1 John: Know Pt 2

0:02 Looking at our world from a theological perspective. This is the Theology Central podcast making Theology Central. Good afternoon, everyone. It is Saturday, October twelfth, twenty twenty four. It is currently twelve sixteen pm Central Time, and I am coming to you live from the Theology Central studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I have done it once again. I had no intention of starting a series, but here we are now in kind of a mini series. I'm hoping it will be a mini series.

0:43 I'm hoping this doesn't go too far. We kind of have a little series kind of going on with the Six Secrets of the Christian Life, and that's kind of involved a lot of different things. So I think we're doing pretty good with that. We still we are way, way, way way behind on working on all of the therefours in the Book of Romans. I wanted to get to Romans chapter four and look at the next therefore tomorrow at Victory Baptist Church, but at the same time, I can't really do that because we're also working on well, we've been kind of working on this idea of how Christians handle the subject of sin, which kind of fits in with our Six Secrets of the Christian Life for six Secrets, so we've been there's just a lot of different things out there that are kind of all falling together. We still have the ongoing series on eschatology that we need to finish that as well. There's always so much. I guess probably the main thing I'm really struggling managing right now is, you know, for basically twenty three twenty four years, it was Sunday School, Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night at Victory Baptist Church, right, and as things are kind of wrapping up and the church has basically come to an end, you now we basically just have two hours on Sunday, and I'm not used to doing that. So then it's like, well, if I'm doing those things at the church, do I finish them on the podcast or

2:13 do I finish them at Like You're still trying to how to navigate all of that, and so we have all of these things going on, and then in the midst of all of that, what happens, Well, don't forget we also have our ongoing series for the sermons two point oh app Sermon Challenge, right, So that challenge has led to really a lot of other series because I'm following the challenge listening to random sermons, and when I listen to a random sermon, almost inevitably it turns into something. So the last few days I started kind of changing things up a little bit because typically for the Sermon's two point oh app Sermon Challenge, I was randomly choosing a sermon, which we're supposed to do, not listening to it, because that's what I typically do for a review, and then just do a review not really knowing where it's going to go, not knowing what's going to happen, and then after maybe you know, two hours of broadcasting, three hours of broadcasting to finish the review. Then sometimes it would then turn into a series addressing what either the interpretation the sermon gave or actually dealing with the text, because we didn't feel like the sermon actually handled the text.

3:30 So that's how we've been doing it. But I changed it up a little bit. Instead of going in completely blind, what I started doing over the last few days is listening to the beginning of the sermon, getting their basic hypotheses, the finding out the scripture, then doing my own work on the scripture, then just do the review to get to the basic idea, and then immediately go into my teaching, so that we're not spending three hours doing a review to only come to the conclusion that the sermon's hypotheses as crazy or they didn't even deal with the text. It's better try to get the basic understanding the sermon is giving, try to get the basic scripture, and then we can just go and do our own thing. So I have found that a little bit more satisfying, at least to some level, right. I mean, there's nothing worse than when you're done basically three hours of reviewing, critiquing, and analyzing a sermon that when you're done, you basically feel like, I don't know if the people got anything from this. I don't know if I got anything from this.

4:33 This was an absolute, a complete and total train wreck. At least this way, I can guarantee, no matter what happens in the sermon, we're gonna be able to spend some time actually in the text, because I've already done the preliminary work. So I'm ready to go. And I know this is kind of bad, but I'm kind of going in with the assumption that the sermon's gonna not the sermon is not going to really deal with it, and ladies and Jai, that's kind of what just happened. I came across a sermon again randomly choosing sermons entitled five Critical Things you need to Know. Five critical Things you need to know? All right. Now, that's an interesting title, and to be fair, the sermon does provide five critical things you need to know, and they find all of them in First John chapter three. All right. But the problem is is in his preliminary comments, like he said, he was laying down some just like fundamental information. In that fundamental information, he gave some, but then it just kind of left us not really dealing with the bigger issue.

5:43 So his argument was that in First John, you have at least twenty five times I think later he said more than twenty five times the use of the word no as of knowing something, know no, right, And I was like, ooh, that that's an interesting that's interesting. And if First John uses the word no and talking about knowing something that many times, oh, I think I know the reason why, because what First John is really about? Because everyone says First John is some test book to test one salvation. And we've talked about all of the problems with that hermoneutical approach. I've said over and over and over that First John is a polemic against gnosticism.

6:30 Gnosticism is the key. If you understand gnosticism, you have a better way of understanding First John. So I'm like, okay, well, gnosticism, gnosis, knowledge, secret knowledge, okay. Oh, and the word no is used like twenty five times, maybe even if you take all the different no knowing all the different variations, and it's actually over thirty times. I'm like, we're onto something here. So because this sermon mentioned how many times it was used, I thought they were going to do something with it. I thought they were going to explain why is it used this much, what does it mean, what is the historical context, what is the textual But the sermon just abandoned that completely then just basically goes to First John chapter three. It says you need to know this, you need to know this now. The things they say you need to know are important and are critical. But if no is really connected to gnosticism, then the critical things this sermon says we need to know, we need to know them. In relation to how they address gnosticism. But the sermon completely ignored all of that, and it was like it was maddening. So I gave you. So we did a little bit of work. We've done a little bit of preliminary work, and now we're going to try to just see if we can take this a little further.

