How to Study the Bible III - Introductory New Testament Greek VII
Craig Kaes · Feb 28, 2016
How to Study Bible (2016), No. 09
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/492652964152

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

I said that we were going to dispel a couple of very popular Christian-ish myths in a week or two. This is it. So we are going to be going over a couple of things. We're going to put our English grammar on hold for a little bit, and we're going to talk about elementary logic. And then after elementary logic, we're going to go over to the Greek and talk about conditional clauses over there. So Greek categorizes the different conditional clauses that they've got. And it turns out to be highly useful to know what a conditional clause is. And so that's why we're starting with the elementary logic.

Who among the New Testament authors is highly logical and structured? Paul. And Paul wrote a good chunk of the New Testament. So it stands to reason that it would be a good idea to understand some basic logical principles so that we can follow his arguments and deduce correctly and not incorrectly.

So that's what we're going to start with. So conditional statements. Gay logic. Here we go. A conditional statement is a statement that's got an if clause and a then clause. They're linked in some fashion. We'll go over multiple different types of fashions that they're linked in. But here's a really basic one. So if Aiden dyes his hair blue, then he will look amazing. So here's a conditional clause.

When you're talking about a conditional statement logically, so semantically, then the if part is called the antecedent, the then part is called the consequent. Which kind of makes sense, because if we do that first part, the consequence of it is that second part. So if, then. So that if and that then can be linked together in multiple different ways. And how those are linked talks about the strength of that linkage. And so let's walk through a few of those.

First one is cause and effect. So cause-effect relationship, the thing that happens in the if part, is the cause of something happening in the then part. So easiest, most clearest example, if Evie licks a red panda, so that's going to be something that she does, then she will end up with fur on her tongue. So you can see, if she does that first part, that second part's going to happen. The first part actually caused the second part. So that's a causal relationship between those two.

More interesting, out of scripture, therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the master, prepared for every good work. Cleansing, usefulness. Without cleansing, not so much useful. So it's a causal relationship. We're going to put some tools in our bag this morning. We're going to pull them right back out so you can see how we use these things.

Equivalence. So an equivalence relationship, the if and the then, it's not a causal relationship. They're actually the same thing. So it's almost like you're saying if a, then a, but you're using different words. So for example, if I live in Denver, I live in the Mile High City. Those are just different names for the same thing. So it's an equivalence relationship between the two.

I do want to back up just ever so quickly so that we can appreciate that our example of conditional statement is the statement, if Aidan dyes his hair blue, then he will look amazing. So this is our conditional statement. If, then. All right, moving forward.

So here's another example of an equivalence relationship. Recognizing that grace and law are diametrically opposed, not law equals grace. So if I said, but if by grace it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. So if it is by grace, then not on the basis of works. So I'm just restating the same thing using different words. These two statements are equivalent.

So you can pretty much be guaranteed if you've got the first part, you've got the second part. Equivalence relationship. Evidence and inference. This one is interesting because the linkage is not rock solid. So evidence of inference says that I'm going to give you some evidence in the if part, and based upon your previous experience, you're going to know that probably that then part is going to follow from that. So you're giving evidence, you're inferring, you're not deducing. So you're making a little bit of a leap. So, a couple examples of this.

Now if we have died with Christ, We believe that we shall also live with him. So we're going through died, buried, risen. We died together with him. Do we have reason to believe that we would not be buried and risen with him as well? Now if this makes sense, I would infer that part. But just because we died with him, it doesn't logically follow that we would be raised. We need to look elsewhere in scripture to get that confirmation. Does that make sense? We're covering non-controversial passages first. This one is great.

In Matthew, when people have all this fear and anxiety, We've got, but if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will he not much more clothe you? So we're looking at the grass of the field. It seems to be doing all right.

It's not worried about where it's getting food, not getting food, getting clothes, not getting clothes. And so we know we're more special to God than the grass. Wouldn't it logically follow that he'd take care of us as well? We don't have a lot to worry about. Makes sense, right? But that's evidence inference. It's not causal. Because God clothed the grass, he's going to clothe us. It doesn't connect. God clothing the grass is the exact same thing as God clothing us. No, it's not equivalence. So it's just providing a little bit of evidence.

