letters of John, 1 John 1:1-2 Reality of the Incarnation part 1

Let's begin by what Andrew taught last week. I listened, again, my bad, I didn't listen to it, I looked at his handout in detail several times and I was really impressed by his approach that's sound and spiritually based and also very scholarly in addition. So let's look at a summary about what Andrew had to share. The Apostle John's authorship was validated by a number of lines of evidence, so I don't think we have to question that in any way. Remember, this is a summary. I'm just reviewing what Andrew talked about last week.

The time and place are reasonably well documented, but there's still a little bit of uncertainty, but I think most scholars would agree that this was written later in John's life. before the book of Revelation, but not in like the 60 to 65 AD period. Does anybody else feel strongly about the timing of this epistle? And it's thought that this was written for Memphis. So, but again, Andrew brought up some alternative views here, but I think the overall in my own study this week, I seem to really find that most people who are scholarly in this space really related to this particular time and place of authorship.

All right, so the third bullet point under, Andrew, your lesson last week was the audience was likely the churches in Asia Minor, numerous ones, and I didn't list them again for the group today. Now you might not be able to, yeah, put it back over there, yeah, okay.

So the fourth point was the purpose, and that was, as listed by Andrew, the assurance to the body, fellowship that relates to much of the epistle, the joy and the new life we have in Christ. So that's the purpose of this epistle. Finally, the underlying issue, which I think Andrew provided great detail about Gnosticism. Gnosticism took two different parts.

When you think about Gnosticism, first of all, what do you think when somebody says they're an agnostic? and they have no knowledge. Well, that's right. And it's pointed, I think, by J. Verne McGee. These people are ignoramuses. I mean, that's the actual translation of being agnostic, that you have no knowledge at all.

So the Gnostics kind of took different positions, but they come in a variety of flavors, and they thought they had all the answers, and many of them are not scripturally consistent. The idea that Christ was really not the son of God, that he took on the nature of a godly person during his earthly life, was crucified, was not resurrected. And I mean, they're all kind of different Gnostic views of the world.

But anyway, that was the atmosphere under which John wrote this epistle. And I think we have some of that today, right? Everybody's got the answer. And nobody has the truth except the Lord himself. All right, so why are the three epistles of John so located in the New Testament? Why don't they occur, say, after Acts? Recording stopped. Recording in progress. We're living in this kind of IT world, right? This cloud of something we can't see or touch. Anyway, we're going to talk about seeing and touching here today.

So why is this located where it is? First of all, do you think that there's any rationale? for the books of the Bible and the way they're ordered. I often struggle with the Old Testament a little bit in terms of where Job is and things, but how about the New Testament? Is there any sense to this?

Yeah, I think there is. I've actually forgotten the, there's a, I'm not sure who There's a gentleman that has shown that basically. If you look at the way it is, actually, I think you pointed out too, that to understand 1st, 2nd, 3rd John, you have to know a lot. You have to have been exposed to a lot of Paul's teaching. Otherwise, you're gonna go off the rails in the wrong way. Yeah, Roger, I think you hit the nail on the head.

I'm just going to quote Darby, who's someone who has a lot of good things to offer in terms of scripture. And I quote him, the epistle of John, that is to say his first epistle, shows us the life that comes from God by Jesus Christ. John sets God before us, the Father revealed in the Son, and eternal life in Him. Paul sets us before God, accepted in Christ. And I think as Roger indicated, it's something I felt over the years of growth and grace that it's in the right place.

Because, you know, we're going to get to sections of 1st John and to a lesser extent 2nd, 3rd John, where he says, if you sin, you're not born again. God, I'm paraphrasing. But, you know, unless you're founded in Paul, where we're accepted entirely in Christ, there's no condemnation to those of us who are in Christ Jesus. Unless you're founded in that truth, goodness, has anybody sinned yet today? Maybe you should question your salvation. I mean, if you were going to jump from, let's say, the synoptic gospels in particular to the epistles of John, you're going to get lost and very frustrated.

So the Lord has placed it, I think, in an order that makes a lot of sense in terms of how we take this epistle in and how we relate to our day-to-day lives. Any additional thoughts? that I have to keep in mind when we know. One of the thoughts that I have to keep in mind about this is that John uses a family approach. I mean in fellowship in this is his big goal so that our joy might be full and it is in that family that we exist that is newborn. new in kind.