7:52 It's gonna take a while. It's gonna take a couple of parts to get through everything I have. But I think by the time we're done, hopefully we're going to know, oh get it. We're going to know more about First John than we knew before we started. As we start lert listening figuring this out so that we can know even more, you're getting the idea. So we're not going to go back and review any more of the sermon. I did listen to a little bit more, and yeah, I mean, it's not going to get into gnosticism, it's not going to get into historical it's not going to do any of that, right, It's just they had no intention. So it was a little it was a little frustrating to me. But you know what, we can forget the sermon.

8:35 We can work on it. So are you ready to put this all together, all right. First John uses the word no know well over twenty well over twenty five times. I don't know if I can say well over. Probably if you take no knowing and all that over thirty times, I challenge you to take your Bible. Don't just look it up like online, don't use like a Bible app. Just give him through First John, and find every use of the word no right down the reference, maybe even right to out the verse. Because now you're getting you're going through the book. That's good. You're skimming it. That's good. You're finding specific verses and writing them down, and that will help you know the contents of the book better than you knew them before you do this exercise. So I told everyone to do that. I don't know if anyone's participating, but okay, I told everyone to do that.

9:28 That's great, right, So I have them all written down here. First John two to three. By this, we know that we have come to know him if we keep his commandments. Oh, so many issues with that verse. First John twoy four. The one who says I have come to know him and does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. First John two five. But whoever keeps his word in him, the love of God has truly been perfected. By this. We know that we are in him. A WEE could spin, Oh, there's so much we need to work on in first John two but okay, so, but I can go through all of the verses. I could just sit here. We could take an entire episode to go to every verse that uses the word no and then try to figure it out.

10:13 We could do that, and maybe one day somewhere, maybe we will. But we're gonna try to, in a sense, work on all of this by well, I think looking at the bigger issue here, and here's where I know we really need to go. And we talked about this in the last episode. All right, The first use of no is in first John two three, right k N O W. And if you go to a the intilinear and you look up the Greek word that is translated no, or actually it's translated from a phrase. Let me go back to it two three. Let me go back to the antilinear. The phrase is we do know comes from one Greek word, and then we know comes from the same Greek word. All of that is in first John two three, Greek word. Everyone should remember. This is this Greek word. Strong's g one ninety seven. Ganosko, ganosko, genosco, genosco.

11:13 Just remember that ganosco. Now, as soon as I saw the Greek word was ganosco, I was like, ganosco. I know why ganosco is being used. I know, I like I that that Greek word just has to like, I know why no is being referred to because if you think about genosco, well you think about gnosis, and you think about ah, gnosticism. All right, So here is a little bit of I'm just gonna this is all review. I'm gonna go through this relatively quick. All right. You can go listen to part one for the review and a little bit more discussion on this. There is a connection between the Greek word ganosco and gnosticism, but it's important to distinguish between the common linguistic use of ganosco and the philological or fill a philosophical system of gnosticism.

12:03 The Greek word gnosco the Greek verb ganosko simply means to know or to come to know, and it is used frequently in the New Testament, including First John, to describe knowledge and it is to describe, and it's used to describe knowledge in a relational, experiential and intellectual sense. Relational, experiential, intellectual. Keep that in mind. It is a common Greek verb ganosco. It's not inherently tied to any particular philosophical or thiological system.

12:44 For example, it is used in many context to refer to knowing God, people, or facts. In these biblical contexts, ganosco refers to knowing God, knowing the truth, or knowing facts through experience, relationship, or understanding. It is not inherently tied to any special or secret knowledge. Now that's key. Gnosko is not tied to any secret knowledge, where nosis or gnosticism is all about secret knowledge. So already I know. I think we're onto something here. Now when we turn to gnosticism, it is derived from the Greek noun gnosis, meaning knowledge. Gnosticism refers to a diverse set of religious and philosophical movements in the early centuries of Christianity that emphasizes esoteric hidden knowledge gnoses as the key to salvation.