We're like, wow, yeah, that seems to hold true. So different ways that the if and the then can be connected. On that first one, that we believe, that's not questionable like the will in the second one. Couldn't that first statement be actually causative of the second one in that Christ we believe that we should also live with him? You know what I'm saying? I don't. OK. We believe seems like a factual statement, and it leads from the first one, like the first one caused it. OK. So I guess for the generation's heads who will listen to this on the web.

I was going to say tape, but who does tapes anymore? If we have died with Christ, so what happens at the point of that death? If we have separation from that sin nature, have we been made alive together with Christ yet? answer No, it simply died to the old man and so If we have not been made alive together with Christ yet How do we believe what's the logical causative connection there?

So you're saying this is from an inference? Yes That's what I'm saying. Is that so we are identified with Christ He did these things we know that that we did that first one with him, it makes sense that we would have done those other things with him. Now we find elsewhere in scripture, yep, absolutely that happened, and it's a stronger link. I just want to point it out, but also, we believe is more of an opinion than a fact, isn't it? We believe that, we will also live with him? In this case, casting my mind back to 6.1 through 11, Paul is building up a case for our identification and position in Christ, and so this isn't a statement of fact so much as a, if we died in Christ, then it sort of logically follows, and we believe it's a way of saying It logically follows, and so we're still tracking all of this.

And it's just stacking the case upon itself. Would it be fair to say, with evidence and inference, based on the first if statement, the characteristic and the nature of the presence of the if statement in front of that, inferences can make that just a pretty solid assumption can be made for that second statement? Yes. Is that the way to say it? Yes. That's exactly correct. All right. So let's talk about some simple conditional statements. Simple conditional statement just has one thing linked to another thing.

So if A, then B. So examples. If Aden dyes his hair blue, then he will look amazing. If I live in Denver, then I live in the Mile High City. So just one thing to one thing. So if A is true, that first thing, if the if thing is true, then we can say that that second thing, that B, logically follows. So honestly, if Aiden dyes his hair blue, then he will look amazing. It logically follows. If A is false, though, what do we know about B?

It may be false also. Might be true, might be false. We just really don't know. For it to be false in this particular case, we would have to assume that Aidan does not look amazing today. The assumption is that this blue hair dying process is what makes him look amazing. But that may not be true. He may look absolutely fantastic today, and then he dyes his hair blue, and he still looks fantastic after that. So we don't know.

So there you go. Answer, bupkis. We have to look for more information on it. So let's talk about converses. Oh my gosh, now we're getting into technical speaks. So given a simple statement, you've got if A, then B. The converse just switches that around. If B, then A. So a couple examples. If in Denver, then in the Mile High City. Converse of that is going to switch them around. If in the Mile High City, then in Denver. So I just switch those around. Is that converse true? Yeah, it is. OK, how about this one? If in Denver, then Colorado. That's true. Switch that around so we're doing the converse now. If Colorado, then Denver. Is that true?

No. So what do we logically know about the converse given the truth of the original statement? We just don't know. Sometimes it's going to be true, sometimes it's going to be false. In the first case, when we've got an equivalence relationship, it's going to be true, because we're basically just saying if A, then A. And you switch those around, you get if A, then A. It still holds. But if you're talking about a subset, like what we've got here, if Denver, then Colorado, you can't turn that around and say if Colorado, then Denver, because Pueblo. So we don't know anything about the truth value of the converse based upon the truth value of the original statement.

This is going to get pretty relevant pretty quickly. Let's talk about a more interesting example. So we're going to go over to Timothy and see if anyone aspires to the office of an overseer. Somebody would really like to be an elder. It is a fine work he desires to do. Let's go great. So if somebody wants to be an elder, then that's a fine work that he's desiring. So question, if someone does not aspire to the office of an overseer, so if somebody doesn't want to be an elder, What do we know about the work that they're desiring to do? Is it fine or not?

We have no clue. We have no clue whatsoever. Which makes sense. God uses us in all different ways. We have different giftings, and all of them are valuable. We don't scoff at the toe for being a toe. Converse. If someone desires to do a fine work, What do we know about whether they want to be an elder or not?