And so it's our position that he's talking about when he says that those who know God don't sin. And that's true. And in the new creation, we're on Christ Jesus, there is no sin. And I think that's really our spiritual, I don't like to use the word goal, but that's the life God has given us in his son.

And if you turn to the fourth thing that Andrew reviewed last week purposely, you've mentioned three of the four right here, Roy, fellowship, joy, and new life. And assurance, again, is something that I think is really Paul-founded, because if you go to 1 John and don't have that assurance, you're going to get confused. So I think it's purposely before Revelation, for a reason, and after all the other books in the New Testament.

That's an opinion. Okay, let's look at Constable's quote and this is he's quoting Marshall here. So, you know, a lot of times we turn to the author that you give us and but yet they're quoting somebody else. I want to make sure Marshall gets credit for this, not Constable. Okay, this writing begins without any of the formal features I'm not sure why that's apostrophized anyway, characteristic of a letter, such as we find or found in 2nd and 3rd John. And since the conclusion also lacks any typical features of a letter, Constable or Marshal believes that we must conclude that the writing is not so much a letter as a written sermon or address.

I thought that was kind of an interesting perspective. All right, the title of today's lesson is, yeah, I'm not sure why the title's not in the top five. Anyway, 1 John 1.1 and 1.2, that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we've seen with our eyes, and which we've looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the word of life, and we'll continue with verse two. And by the way, it's even kind of hard to stop after two, because three and four, Andrew's gonna deal with that next week, really is a continuation. So really one through four really is a complete text. Anyway, the title of our lesson is the reality of incarnation part one.

And again, that was on the first slide. I'm not sure why it didn't get on second, because I basically copied one, put it into the next. Anyway, how should we interpret the beginning? What are our thoughts about the beginning? And by the way, there are two interpretations. And I think most people favor one, but there is another view of it. What might be the two interpretations of the beginning? Are you going to go over them? I am, yes, but I'm asking the class. This is Sunday school. This isn't the sanctuary, right? Okay, from the beginning of time, right? So the very beginning, you know. Eternity past, if you will. That's an oxymoron, eternity past, because there's no temporal sequence to eternity. What would be the other beginning?

And actually, yeah, I think it's Constable who takes this position. Constable believes the beginning is the beginning of the gospel, when the gospel was complete and ready now to be shared. All right, so if you look at the Greek term arche, there are five possible meanings. But according to Thayer, Used here absolutely is the beginning of all things. I mean, he feels very strongly about this. And let's take a look at a little bit of Scripture that supports this. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. Good place to start, right?

Genesis 1.1.

The second text is John 1.1, in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. Now, if you're gonna interpret that in any other way for the beginning, then you're gonna have to question what John's really sharing here in his epistle. So I think that substantiates the fact that we're talking about the beginning of time that again is, again, an oxymoron with eternity, because there's no time there.

Second Thessalonians 2.13, but we're bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren, beloved to the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the spirit and belief of the truth. Now you could argue that could relate to the timing of the gospel being complete. But I think we're gonna look at another text in a later aspect of our lesson today that takes us to the fact that from the beginning of time God had us. known to be saved. In 2 Peter 3, 4, what we just finished teaching a short time ago, it's saying, where is the promise of his coming?

For since the fathers fall asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. So that's what supports this as being the beginning of eternity past, if you will. I'm using that term loosely. Constable believes this relates to the beginning of the Christian gospel, and this is one of the verses he quotes.

1 John 2.24, therefore, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. So the idea there is the beginning relates to coming to salvation.

Wayne. How about Romans chapter one, verse 20? Go ahead, read it. That talks about, for since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen made understood, being understood through what was made so that they were without excuse. So that's, there's something that we've seen and heard in the beginning. So you would say that supports from the very beginning, right? I think so. Yeah. I mean, I listed four, but I'm sure there are many other versions we could have turned to. Other thoughts? I'm asking in class, what do you think?