13:45 Gnosticism taught that this special knowledge was accessible only to a select few, and that it allowed them to transcend the corrupt material world and reconnect with the divine, and gnosticism knowing was not simple about factual or relational knowledge, but about an elite, mystical understanding of spiritual realities that we're hidden from the masses. Now, while the word ganoskco to know a gnosticism rooted in nosis share the same Greek root, the connection between them is more about the Gnostics, how the Gnostics appropriated the concept of knowledge, rather than any intrinsic connection between the words themselves. So there's not an intrinsic connection between the words, but the words bring this idea of knowledge and to know, which is very much the hallmark of noss you know, the secret knowledge and gnosticism. So I believe First John by using no no no no genoskoven and there's another Greek word, But just utilizing the word no over and over and over and over tells you that there that knowing is key to First John, because First John is a polemic against Gnostics who are all about secret knowledge. But the knowing and First John is different than the knowing of gnosticism, and that's really how you understand First John. Right A

15:18 gnosticism gnosis refers to special hidden knowledge that supposedly unlocks spiritual realities and it is necessary for salvation. Gnostics viewed this knowledge as superior to faith, ethical living and reserved it for an elite, enlightened few. This contrast with the New Testament's more common in open use of ginosko, which emphasizes relational, moral, and experiential knowledge of God accessible to all believers. So it's very different. It's a different kind of knowledge. So when John is saying no, no, no, we can know no, no, no, at know, it is like this knowledge, this noing. It's different than all that big group or that group that teaching that is circulating and that is impacting the life of believers. Don't be seduced by it. John's use of genosco is a response to Gnosticism. In letters like First John, the repeated use of the word genosco can be understood as John's polemic against Gnostic ideas. John's emphasis that true knowledge of God is relational, It is not hidden or esoteric, but experienced through faith, obedience, and love. It accessible to all believers, and it is tied to moral living very different than the gnostics idea. The Gnostic idea was completely separate from this.

16:48 So the Greek verb genosco is a common term in the New Testament and does not inherently carry I'm hitting the microphone, I apologize does not inherently carry the same connotations as gnosticism, even though they share the same Greek root. The connection between the two is primarily in how Gnosticism appropriated the concept of knowledge and turned it into a specialized, esoteric form of knowledge that was central to its teachings. In contrast, John and other New Testament writers use genosco to describe a relational, experiential, and widely accessible knowledge of God, often countering the Gnostic idea that only a spiritual elite could attain true knowledge. So when you go through first John and you see no, no, no, no know it is saying, here is the knowing, Here is the knowledge, and it is and it's maybe somewhat unspoken, but I think as you go through there, it's pretty explicit that, hey, this knowing is different than that other secret knowledge, that gnosis that is out there and it's infiltrating the church and corrupting and people are being seduced by it. It's two different ways of understanding it. Now to really grasp this.

18:11 That was just us scratching the surface, that was just us introducing this. For us to really get into this, we need to kind of do a summary of gnosticism and its origins, and then maybe some of this will make a little bit more sense. So that's what we're going to do, at least here. I don't know. I want to go through First John and show you how everything there is is a direct response to gnosticism. But to do that, we've got to build the framework, which is, well, what was gnosticism, What was the gnosticism at that time? What was its origins? Now, Gnosticism is a diverse that's very important. It's diverse and a complex religious movement that emerged in the early centuries of Christianchristianity. So as Christianity was emerging, growing, building, Gnosticism was emerging, growing and building.

19:11 In fact, you could argue, I think this is historically accurate that Christianity and Gnosticism were competing concepts, competing ideas, competing ideologies, competing philosophies, competing truth claims. But what but this, this is why it's so important. Gnosticism was basically a combination of Greek philosophy, Jewish mysticism, and early Christian ideas. So see, it's going to have certain elements of Christianity.

19:53 So you've got Christians learning Christianity and it's kind of its infancy, right, being developed, right growing. And then you have Gnosticism, which in many cases would try in certain ways sound like Christianity at least to maybe a surface level. And so now this is going to be a problem. This is going to be a problem. The Church is going to have to address this. It became more fully developed in the second century AD, though many scholars believe now I believe this is more factual than maybe some scholars. But I am convinced that early Gnostic ideas were already clearly circulating in the first century. I think they were already there already. They may not have had the name gnosticism yet, but the ideas were there. And this would place this directly in the background of the writing of the New Testament, including First John. So much of the New Testament you have to understand gnosticism because in many cases it's addressing and compete eating those ideas a lot of times when it's talking about now in some cases, obviously the letter is identifies who they're trying to address, who, what what the issue was? Right, So in some churches gnosticism wasn't the issue, but in other letters, other epistles, clearly they're addressing Gnostic ideas and they're combating it. Now.

21:22 I think, first John, it's obvious because of no, no, no, no ganosco ganasco ganasco over and over and over and over and over and over and over. No, no, no, why because there's a it's a it's idea of knowledge is different than the Gnostic idea of knowledge. Now, at its core, at its basic core, gnosticism can be characterized by basically a couple of key beliefs. Now, please remember gnosticism was how one one's source says, was dive, verse and complex. Well, if it's diverse and complex, please note I'm simplifying it. Don't think this makes you an expert in every era or someone's gonna say, well, Gnostics believe this, and they believe I know. We could probably spend a year trying to figure out all the early Gnostic beliefs, okay, but having a basic idea that we can see how maybe first Sean was addressing it. Now, one thing that was very I think I think almost everyone agrees with this, is that Gnosticism taught a form of dualism. Gnosticism typically presents a dualistic world view in which there is a sharp distinction between the spiritual good and the material evil.