Nothing. We know absolutely nothing about this. But people take these logical connections and they jump with them. And they make them mean things that they don't mean. We're going to start drilling down to more and more controversial examples. So we're starting simple. Here's one.

So in James, if you show partiality, so you treat the rich better than the poor, for example, then you commit sin. So if I'm showing no partiality whatsoever, am I sinning? No. We actually have no idea. No idea whatsoever, because I could just be indiscriminately, without partiality whatsoever, be treating everybody very poorly. OK, so we don't know. If I'm committing sin, what do we know about whether I'm showing partiality or not? Flipping that converse around. No clue. We don't know anything whatsoever.

OK, so it's important to know what scripture says and what scripture doesn't say. So let's start playing the game. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God. So we start out, if you are led by the Spirit of God, then you are a son of God. Is that true? If you are led by the Spirit, then yes, you are a son of God. by the Spirit of God, then you are a son of God. OK, great. So now let's look at it differently. If you are not led by the Spirit, are you a son of God?

We don't know. And I'll be really clear. No, you're not a son of God. But we don't get that from this passage. We've got to go look elsewhere in scripture to find that. Does that make sense? No Holy Spirit, you're not involved, you're not led, you're not a son of God. But this verse doesn't say that. You can't draw that assumption from this verse.

That's correct. That's correct. So looking at the same verse, now let's talk about the converse. If you are a son of God, you're led by the Spirit of God. Just one sec, children. We don't know. Yes we do. If one is a son of God. Actually, yes. Yes, a son of the Holy Spirit. Okay, so...

I don't know if I can tell that. See, it's very important to be able to know what scripture is saying and what scripture is not saying. The answer here is the same as last time. Yes. If you are a son of God, and you are involved by the Holy Spirit, and you are being led by that Holy Spirit, you can't derive it from this verse. This verse does not say that. You have to look elsewhere in scripture.

Exactly. And so context, context, context. And when we're talking about the steps of Bible study, it starts with observations, right? And so observations are not always local to the passage that you're studying. You need to understand the greater context and it's important to be able to see.

What does this say? What does this not say? But I think that that's true. Is there somewhere else that will give me that information? You can start pulling in different passages. You can also reverse that and it still makes sense. So in other words you can say, these are the sons of God that are led by the Spirit of God.

Just like you previously said, A is true, B is true, and so B is true, A is true. Actually, I said something completely to the contrary at that. I said, if A is true, B is true. If B is true, we have no idea about the truth value of A. Logically, it does not necessarily follow. But there is one that you said. If it's an equivalence relationship, yes.

Jeremy? This path to, in particular, partly ambiguity, mean either the spirit is leading you, in other words, the spirit is pointing you in the right direction, or you're following the lead of the spirit. So those are two different things that are kind of both.

You can get both by saying you're led by the spirit. So there's our part and your part. And whether or not this is specifically talking about one, is part of what goes into whether or not we can, you know, all this talk about converse and stuff, knowing which one it's talking about. And you're, from what you've said already, you're saying that to say we're led by the Spirit means the Spirit is there pointing us in the right direction. be led by the Spirit. We're following the Spirit's leader.

And so depending on which way you read that can completely change whether or not the commerce is true and all those different things. But that just goes into what you're talking about context and understanding exactly what some of these other terms mean. That's right, and that makes tons of sense. You have to start with lots of observations. What does this word lead mean? Very important.

So are you showing us this because you're showing us how quickly our minds will make connections that are not necessarily in particular verses that we want connections? Yes. So it's the difference we talked before between exegesis and eisegesis. So exegesis is looking into scripture and pulling out of it. Eisegesis is looking at scripture and pushing my ideas into it. It's important to know what scripture is actually saying. Because we just threw a bunch of stuff inside the scripture, all of us did, but we happen to be top of.

So we happen to know there are other places that give us this information. So we talked about simple. Let's get complex. So a complex conditional statement, you've got more than one part to that if. So now you've got if A and B, then C. So we just won the Super Bowl. I'm hoping most people understand football, roughly. So here we go. If you run to the right. and you get into the end zone, we'll get a touchdown. When you're figuring out what the linkages are, you have to pull those apart. So the first one that we look at is if we run to the right, we're going to get a touchdown.