One of the things that you're dealing with in this verse in chapter two is that it's the perspective of the believers that he's addressing here rather than the perspective of God. God's perspective is he's outside of time. He's always been, he always will be. But this is when you heard they had a point where they heard in time. So it's from that perspective in this verse, I think. Right. Well, we're going to focus really in on that now and then the rest of this verse and also in verse two. Thank you, Roy. Yes. When you say the beginning of the Christian gospel, isn't that the beginning of Jesus' ministry? Well, yes, I think you could envision that. Do you think that's really what this relates to?

After his baptism, after he went into the desert and all that stuff, and then he started preaching the Kingdom of God, that seems to be what John is talking about this at the beginning. Well, we're going to reflect back on that in a comment for, I think, in verse 2 that related to, you know, John the Baptist and what he was called to do. But I think in the interpretation here, a most consistent interpretation from the beginning of time, you know, again, I'm using that loosely, from God's perspective as well. Anyway, I think you could go either way. I don't think it's gonna change the nature of the interpretation in terms of how it appeals to the body of Christ. It's just that I think being consistent with the way John has used beginning in the past, I'm sensing that maybe that's the best interpretation. All right, let's go ahead.

Which, by the way, in the Greek can be translated who, which, what, that. So if we go back to the verse, it says, turn it back. That which was from the beginning, which was from the beginning could be interpreted who. Why shaking his head? No, neuter. It has to do with the things that existed at the beginning concerning the word. Those are the things that he's addressing here. That's what he is. They were revealed, and that's what he is talking about. Okay, so you're saying the neuter tense really reflects. It takes it away from personality. Okay. It's the things concerning our Savior.

So if you want to look at it that way, then maybe the second interpretation of the beginning could be modified. Well, Bob, the context of this first, if you everything after the comma from the beginning is about they heard something, they saw something, they touch something, it's all very personal. So boy, it's a challenge to say, if they heard all this stuff, the beginning has to be when they enter interface with Christ, and that's what they're going to talk about. I wrestled with it a lot, because it's not just the very first verse that he uses this neuter form.

There's about four or five times he uses it here in the first chapter. These things that have been manifest, etc. etc. I might go over that next week, if you don't mind. Yeah, he's actually going to stand up for Andrew. We flopped the land just a little bit for next week. Oh, okay. I didn't tell you that. All right.

Roger, you're right as far as it being personal. Oh yeah, it's very personal. There are things about him that are personal. That what is pretty important. But you can't say who because it's not. Okay, good. So what? Thanks for clarifying that. We need people who are more scholarly. I agree. For sure. All right, so let's go ahead. So it's who we have heard. So let's look at that.

To hear is to perceive by the ear what is announced in one's presence. To get by hearing and learning. The thing comes to one's ear to find out, to learn, to give ear to a teaching or a teacher and to comprehend, to understand. And the best interpretation here probably really relates to just simply hearing, the act of hearing.

So I'm quoting 1 John 1.5, which is going to be before us in a couple weeks. This is the message which we have heard from him. That's the same use of this Greek word, and declare to you that God is light and in him is no darkness at all. and then which we have seen with our eyes and which we have looked upon. The question there is ultimately, is this redundant? Is there a difference between seeing him and looking upon him with your eyes? And the answer is, it's not redundant. No, it's not redundant, right. They're different words, right?

Yeah, so, Horeo is a perfect active tense that which we see with our eyes. And ultimately, Theomaea, by the way, kind of a root term for theater, is Arist indicative to behold, to look upon, to view attentively, and to contemplate. I mean, it's a much more detailed perception, if you will, than simply seeing.

Right. Well, that word was used, I believe, back when the disciples ran to the tomb. And I think one of the words is that word right there. They looked inside, and it was not just a casual look. they looked attentively, they were amazed. So it's a very intense word.

Well, I think the best is the last part of that, to view attentively and to contemplate on what you're perceiving. So these are different Greek terms and are interpreted, seeing is like seeing the stoplight. And taking it in is, in fact, if you ran it, you're thinking about what you just did. It's a bad metaphor.

So 1 John 1, 14, the word was made flesh and brought among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. So that's an example of the more in-depth understanding of what beholding or attentively you know, assessing what we're experiencing day-to-day. 1 John 4, 14, and we have seen and to testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. That's not just something, I mean, that's something you contemplate if you really experientially deal with it.