22:49 Spiritual good material evil. The material world included human bodies it considered corrupt or even inherently The human body is considered corrupt or even inherently evil, while the spiritual realm is seen as pure and good. The belief led many gnostics to reject the idea that God would take on the flesh the incarnation, as they believe the divine would not interact with the material world in such a direct way, so they would go after the incarnation. Well why is this important? Well, because when you start reading First John, I think this immediately shows you the key to understanding First John is not we go to First John and want to make it about us, and want to make it about a test about your salvation or my salvation.

23:33 This was trying to help the church get away from gnosticism, and again hear that they taught a dualistic understanding. The spirit was good, the material is evil, and as a result, they did not. They led Gnostics to reject the idea that God would take on the flesh, take on flesh, or the incarnation of Christ, as they believed the divine would not enter with the material world in such a direct way. Now, why is that important? We'll go to First John, chapter one, verse one, that which 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, for the life was manifested, and we have seen it and bear witness, and showing to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us, that which we have seen and heard, declaring to you that you may also have fellowship with us. And truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his son Jesus Christ. So the idea is that they saw that they touched, that Christ came in the flesh. Now this is First John. We know the same concept is really emphasized even more emphatically. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And then the look, this is very import all right, verse fourteen. And the Word

25:04 was made flesh and dwelt among us. This is this is a direct going after the Gnostic idea that that Christ became flesh. They rejected that that would be like, no, they're going after it and what they're in Just please note then it immediately discusses the idea of fellowship of fellowship right here in First John chapter one, it says verse three, First John one to three that that which we have seen heard, declare we under you that yay ye also may have fellowship with us. And truly our fellowship is with the Father and with the Son Jesus Christ.

25:49 Now that we'll get into this in a greater detail, but this is about fellowship. Fellowship. Fellowship is a relational right. It's a relational right. This idea of having having something in common relational now, and so I would throw I'm just going ahead and throw this out there now. Salvation and fellowship are they separate? Can you be saved but not be in proper fellowship or right fellowship or weak fellowship? In other words, you can be saved, So there is a positional relationship salvation. You're an adopted child of God. You are a child of God. That is that is sure, that will never change. It does not. It has not moved, It does not fluctuate in any way, shape or form.

26:36 Because you are a child of God by faith, and because of the imputed righteousness of Christ, you stand in perfect relationship with God, the Father, God, the Son, God, the Holy Spirit because of your position. But your fellowship, practically speaking, is relational, and it fluctuates, and there's good and there's bad. So at first John is more about our fellowship. Then our fellowship our relationship is very much about a knowing, which is relational. The way the Greek word that John uses for knowing is about a relational knowledge. So this would mean can we not draw a distinction between our salvation and our relational fellowship with Him and God in a practical way? And I think, I think that that becomes a key to unlocking the book and so much of this relational knowledge. Well, that is also going after the Gnostic idea of knowledge. But just note they teach dualism and immediately John I think, goes after this idea of well, no Christ became flesh, so that gnosticism teaches dualism. Number two secret knowledge nosis. The word gnosticism comes from the Greek word nosis, meaning knowledge, Gnostics believe that salvation was attained through special, hidden or esoteric knowledgeis rather rather than faith in Christ's atoning work or through living a moral, upright life. This knowledge was believed

28:10 to reveal the true nature of the divine and the spiritual realm, and it was usually only accessible to an elite few. So nosis or gnosticism was like you're say by knowing, You're say by knowing, and the Christian ideas you're saved by faith alone, But there is a knowing which is relational. So I am saved by faith. My knowing deals with my fellowship. I'm saved by faith alone. But knowing, as John is going to use it, is dealing with my relationship, my fellowship with God. And this knowing is different than the knowing of gnosticism. I think that's where you start, how you can start understanding the book.

28:57 So gnosticism teaches dualism, teaches secret knowledge, teaches what they would refer sometimes refer to as the divine spark a. Gnosticism often taught that human beings possess a divine spark or fragment of the divine that is trapped in the physical body. Through gnosis, the divine spark can be awakened, allowing the individual to escape the confines of the material world and reunite with the divine. Hey, you just got to You've got the divine spark. You just got to wake it up, and then well you can escape the confines of the material world. Now, okay, I could get into I think sometimes some of these gnostic ideas has influenced Christianity more than Christianity wants to acknowledge, right, because Christianity kind of teaches the same thing. Hey, now we have God living inside of us, and we just got to tap into that power and then we can escape and we can overcome. Even though yeah, we've talked about that whole issue and some of the problems with it.