And I have marked that as evidence inference. And the reason for that is, I happen to know in this particular game, they're blitzing from the left side, so their defenders are all over on the left. The right side is wide open. I'm looking at that thing, I'm like, if we just run to the right, we're in. That's evidence of influence. So I'm looking at the evidence based on previous experience I can infer. If we can just go to that right side, we're going to get in.

But that's not as strong as that next one, which says, if I get into the end zone, then I'll have a touchdown. That relationship is equivalence. Those are the same thing. Okay? So, of these, which one would you regard as more important in the truth value? The second one. The equivalence one, right? So if I get into the end zone, then I score a touchdown.

It's like, ah! Link those up. That's perfect. Alright? We ready for a more interesting example? If you confess with your mouth, Jesus as Lord, and belief in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Actually, I want to ask you one more question before we jump to this one.

Just as set up. The bullet point on the bottom. Do I have to run right to get into the enzyme? Not necessarily. What are my other options? Straight, left, zigzag. I could straight, left, what? Zigzag. I could zigzag. I could throw, right? throw the ball, could accidentally fumble and recover it in the end zone as long as I'm not inside that two minute window that works. So a lot of options for getting into the end zone and scoring. I don't have to go right. So I know by the presence of all these different options that I don't have to do that running right part. So there's existence of a lot of times where running to the right is not a necessary condition. Alright, back to our more interesting example. If you confess with your mouth, Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Guess what? I'm laying that same framework over the top of this.

So, causal. If you believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Simple belief, causal of salvation. And it turns out it's indirectly causal, because that is credited as righteousness, at which point God saves us. But if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, you will be saved. That's evidence of inference. People who are believers tend to talk about Jesus, because we dig it, and we want to talk about it. But that's not causal, this Lordship-Salvation idea.

How would I know that that's not required? confessing through 1 Corinthians 15. 1 Corinthians 15, 3 and 4 tells me what straight shot gospel is by which we are saved. Did it mention confessing? Are there other passages that talk about believing as salvation, but don't talk about confessing and lordship? Here's a quick survey. of passages that talk about believing as a way toward salvation, but make no mention of confessing whatsoever.

Something that was interesting, and this is what had me late here this morning just doing some word counts, turns out John was big on believing. Just the word believe occurs in the Gospel of John 55 times. And if you expand it to the root word, so you start accepting words like believing and believed and believer, it ends up being over 90 times that John talks about belief.

So John is clearly our champion of believing as a way toward salvation. It's great. Who's our champion of confessing and lordship as the way to salvation? We don't really have one. So confess shows up in the entire New Testament eight times. About five of them are with respect to confessing Christ as Lord.

Philippians 2.11 says that absolutely everybody, everybody is going to confess Jesus Christ as Lord. So if absolutely everybody is going to do that, do we have a direct linkage to salvation? So therefore, everybody gets saved. No, we don't.

Interesting, the Acts 16 passage, and you guys can go and look all of these up, they're lots of fun. So Paul, the person who wrote If You Confess With Your Mouth, Jesus as Lord, is in jail. He's in jail with Silas, and they're hanging out and they're singing because jail, and An earthquake comes and breaks their shackles, and the guard is terrified that he's going to face the consequences from the Roman government for letting the prisoners escape, even though there's an earthquake.

And they say, nope, don't worry about it. You're still here. You don't have to kill yourself. And in this very desperate, critical moment where he realizes, I'm in a life and death situation, oh no, what happens to me after I die? He says to Paul, what do I need to do to be saved? And Paul says, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Well, believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.

Kind of skip that whole confessing, right? Not a critical component. And so understanding basic logic helps you when you're looking at passages like this, you're like, nope, those are different relationships to salvation. One is causal. One is evidence inference. Sorry, Mr. McArthur. OK. So conditional clauses, they can be used to express all different kinds of things. So we tend to think of conditional clauses and conditional statements as cold, hard, logic, reasoning sort of things for mathematicians and philosophers. It turns out that using conditional statements is a really effective technique for drawing the audience in. and getting them to participate.

