us that courage is something that everybody wants – an attribute of good character that makes us worthy of respect. From the Bible to fairy tales; ancient myths to Hollywood movies, our culture is rich with exemplary tales of bravery and self-sacrifice for the greater good. From the cowardly lion in The Wizard of Oz who finds the courage to face the witch, to David battling Goliath in the Bible, to Star Wars and Harry Potter, children are raised on a diet of heroic and inspirational tales.

Yet courage is not just physical bravery. History books tell colorful tales of social activists, such as Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, who chose to speak out against injustice at great personal risk. Entrepreneurs such as Steve Jobs and Walt Disney, who took financial risks to follow their dreams and innovate, are like modern-day knights, exemplifying the rewards and public accolades that courage can bring.

There are different types of courage, ranging from physical strength and endurance to mental stamina and innovation. Dr. Greenberg then suggests six ways to define courage:

1. Feeling fear yet choosing to act.
2. Following your heart.
3. Persevering in the face of adversity.
4. Standing up for what is right even if you lose friends.
5. Expanding your horizons; letting go of the familiar.
6. Facing suffering with dignity or faith.

Then psychologist Leon F. Seltzer remarks that to most of us, courage is little more than confronting a dangerous situation without flinching. The individual exhibits valor and bravery is fearless, assured, dauntless. In the vernacular, such people might be considered “gutsy – even as, well, “cocky.” And undeniably, we view courage as what heroes are made of.

As one writer said, “Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than the fear.”  And this seminal quote elegantly makes the point that when we decide to act courageously, it’s because we’ve already determined that the risk, danger, or the risk of doing so is worth it. It’s truly about having the “courage of our convictions,” “putting our money where our mouth is,” and who knows how many other common expressions that address our willingness to show fortitude in the face of adversity.

But we must never let fear or being fearful make us feel like a coward. Courage is the quality of mind and spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., with fear but perseverance. Beginning with Aristotle philosophers have analyzed physical courage and moral courage in great detail. However, philosophy has never addressed the type of courage involved in facing the fears generated by our habits and emotions. 

And the Bible has much to say about courage. Here is what God told Joshua when he took over from Moses to lead the children of Israel into the Promised Land: “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.”[1] This was certainly a call for mental courage. Then later, God spoke to Joshua as he was about to cross the Jordan into Canaan: “So be strong and courageous! Do not be afraid and do not panic before them. For the Lord your God will personally go ahead of you. He will neither fail you nor abandon you.”[2] This was a call for courage of heart.

Then the Psalmist urged everyone, “Wait patiently for the Lord. Be brave and courageous. Yes, wait patiently for the Lord.”[3] In other words, don’t let fear stop you from putting faith in God to get you through your difficulties. And David encouraged Solomon to stick with the task given to him, “Be strong and courageous, and do the work. Don’t be afraid or discouraged, for the Lord God, my God, is with you. He will not fail you or forsake you. He will see to it that all the work related to the Temple of the Lord is finished correctly.”[4]

And when the Apostle Paul and his Roman guards got off the ship and were walking toward Rome, we read, “The brothers and sisters in Rome heard Paul’s and his entourage were coming, and they came to meet them at the Forum on the Appian Way.[5] Others joined them at The Three Taverns.[6] When Paul saw them, he was encouraged and thanked God.” This encouraged Paul’s spirit.

We should not always be looking for words of courage from others, but to encourage others to remain steadfast and stick to the path God gave you to follow. Furthermore, by you showing courage it will inspire others to take courage and remain faithful to their calling and ministry. Remember to be courageous you must overcome fear – False Evidence Accepted as Real. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

---

[1] Joshua 1:9

[2] Deuteronomy 11:6

[3] Psalm 27:14

[4] 1 Chronicles 28:20

[5] About 43 miles from Rome

[6] About 35 miles from Rome