30:06 But so they believed everyone had a divine spark. You just had to wake up the divine spark and then you could escape. Escape at all. Right, just keep that in mind. Next, So we have the basic teachings of gnosticism, dualism, secret knowledge, the divine spark, and has one source refers to it cosm cosmic cosmology, if I can speak correctly. Many gnostic systems proposed a complex cosmology, often involving multiple divine beings or or are known as well. Yep, I can get into a less thing. So multiple divine beings sometimes refer to different things, but you get the idea.

30:47 And a lesser ignorant deity often identified with the God of the Old Testament who created the material world. This creator God was typically viewed as inferior or even but possibly evil, while the true unknowable God existed in a higher, purely spiritual realm. So basically, and I'm going to try to simplify all of that, and I didn't go through all the terms because if I get into the terms, then we just kind of lose everything. Just get this basic idea. Within Gnosticism, their cosmology basically has more than one divine being if we can. I'm going to just really simplify this. The Old the Creator God is not really good, right, It's he's inferior, He's maybe malevolent. He may even be evil because he created the material, the material, which is ultimately bad, ultimately not good. But are you ready?

31:47 While the true God is somewhat unknowable and exists as existed higher pure and a spiritual realm and would never become flesh, so they would try to separate almost the Old Testament God from the New Testament God, and the Old Testament God would be somewhat seen as almost evil or at least inferior because he created things. Right now, it's a little it's more complex than this, but I'm simplifying it, all right. So everything material bad, everything spiritual good. That's very much a part of the Gnostic idea. All right, very much part of the Gnostic idea. Right now, those are the core beliefs. Those are the core beliefs. Now here's the here. I went through those quickly. So number one, dualism, number two, secret knowledge, number three, divine spark, Number four cosmology, and I yeah, I kind of debated with myself how much to get into the cosmology. But I'm just gonna simplify it in their minds. Just think of it. Possible multiple divine beings will go with that phrase. They use different phrases, but we'll go with that phrase beings. But for our purpose and their minds. Because the Old Testament God was creator, he's inferior, if not downright and malevolent or evil because well, he's creating material, which the whole material world is evil, and the other God is the higher God. He exists only in the spiritual realm, and

33:20 he is pure, and therefore this would deny the incarnation completely. All right, you kind of got that idea. Now, how do we see all of these ideas, or at least some of these ideas addressed in First John. That's what I'm hoping to accomplish here, all right, and light of those beliefs, those at least four. I mean, obviously it's a complex system, so we're reducing it down to four. We could go a little bit further, but you get the basic idea when you see those beliefs. The emphasis in knowing and First John becomes especially significant when you see the Gnostic beliefs. And then you go through First John, you see knowing, knowing, knowing, knowing knowing. Then you kind of like, wait a minute here, this is significant. This is the key. The repeated use of the word no godnosco.

34:30 That's the Greek word I'm going to focus on. I know there's another Greek word, but that's what I'm going to focus on. Throughout the letter can be seen as a part of John's polemic against early Gnostic ideas. So let's go through this, all right. So it's a polemic. That's you've got to understand. First John. Look, I've said in church after church after church, listen to sermon after sermon after sermon, and they will mention gnosticism. This is what always drives me crazy about it. They will say, well, First John addresses gnostic ideas, and we see that in First John chapter one, verses one through say three, and then almost inevitably, they abandon the gnostic connection and then turn it into hey, this is going to prove if you're saved or not saved, and then in many cases, undermine the entire Gospel by doing that, and not only that, they abandon what the entire epistle is about. You can't just say, well, he's addressing gnosticism here and then he just forgets gnosticism makes no sense. So let's go with the secret knowledge idea. Gnosticism's focus on secret knowledge versus John's view of knowing. Gnostics believe that salvation came through acquiring special, secret knowledge that was only available to us select few who had been enlightened. This knowledge was seen

36:04 as the key to transcending the physical world and reuniting with the divine. And contrast to that, John in a sense, he takes knowledge and says, no, this is not only for the elite, the elite, not only for the select few, he insists. John insists that all believers can know God, and his knowledge is not esoteric or hidden. It is available to anyone who believes in Jesus Christ. That's the concept. John is like, no, no, no, this is not only for a special few. That this is not. In fact, I can argue that the knowledge is found in Jesus Christ.

36:48 When we put our faith in Jesus Christ, then in a sense we know what do we know? While we we know who Christ is, there's something we know that's a knowing that's available to all believers. In fact, looked at first John chapter two, verse twenty. First John chapter two, verse twenty, we read, but you have an unction from the Holy One and you know all things. Now, some people will get into a lot of things here, But the point is is and some would say says unction. Some would say you have been anointed by the Holy Holy One and you have all knowledge? Or are all and you all have knowledge is another way of translating it.

37:35 John teaches that the knowledge of God is not reserved for an elite group, but is given to all believers through the Holy Spirit. This directly counters the gnostic I did that only a special class of people can attain true knowledge. If you are a Christian, you have knowledge. Now we could argue how to define that knowledge, but don't do that. The point is you have knowledge. If you are a Christian, you have a knowledge because believe in Jesus Christ. And to believe in Jesus Christ, you've come to know him. And by knowing Him, well you know God because he is the manifestation of God in the flesh. Right, You to know Christ is to know that God has come into flesh. You know that He died for your sins. You know that he rose again, ascended to the right hand of the Father. There is a knowledge you now possess that is available to all.