So for example, if Christ is in you, oh, Christ is in me. Though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of his righteousness. But if the spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, that's me. What's next? He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give to you your mortal bodies through his spirit who dwells in you.

Like, that's awesome. draws the reader in, and then hit them with the impact. It's fantastic. It's exciting stuff. Conditional statement can be used to exhort. So, beloved, if God so loved us, we ought to love each other. Non-controversial statement, if God so loved us. Everybody who's hearing that is like, oh, he does. What's next? We need to love one another. It can be used to rebuke. Lord, if you had been here, My brother would not have died. And you can mock, if you are the son of God, come down from the cross. These are not cold, logical statements. These are very personal statements. can persuade. So if I, by Beelzebub, cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason, they will be your judges. But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you. Oh no. Right? Oh no. How about some agony?

Is this cold, hard logic? If it is possible, let this cup pass from me. So we use these statements all the time. They're not limited to cold hard reason and logic. But we do have some simple rules for understanding what they're saying and what they're not saying. It's useful to apply them. All right, let's talk about conditional process. So we have dispelled one myth. We're going after another one.

Greek has four distinct classes of conditional clauses, and you get an understanding of how these things are going to be interpreted. It's easy to pull them apart into their classes. You guys have a full sheet table at the back of your notes. for how to do this. It is not my expectation that you're going to look at that table, go running off to your Greek New Testament, and say, aha, this one's a first-class condition, and this one's a fourth-class condition.

That's there for your reference, so you can see that, oh, there actually is a way to pull all of these apart, and it just makes sense. antecedent, and we had consequent. Now we're going to be looking at things grammatically. So we're not looking at logical. We're looking at grammatical construction of a sentence. And so now we get to learn two new fancy terms, and those are pertacis and apodosis. It's big vocabulary Sunday is what it is. OK, so telling them apart. You don't have this in your notes. What you've got is that bigger, more comprehensive sheet that will tell you how to pull them apart.

First class condition and second class condition, they use the word a for it. Third class and fourth class use in. So they're different. First class can happen with the if part in any tense. Second class, that if part has to be a past tense. Indicative mood in each case. And so people like indicative. Do you guys remember what indicative is? It means we're presenting something as though it's reality. OK? So once we get to third class condition, it's subjunctive. So we're presenting it as a possibility. It's a real if. It's like, I don't know. Maybe if this sort of thing happens, then some other thing is going to happen. OK? So first class conditions. How many of you have heard, oh, in a first class condition, you can translate the if as since? OK.

So we've got three or four people. This is the myth we're attacking head-on, it will be lots of fun. The supposition is that since it's indicative, it's being presented as fact, and therefore We can translate it as sense instead of death. It holds up really well in some cases. Here are a couple of examples.

Beloved, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. God really does love us, so that sense is okay. It doesn't cause any concern. Or since there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. Nobody would debate that except perhaps Rene Descartes. So there's a physical body we can count on that.

OK. But let us look at a few examples where this falls apart. And I would ask you not to look at your notes, because these get progressively more shocking. So they will be lots of fun to uncover one by one. So we are going to play the game. The game is substitute sense for if in a first class condition and see if it works. We saw a couple examples where it does. It works great. So let's start diving in.

Since your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you. Those right hands, those pesky right hands always causing us to stumble, we need to just amputate. That is the solution. Lord, since it is you, command me to come to you on the water.

This is Peter, who strangely, knowing that it's God, so confidently that he's saying, since it's you, was actually terrified and thinking a ghost was out on the water. It's not quite matching up. He's terrified, thinking about ghosts, but he's saying, since it's you, Why does he want to come out on the water if he knows it's good? It doesn't match up super well. How about this one? Since you have faith like a mustard seed, you would say dot dot dot. Casting our minds back to this passage, Christ knows they have exactly one mustard seed, but not two mustard seeds of faith, and he is just laying it out for them.

Yes, we're laughing now, but it's going to get worse. So, since you are king of the Jews, save yourself. Did they believe he was king of the Jews? No, they didn't believe he was king of the Jews. Sense is a little uncomfortable there. The Jews gathered around him and were saying to him, how long will you keep us in suspense? Since you are the Christ, tell us plain. Those Jews, they were pretty convinced. Sense doesn't seem to fit really well in all these cases, does it?