In our hands of handled, Ariston Dickett have literally touched, okay? And I think we're gonna kind of summarize this in a second as to what this all represents. And so why is this included? Well, I think Andrew did a good job about pointing, this is the kind of, you know, the Gnosics were saying, you know, things and this is a counteract that.

We actually touched him. We could feel it. He's flesh and blood. But the Gnosics didn't deny his physical presence. No, they denied something else. I thought Andrew kind of connected that last week. Andrew, you want to comment on that? They denied that?

Yeah, well, some of the Gnostics said that he was kind of a phantom. You could look at him, but he was a spiritual being. He wasn't really there. But there's another Gnostic position that clearly identified him as a human form, for sure. Oh yeah, that's another Gnostic, that's called the, that's another one of those Gnostic positions that says that he was born a physical man, lived a physical life, but the spirit entered him during his ministry and left him right before his death. So there's two views, yeah. Well, let's not study Gnosticism. Amen. Well, by the same token, though, you've mentioned, are these redundant, these things?

This is an eyewitness account. This is a man who sat right next to Jesus, put his head on him, felt him, touched him. He was intimate with this. Well, right, and the seeing is one thing, but comprehending and really attentively dealing with his presence is another thing. Let's now relate to this what followed in the upper room. And I'm going to quote Luke 24, 39. Behold my hands and my feet, that is, I myself handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have. So handle him and his resurrected body. That must have been kind of strange. Well, Bob, I've always thought about this section.

This is somebody describing if you told me you met a special person that we all admired, you said, well, Roger, actually, I shook his hand. He sat down. I talked with him. I mean, you would tell me in detail the personal aspects. And that's what John's doing here. He's saying, here are these personal things I shared with the Savior. And it's just, it's so, you know, mind-boggling. You know, he touched him. He, you know, he was with him physically. It's just, it's so vivid, these first two verses.

Well, the other thing it made me think of a little bit is contrast this with the heathen view that desires a feeling that they might find God. And I quote a verse in Acts, And this was tough to find, but anyway, Acts 1727 says that they should seek the Lord in the hope that they might feel after him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. So this is, in effect, isn't that the world? You show me something more about the Lord Jesus Christ that I might believe.

So the fact that feeling and Roger pointed out well what that really indicates. We do that all the time. He said, well, I spent time with so and so and we. we really were personal and I put my arm around them or I comfort them. Touching somebody is part of the human experience and that's, you know, makes it pretty special. And for what you just said, I'm thinking of a courtroom where in fact you're a witness and in fact you in fact shook their hand and ultimately had a conversation, whereas someone else just word of mouth about what they thought about someone. Anyway, I'm just kind of making it in kind of, you know, current terms that we might think of.

All right, concerning of the word of life. So the word here is logos, and I think we all identify logos with, well, the logos can be interpreted multiple ways before you comment on this, but I think here we're talking about the living and eternal Lord Jesus Christ. Okay, so he's the word of life. All right, Thayer says, here it's used emphatically to indicate the absolute fullness of life, both essential and ethical, which belongs to God, and through him both to the hypostatic logos and to Christ himself, so.

John makes it real specific in his gospel, became flesh and dwelt among us. Dwelt among us. We saw the glory. Yeah, okay. Now, and I think Philippians, holding fast the word of life so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain or labored in vain. So again, the word of life then relates to the Lord Jesus Christ.

So I think this first verse, it kind of all relates to his eternity. and mostly to his humanity, which was witnessed by John and so many others, right? I mean, John is writing this epistle. He had this personal experience. And what was John called in terms of his relationship with the Lord? Friend. What? A friend. friend then? The disciple whom Jesus loved. The disciple he loved, right? Yeah, whom Jesus loved.

I mean, that's always kind of an amazing thing. And then you think, well, what about the other ones, right? Yeah, well, we'll have to answer that one upstairs someday, I think. Well, I've always taken that to be that it was so special to him that it was just like, boy, I'm his focus. I mean, and that's why the Lord wants it to be that we, you know, he's the God of all mankind. but he's also personal with each one of us. And it can be that personal that a person can say, well, he's the one that loved me, which is pretty amazing.