38:23 It doesn't mean we know every interpretation of every scripture, we know all theology. Obviously that would not work in any way, shape or form. But there is something we know. There is a knowledge that we have that comes by faith. Right. I think that's an example. I think we can understand that. All Right, look at the so there is if we look at it. John emphasizes, I'll state it this way, Gnosticism the knowledge is esoteric, hidden and only a few can have it. John is more like, if you believe in Christ, then we have knowledge. We have knowledge right now.

39:10 Gnosticism would say, would focus on the idea that the knowledg or how let me change it this way, John would argue that knowledge is relational, where the Gnostics would say it's esoteric. Gnostics viewed knowledge as something abstract, intellectual, and mystical, a way to unlock divine secrets and escape the material world. The knowledge was often disconnected from moral or ethical living in the present world. John's use of no emphasizes a relational, experiential knowledge of God, which is shown through obedience, love, and fellowship. And first John knowing God is not just intellectual, but it is proven by how one lives. So John makes an argument that as we know God in a relational way, then this should impact our relational living. And I think we can all agree to that to some level. It's not gonna make us perfect. We all obviously know that, it's not gonna make us sinless. We obviously know that. But knowledge and relationship always impacts something. Right, It's not gonna change our nature, but it impacts something. Correct if you if you know someone in a relational way, then you that's going to have some impact. And we see this in say, first John two three through four, First John two three through four.

40:34 And hereby we do know that we know him if we keep his commandments, he that saith I know him and keepeth not his commandments as a liar, and the truth is not in him. Now again this versus used to try to prove someone's salvation. I think what it's trying to argue is that the gnostic idea is that knowing has no impact on moral living. It's just the knowing, you just know. Knowing is the key, and the knowing doesn't have any impact on ethical living because ethical living involves the body, and the body is already evil. So we don't care. John's just trying to make it not. I know we've taken these words and created entire theological systems off this, But I think what John is simply trying to say is, look, if we know God in a relational way, then it should lead to some impact in what we do right now. If you want to try to turn this into a test to prove that someone is saved, you do realize if you say no, there means know him in salvation. And the way you know that you're saved if you keep his commandments, Well, then you would have to look at how what happens if you don't keep Can you keep his commandments? Well, we've already established no one can keep his commandments. I can prove that in five point two seconds. So that means you're in a perpetual state of disobedience to his commandments, right, because if you violate one of the law, you're guilty of all of it. So if you say that the way you know you're saved, the way you know you're saved,

42:07 is that you keep his commandments, then it would demand perfection or you wouldn't be able to know you're saved. And considering if you violate one point of the law, you're guilty of all of it, you're always in guilty of all of it because no one keeps the law perfectly. So then that trying to prove salvation. I think what John is simply trying to say. The knowledge that I'm talking about is a knowledge, a relational knowledge that should impact something. It should impact something now I know, and either way we have to kind of water this down a little bit, but there's just no way to. In the context of gnosticism, it makes sense. Hey, they say you know and it doesn't matter what you do. I'm saying, if you know, it will impact what you do. It will impact to some level, because you know what, as a Christian, what do we know? We know there's a God, we know that he's holy, we know that he hates sin.

43:02 We now know what sin is right, we know what do we know? Well? We know from the word that we know. There's things we know which should impact to some level. I think that's I think that's the issue here. John ties knowledge directly to obedience, not secret insight. True knowledge of God is not something hidden, It is demonstrated in the life of a believer through love and moral behavior. This counters the gnostic idea that the knowledge alone, which corresponding ethical action, could bring salvation. Right the gnostic guye is just no, just know, you don't need to do anything. Now, I think johnsing know the knowing is relational, and relational knowledge impacts behavior to some level, and to some level it always impacts. Look, we know it at least impacts this because we see this in Paul's writing, the things I want to do I don't do, but the things that don't want to do I do, and he feels guilty about it. So our knowing gives us the idea, now we know what we should do, right, we know what we should do, We should hopefully at some point desire it because we have relational knowledge with God. We want to somehow please God. We can at least state that, and there is a desire, and we feel guilty when we don't. I think it's just trying to say this knowledge will have some moral implication some all right, So

44:39 gnosticism focuses on secret knowledge. John's view of his knowledge is available to all believers. Knowledge is relational, not esoteric. John wants to make an argument that this knowledge is relational knowledge, therefore it impacts the Gnostics wanted to make it escoteric, and it's just like knowledge for the sake of knowledge, and it doesn't have any impact on what we do. How about the incarnation and the knowledge of God. Gnosticism rejected the idea that the divine could truly inhabit the material world, leading some Gnostics to deny the full humanity of Jesus or claim that he only appeared to be human with his dociitism. John, however, stresses the importance of acknowledging that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Knowing God is inherently tied to recognizing the incarnation. Look at first, John four to two. Hereby know ye the spirit of God.