All right, well, let's get fully blasphemous. Let's play round two of the fallacy of sense. So full-on blasphemy now. Here we go. My father, since it is possible, let this cup pass from me. Aren't you glad that didn't happen? For since Abraham was justified by works, he has a basis for boasting. Good on him. Hey, Abraham.

For since those who follow the law are heirs, faith is cancelled out and the promise is voided. That makes me really uncomfortable. Really uncomfortable. Now since there is no resurrection from the dead, neither has Christ been raised. We're in full-on blasphemy mode at this point. How are we feeling about substituting since in instead of if on a first-class condition? Not feeling really good, are we? All right, one last one. Since justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. So are we going to be substituting since for if in a first-class condition? No way.

No. So just a little bit more information. It turns out the Greeks, they had words for sense. They had two different words for sense. Do you think they'd use the word for sense when they meant sense rather than an if? Yeah, probably. And the protasis of that if part in the indicative doesn't mean it's true. Why? You guys know this one. Because they could try to be presenting it as true or actually believe it's true. They could be trying to present it as true, whether or not it's true. Yeah, that's right. OK, so how are we going to translate these then? So using the indicative mood, the author is saying, is presenting it as true for the sake of argument. So that's the easiest way to translate it.

So now, if there's no resurrection from the dead, and let's assume that that's true just for the sake of argument, what logically follows? Neither has Christ been raised. That's absurd. We know he's been raised. Therefore, that first part must not be true. It's called a proof by contradiction. Assume something. Show that it results in something completely absurd. The Italian name for this argument is reductio ad absurdum, so reduction to absurdity. I assume something. I prove something ridiculous from it.

Therefore, that assumption is not valid. If your right hand makes you stumble, and let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that it does, then cut it off and throw it away from you. This is not saying your right hand makes you stumble. This is saying, if it ever would, your flesh is so much less valuable than your relationship with Christ. Get rid of it.

So that's first class conditions. That's how we deal with those. Second class conditional statement is a lot like a first class conditional statement, except the author is assuming a perceived untruth, rather than a perceived truth. Again, for the sake of argument.

So, if they had understood, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory. Did they understand who they were crucifying? They really didn't understand who they were crucifying. They knew he was a troublemaker. They knew that he was getting in the way of some stuff they were trying to accomplish. But really, if they had understood, I agree with Paul here, that they wouldn't have crucified him. So they didn't understand.

Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father. The one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. So Christ, as he's laying this out, does he think that they believed Moses? He's pointing out that they did not.

And so that's second-class condition. First-class condition is, assume this thing that's true for the sake of argument. This is, assume this thing that I believe to be false for the sake of argument. Yeah. So this is not indicative, right? It is indicative. It is indicative, but it's typically got negation along with it. It's got what? Negation. So they're all first- and second-class condition. conditional statements are in the indicative. First and second class conditional statements are both in the indicative. And you'll see that in your table. And there is slight room for overlap. Yes, Marilyn. So on the slide before, why isn't that a second class condition?

What happened about, has it proved You understood. Oh, the first one, if there's no resurrection from the dead. And the author, they're assuming that that's an untruth. So I agree with you. I may have misclassified that as first class. There is room for interpretation. It comes down to whether you think the author is presenting something that they believe or presenting something they don't believe. And it's based on that perception of how the author is presenting it, not on reality. Because we're about to see an example, jumping one ahead, where the thing that's being assumed as an untruth actually is a truth, just to make it more complicated.

So now we're looking at ourselves in a department store mirror and seeing all of us. So when the Pharisee who had invited him, Jesus, saw this, he said to himself, if this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching him, that she is a sinner. So he's getting his feet done with tears and hair and perfume. But this woman is not up to snuff, according to the Pharisees. And so they're looking at that and saying, if he were a prophet, then he would know what sort of person she is. Do they think he's a prophet? No. Is he? Yes. Yeah. Yes. So isn't this one interesting?