Okay, any other thoughts on verse one before we go to the second verse? So again, I think verse one reflects his eternity and his humanity. and particularly as humanity, which provides the evidence to the skeptics. In fact, he was not as the Gnosics view as really someone who could beat them on a human level. A second verse in the Greek is for the life was manifested before it's not in the most translations.

For the life was manifested and we have seen and bear witness and declared to you that eternal life which was with a father and was manifested to us. And ultimately, I think here we're dealing with the issue of what's in verse. three and four, I'm going to read it. So let me read it again. For the life was manifested and we have seen and bear witness and declared to you that eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us, that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you that he also may have fellowship with us and truly our fellowship is with the father and with his son Jesus Christ and these things rightly unto you that your joy may be full.

I mean it's kind of kind of a a sequence there that I think is best read together, but we'll let Roy deal with verse three and four next week. One of the things that would be helpful here to see is verse two is really in parenthesis between verse one and verse three. Right, yeah, some put it in parenthesis, right.

Yeah, that's good. What do you make of that? Well, the last word of verse one is life. And then he explains what life is he talking about in verse two. OK. Good, good comment. All right, for the life was manifested, the miru, eris, passive, notice it was manifested. It's not, this is ultimately occurred once, and it was passive, meaning it was given, and that's by the Lord. This is not of us. Let's ponder for a moment the significance of this simple phrase. What are your thoughts about that?

So I'm going to say, is not this the life embodied in the third person of the Godhead, the Lord Jesus Christ, who was with the Father and now has become the source and center of our new life? Sometimes it's hard to talk about life, isn't it? Because it is that part of us that exists in this temporal body that we have But we go on for eternity. Are we going to spend it with our Lord, or are we going to spend it separated from Him, is an issue that we all face. And it is this life, God's life, His existence, that was revealed in Jesus. So, you know, we're in a shell. The real us is the new life that we have in Christ. It's His life. That's why positional truth and identification is so important. Because without that, you don't have that fellowship anymore. You're doing it fleshly.

I said underneath the teacher at the seminary over here that didn't believe that this was written to Christians even. That it was written to unbelievers. We had long discussions in class. I finally quit the class. I quit a couple too, but never mind.

But it is this life that's that immaterial part that lives within the shell that we have. I look at you, I don't really see the real you. I see the shell that you're in. Yeah, we can talk privately about that. We're going to learn about the clay pots later. It's still being molded, right? Here we've seen, and by the way, that is seeing, again, like I'm seeing Roger right now. It doesn't go beyond that.

That's the simple, we've seen and bear witness. and bearing witnesses to affirm that one has seen or heard or experienced something or that he knows it because it's taught by divine revelation or inspiration. It kind of relates to more the second, you know, interpretation we studied earlier about taking everything in attentively and with something beyond just seeing with the visual sense. By the way, if you think of the senses, we've talked about hearing and seeing and also touching now. So three aspects of our senses have been utilized here to describe the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ.

John 1, 6 and 7, there was a man sent from God. Notice the man sent from God, whose name was John. So this is not relating to, this is the gospel account of John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the light that all through him might believe. So bearing witness, if we look at the definition before here, what was John's purpose?

And back to what she said, this kind of maybe was the beginning of the ministry that he's projecting the ministry is going to follow. So I think that fits. Those verses that you're quoting, is that about John the Baptist? Yes. Yes. Yeah. But I'm using it to saying that he's bearing witness. And what's he bearing witness to? He's bearing witness to what, again, the definition suggests. It's to affirm what he's seen or heard here. He's projecting what's to happen, I think. and bearing witness of this truth, which ultimately gets proven to be true. The last great prophet, right, John the Baptist.

Acts 2.32, the Jesus, this Jesus with God raised up wherever we are all witnesses. I mean, so the, by the way, witness is used frequently in scripture, and I just gave a couple of examples, but bearing witness is simply, simply defined as you know, observing something and being able to defend what you've observed. So again, that's kind of courtroom kinds of stuff. And witnesses come in all flavors.

But what we described earlier is the kind of thing we're talking about here. And declared to you that eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us, Eternal is without beginning and end, and that which always has been and always will be. And again, that I think better reflects on the interpretation of beginning as what we talked about earlier. But I think, again, you could choose Constable's view of what it relates to. And what's the worldview of this word? How's the worldview eternal? One of the things that's happening in our generation is that the worldview of the physical environment we live in is changing dramatically.