45:40 Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God. Right to know him relationally is to know that he came in the flesh. It's to know that it To truly know him relationally is to know that he came in the flesh. Where the nost knowledge that the knowledge of gnosticism, the g nosis of gnosticism, would be like he did not come in the flesh? All right? Does that make sense? I think it does. The affirmation of the incarnation stands in direct opposition to gnostic dualism. For John, knowing God is inseparable from confessing that Jesus is the Son of God took on real human flesh. This was a direct challenge to gnostic beliefs that undermined or denied the material reality of Jesus' life on earth. Right next, love as evidence of knowing God Gnosticism tended to be highly individualistic, focusing on the personal attainment of knowledge. This often led to a neglect of communal love and ethical responsibility towards others, because well, the body is just sinful anyway, the material world is just sinful. We don't care about We just care about knowledge, not about people, not about the material world. We want to just in a sense, ignore the material world and get back to the divine. But John, over and over and over ties knowing God to the to the commandment

47:13 to love one another. Knowing the knowledge of God is not merely intellectual or mystical, but it is shown through love. Look at first John chapter four, verse seven. The love Let us love one another, for love is of God. And everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God, please don't knoweth. And he that loveth not knoweth not God. For God is love. This is a direct attack upon gnosticism. Gnosticism says, you know, but you don't love. John is like no, No is relational. It's relational. And so if I know God relationally, then there's going to be an understanding of love. For God is love. So if I know God, I know I'm confronted with love. I'm confronted with love is, and so therefore we are called to love other Again, if you make this a proof of salvation, you're going to it's going to become almost this very subjective thing. It's already subjective to some level, but it's at least black and white. Their knowledge says who cares about love? And John is saying our knowledge says, you care about love because if you know God, you know the creator, and you know people are created in the image of God, so you should love those created in his image. You know that God has loved, so now you know what love is. This teaching in First John four runs directly counter to the Gnostic elitism and their

48:45 lack of focus on love. John insists that true knowledge of God manifested itself and love for others, especially for fellow believers, demonstrating that knowledge is not an abstract possession but a lived reality. So what summary Gnosticism's emphasis on secret elitist knowledge is a directly was directly challenged by First John's focus on relational, accessible knowledge available to all who believe in Jesus Christ. The repeated use of the word know in what and First John serves as a counter to gnostic ideas. And let's try to summarize this. You're ready. True knowledge of God is revealed through faith in Jesus Christ, not through secret or esoteric teachings. Knowledge of God is relational and experiential, demonstrated by obedience to His commands and love for others, not detached intellectual insight.

49:40 The incarnation of Christ is central to knowing God, directly challenging gnostic views that denied the full humanity of Jesus. All believers are giving knowledge of the truth through the spirit, making knowledge of God a communal reality, not an elite privilege. John is like, hey, knowledge is different than that knowledge. And this knowledge is available to all Christians through faith. In other words, and when we say knowledge, we're not saying can understand everything, right, We're not saying can understand every scripture because if you can, well, then well we know all the problems with that, all right. It's saying that there is when you become a Christian, there is a knowledge that you begin to immediately have. Jesus is the eternal son of God. He took on human flesh, he died, he suffered, buried, rose the third Day ascended to the right hand of the Father coming to judge the living and the dead. These are basic concepts that are just like like Christianity one oh one, Right, this is what we come to know when we put our faith in Christ. This is what we come to understand and that this knowledge right, So my salvation, my salvation is based off my faith in Jesus Christ. There's obviously a change of mind and knowledge involved in that. But once I put my faith in Christ, salvation is based off my faith in Christ and off his finished work.

51:04 Now I knowledge is now my relationship with God, my fellowship, right, and that relationship with God, that fellowship with God. Knowledge, that knowing is a very relational knowledge that should impact real things to some level. Now, if that knowledge is missing and we're not doing those things that would impact, that would question our knowing and question our fellowship, not question our salvation, which is through faith based off the finished work of Christ. I think that's the distinction we have to make. So true knowledge is through faith in Christ, not through secret or esoteric teachings. Knowledge of God is relational and experiential, demonstrated by obedience to His commandments and love.

51:57 The incarnation of Christ is central to know God, and all believers are giving knowledge of truth through the Holy Spirit. Thus, rather than seeing setting impossible standards for proving someone's salvation, the Test and First John function more as a challenge to the core tenets of gnosticism, affirming orthodox Christian beliefs about Jesus, the incarnation, and the practical outworking of faith through love and obedience. Let me read that paragraph again. Rather then setting impossible standards to prove someone's salvation, that's not what First John is about. The so called test function as challenges to the core tenets of gnosticism, affirming orthodox Christian beliefs about Jesus, the incarnation, and the practical outward working of faith through love and obedience. It is trying to say our system is different than their system.