We're assuming that this thing is untrue, but it's actually true. So that really is that department store mirror thing. So the first and second class conditions, the important thing is you're assuming that thing for the sake of argument and then seeing what flows out of that. Well, couldn't it be that he's saying something so absurd in the second part that he's like, this just proves that he's not a prophet, because if he was a prophet, he would know. That's right. So what he's actually- How different is that from the first class? Which one? This first one?

Yeah. That's the one that Marilyn was poking on. Or possibly the second one, because they're saying it's so absurd to actually cut off their hand. to actually cut off her hand. Oh, OK. Yeah. Well, let's get into it. So the first statement, I agree with Marilyn. You could classify that as a second-class conditional statement, because the author clearly does not believe that. All right. Right?

In the second case, this is not radicchio ad absurdum. So it's not a proof by contradiction, Whether or not your right hand makes you stumble, it's not a logical derivation of that that you would cut it off. There's not a causative link. So what they're saying there is not cut it off and throw it away. Aha! Therefore, it doesn't make you stumble.

If it makes you stumble, OK, then this is how serious you should take that. I love all the questions. I love you guys catching me in that first one on the first class condition, too. Keep me on my toes. Here we go. Third class conditions. Third class conditions, the easiest way to think about these is they're bona fide ifs. We don't know. The protasis, so that if part, is subjunctive. We learned that subjunctive means it's a possibility. So. Condition could be probable.

So from Hebrews, therefore, leaving the elementary teaching about Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and the eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. Do you think God will permit us to stop paying attention to all that stuff and just focus on him? Yes, probably. Now this is subjunctive. Subjunctive. So it's if he should permit it's not being presented as fact, then we will do this. And it turns out, yeah, God's on board with that plan. But it can be less likely.

So if I told you earthly things and you don't believe, How will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? If I should tell you heavenly things, are you going to believe them? The linkage is not super certain. Hypothetical? So if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." So Paul's not saying, yep, it turns out I really do have the gift of prophecy and faith to move mountains, and I also don't have love. He's not saying that. It's hypothetical. It turns out Paul kind of got love. OK, or general truth. So if anyone walks in the day, he doesn't stumble. OK, so.

Can we go back to third class condition? We can. So generally speaking, third class conditional statements often, could you think, could I think of them as bringing things up from a concrete to a more abstract, conceptual idea of truth? Yes. Okay. You can. First and second class conditional statements. I'm trying to think. Yeah.

So the way that I would put it is you would use a first or second class conditional statement if you'd like to have an argument. And not like a bickering old married couple that needs counseling. But the argument is in logical, OK, we're going to town. I'm now going to A, and then B, and then C, and then D, and therefore E, and you've got to believe it. you would use first and second class conditional statements. If you want to convey general concepts and explain relationships, but it's not game on in logic class, third class condition might be more appropriate for that. So, for someone who is teaching or trying to share the truth and explain it thoroughly, things would be lifted up, so to speak, into a third class, or maybe it removes the third class conditional would be something that would be used to show proof of concept into an increase of our little, our x's and our lines and our equivalency signs and things like that.

Okay, thank you. Alright, fourth class conditions. My gosh, I might actually beat the second bill today. Fourth class condition is talking about something unlikely in the future. So if this unlikely thing happens, then something's going to fall out of it. It turns out in the New Testament, there aren't any complete fourth class conditions, but there are a few that are implied. That's so gross. So one such example is if you should suffer for righteousness. So that's way down the road if the suffering is coming. Well, you're blessed. So I like that. I like being blessed.

Yes, sir? Is this subjunctive also? Optitive. Optitive? Yes. OK. Does it always have to be future? Yes. The other one, third class, doesn't have to be future. Correct. It could be. Correct. OK. Yeah. And your chart should tell you that. OK. I would think. All right.

Since I have not actually hit that second bell, all tiny pressure is now released. Any questions before we pray? Comments? We're not going to use sense. Yeah, let's not do that. Alright, let's pray. Father, thank you so much for your word, and for giving us so many people to write scripture to speak to us, I guess, differently. And I pray that we would be able to go and rightly divide the word for each one of them, understanding how they write. Thank you for your love and your just conscious diligence to reveal yourself to us. It's in Jesus name. Amen.