Used to be there was three dimensions, then there was four with time, now there's 10, and four can be measured. And six, by intuition, by description only, can be measured. But they don't include, outside of that, the life that we're talking about is outside of all of that. Because it is his life that created all of these dimensions that are real.

So think about, out loud, what does the world deal with the term eternal? That's what baffled Einstein. He didn't understand it. He knew that it was different, but he couldn't put it into words. When they found these six other dimensions, now they can put it into words. It has mass, it has dimensions, it's affected by distance, by weight, all kinds of things. If you go to the speed of light, you can go backwards. But can the world relate to eternal? I can't, I can't. What's the world concept of existence? What's the world's concept? Well, you die and that's the end of you. You're gone. You're history, you know. But where do we come from? Well, we evolved over a long time period. We're a Big Bang. Big Bang and, you know, the fish problem. ocean and then stamps guy.

So what I'm kind of penny for my thoughts, but I mean, the idea here is, is the world system is time based entirely. There's nothing about anything that's it's not capable of being measured. Right. What you said relates to that. Actually, they have bounds now. They've never had those before. It can't get any smaller than 10 to the minus 38. Higgs particle, right? Yeah. If you cut something in half, There's a limit, and if you multiply it out, there's a limit.

There's a dimension to matter that the human realm, right now, the physical science community, they don't have anything outside of that. They know it's there. But they would not define eternity in the way we define eternity. No. Because they don't go outside of what's been created. Well, they can't go outside of anything that can be measured, even though they've accepted they can't measure it, right? Yes. They explain that with reincarnation, that this world just keeps going and going and going, and you just keep coming back and back and back. You know, so that's possibly their interpretation of eternal.

We have Hindu friends. In fact, we're going to a wedding next weekend in Houston that is the wedding of a daughter of a person I work very closely with, American Diabetes Association, Hindu man who's relationship has been, you know, very special to both of us through his cancer. And ultimately, we've been invited to his daughter's wedding, we're going, of course, my daughter, our daughter, Kristen lives in Houston. That's another reason to go. But nevertheless, I mean, we feel pretty close to the Burmese.

So we're going but the Hindu is all reincarnation, you know, founded in terms of their view of the world. So anyway, I don't want to spend too much time here, but I think the worldview of eternity, it's an oxymoron to the world. It's not measurable in all the way. Yes. Go back to, again, Romans, verse 22, professing to be wise, they became fools. That's kind of an answer. Good. Very perfect. Thanks.

All right, was manifested to us, airs passive indicative, again, passive tense, was manifested to us. What was manifested to us? The eternal life, which was with the father, and that was manifested to us. Again, he was previously with the father and what followed this was no act of ours, was it? I mean, this is all passive. The Lord showed up in a human form as the God-man, and ultimately that relates to, you know, eternal life. And that's passive.

It's given to all men, right? And we in this room are fortunate and blessed to be the recipients of that eternal life. Ephesians 1, 4, just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world. That we should be holy and without blame before him in love.

And that's back weighing positional truth. And that has to be related to something way back. So this restates the theme of today's lesson, the incarnation. It opens up and builds on the theme of fellowship, which is exemplified in more detail in verses three and four and throughout the epistle that Roy is gonna cover next week. So in closing, I couldn't think but ultimately relate to the first one of them that Roy will be relating to next week, I think.

In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And that's what John is trying to re-present here in his epistle to the churches in Asia Minor. Final questions? How's our time? Time's about right. Okay, Roy, would you close us in prayer this morning, please?

Heavenly Father, we thank you so much for your word in written form that you've given to us so clearly that your Holy Spirit, who you've also given, is enabled to help us to understand you in a measure that we have and each day it increases because you keep on teaching us. We're so thankful for that, Lord. And as we have considered you in these opening verses of 1 John, where through this author that personally walked with you, talked with you, touched you, was so intimate with you, that you yourself said you love him, and also that he describes himself that you love him. How immeasurable is the blessing that we have right now to be able to look at these words and thank you. In Christ's name, amen. Amen. Thank you.