52:54 Their system is only for the elite. You find a secret knowledge that's salvation, and it doesn't matter what you do. John comes along and says, no, no, no, no, no, no, no no no. Salvation is obviously our faith in Christ. But then we know, and this knowing is not for the elite, not for a secret group. This knowing is relational, it's experiential. This knowing impacts to some level what we do, and to draw direct correlation against the Gnostics, it involves obeying and doing. In other words, you care about morality and you care about love because you now know about morality and you now know about love. So then that has a practical impact. Now I understand the way it's written.

53:45 You would think, well, this knowing means I have to do it perfectly. But it's not about proving that you do it perfectly, because we already know from the rest of the Bible that we cannot. We know that we're going to fall short in all of this. But from a Gnostic idea, it's radically Gnostics would be like, I don't care about doing any of that. That's all the material world. And John is like, no, knowing God in a relational way, you care about how we live here. The more we know, the more we understand. Now again, we're still going to be sinners. We're not excusing sin. That's the whole point. We can't excuse sin. John is like, you can't excuse sin because knowing God would directly impact these areas. Now I'm not saying it's perfect. Listen, I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm not saying it's perfect. I think though the test first is against gnosticism, and if you want to add some other you could do it.

54:44 You could do it really three ways. First and foremost, these tests are primarily drawing a distinction between gnosticism and John's understanding of knowledge, which is different than the Gnostic idea of knowledge. Okay, Number two, if you want to see this as a test, this is a test about fellowship, not about salvation, because my salvation is by faith alone and imputed righteousness, so therefore I'm saved no matter what I do. But this is about my relational knowledge, and my fellowship is impact by this knowledge, and what I do and don't do, fellowship is impacted by that. All right? Or number three, you can take all of these tests.

55:25 I say, this is what you have to do to be saved. And then I can say, okay, in Christ Jesus, I fulfill everyone of these tests that you would understand. This is all law and it condemns you, and your only hope is in Christ. And then in Christ I can say I obey, I keep his commandments. I love not practically but positionally. So if you want to make it a test and any other way, everyone would have to admit they fell the test unless you then modify the test to such a level that you somehow feel that you're obeying it. It's not really a test if you're testing salvation off this. Well, if this is the standard for salvation, the standard for salvation would be perfection.

56:08 That's why you would have to then find the only hope is in the imputed righteousness of Christ. But considering all of the clues that this is about gnosticism, I think this is simply saying, hey, guys, there's this sect out there, this group that is seducing people. You've got to beware of them. And they're coming in and they're saying, just get knowledge and then do whatever you want, and they're denying the incarnation. They are Antichrist. The knowledge I'm talking about is you're going to know God by faith, and this knowing is relational and this should impact how we think, feel and live. To some of He's not.

56:51 I don't think he's trying to make a determination of to what level. But and forget Christianity, forget God. You enter into any relationship, you begin to know something, and not knowing is going to impact some level. You're living because you're now in a relationship. Now I want to go further. Yeah, I want to go a little bit. We may kind of go back and do a little bit more on this. We'll do more, and we'll work through this, probably in a kind of a separate way from a different maybe just adding a little more to it, repeating it. We'll do it the next time. But I just want you to see gnosticism and its core beliefs, to some level is being addressed in First John, over and over and over. I remember those core beliefs of Gnosticism.

57:56 Remember those core beliefs, dualism, secret knowledge, the divine spark, and cosmology to some level. Now, we didn't get through all of them, but I think to some level we've got an idea of those things are being addressed. Now that's a different approach, but I think that gets us somewhere. I'm not saying it's perfect. Okay, let me make it very clear. When we are doing theology, all we can do is challenge, create hypotheses, suggest them. I am not making a dogmatic assertion that everything about Gnosticism and these verses and First John has baffled Christians for two thousand years and I know pastors love to act like it's simple.

58:43 If it was simple, there would not be so many different interpretations of First John. There are so many because everybody's like, well, wait a minute, this seems to basically say I'm perfect, so that some make sense. Well, then salvation is by work, so I say, no, this is proof of salvation. Well this is proof of salvation. Then well then it seems to say I have to be perfect. Well, no, no one's going to be perfect, so my imperfection can prove I have salvation. That's kind of subjective, I think though. Historically and textually the use of the word no, the Greek word, it's connection with gnosticism, gnostics being present at this time, John clearly addressing gnostics. This is a fight against gnosticism. Now, I'll stop there. That's fifty nine minutes going through a lot of content. This is the kind of teaching I don't necessarily like to do in the podcast because if I'm in front of people, I can see their expressions, I can see them raising their hands.

59:47 I can kind of backtrack repeat here. I just have to kind of kind of go through it. All I can do now is wait and see what you think so. I'd love to get your feedback. You can let me know, but I guess we will stop there because it's now sixty minutes. Hopefully that was beneficial. Thanks for listening everyone, have a great day. God bless