IV. TESTING THE SPIRITS AND TRUSTING GOD’S LOVE: 1 JOHN 4:1-21 • Test the Spirits (4:1-6)
BEHIND THE TEXT
While dualistic language is characteristic of 1 John, this section is especially marked by dualisms. The opposing pairs in these brief verses include: Spirit of God (v 2) and spirit of the antichrist (v 3); truth (v 6) versus false and falsehood (vv 1, 6); from God (vv 2, 3, 4, 6) and from the world (vv 1, 3, 4, 5); the one who is in you (v 4) and the one who is in the world (v 4). These sharp contrasts depict a pronounced ethical dualism among the Johannine Christians. The contrasting categories also demonstrate points of connection with the Gospel of John--life and death, God and the devil, free from sin and slaves to sin, truth and lies, light and darkness (see van der Watt 2007, 32-33 for a detailed list). This highly dualistic imagery reflects a Jewish mindset quite consistent with the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran beginning in 1947. The Qumran community and the Johannine Christians shared certain vocabulary--light / darkness, truth / falsehood, and spirit language (see BEHIND THE TEXT for 1 John 1:5-10). The similarities suggest a common thought world. But one cannot prove conclusively a direct influence between the Johannine Christians and the Jews of Qumran (van der Watt 2007, 142-43). Within this dualistic mindset John employs sharp adversarial language; he labels opponents false prophets (v 1) and calls them antichrist (v 3). The terms are part of the rhetorical vocabulary of 1 John and draw on both OT prophetic passages and Jesus’ teachings. The major writing prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) warned of “false” prophets who preached without being truly sent with God’s word. Mocking idolatry, Isaiah says God “foils the signs of false prophets and makes fools of diviners” (44:25). Jeremiah reports God saying “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them” (14:14). Later Jeremiah declares, “The visions of your prophets were false and worthless” (Lam 2:14). Ezekiel, among the exiles in Babylon, said Jerusalem’s prophets spoke by “false visions and lying divinations. . . . when the Lord has not spoken” (22:28). The concept of pseudo-prophets appears also in the Sermon on the Mount: “Watch out for false prophets” (Matt 7:15). In the Olivet Discourse Jesus says that “false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible” (Mark 13:22; Matt 24:11, 24). In the Lukan “woes” (Luke 6:24-26, parallel to the Beatitudes of Matt 6:20-22), Jesus refers to those who were well spoken of but were in fact “false prophets” (6:26). Both OT and NT writers readily affirm that sometimes those who claim to be prophets are in fact proclaiming lies. Mark 13:22 (“false Christs”), carries a somewhat different sense than the term “antichrists” in the Johannine letters. It is quite a different matter for one to claim falsely to be “Christ” as opposed to being an individual hostile to Jesus Christ. While a degree of overlap could obtain, and likely does in many minds, the terms are not necessarily to be equated. The popular writings around the idea of “The Antichrist” in the modern era might lead one to expect a wide array of “antichrist” texts in the Bible. But the term appears only in the Johannine letters (five times in four verses). John may have anticipated an end-times person of evil (1 John 2:18), though whether on the immediate horizon or not, is hard to say. He was much more agitated about false teachers in his time (1 John 4:3) who had departed from Johannine churches (2:19; 2 John 7). These secessionist opponents were deemed anti-Christs (against Christ) by denying both the Father and the Son (2:2:22-23).
IN THE TEXT
■ 1 John addresses his readers again as Dear friends (agapētoi, beloved ones, also in 2:7; 3:2, 21; 4:7, 11). This term of affection, however, is immediately followed by stark words of warning. John is calling for discernment in this section. An undiscriminating embrace of the wrong spirits (pneumata) would surely bring one to spiritual harm. The connection of this passage with 2:16-23 is clear as it again deals with Christological error. This is the only instance in the Johannine writings where readers are admonished to not believe (mē . . . pisteuete). However, it clearly echoes the Synoptics where Jesus warned his hearers “do not believe” when false reports of Christ’s appearing come to them (Matt 24:23, 26; Mark 13:21). John has only a short time before made a positive command to his readers to “believe in the name of his Son” (3:23; also 5:13). Of stylistic interest is the possibly deliberate alliteration of the Greek words in the opening line of v 1 which reads panti pneumati pisteuete (Brown 1982, 485). Such wording may have served as a memory device, and surely would have captured the ears of the hearers. The spirits out and about in the world were to be carefully examined (dokimazete). In the LXX dokimazō sometimes referred to determining that an accurate count of money was made (Gen 23:16; 1 Chron 28:18; 29:4). It can mean the testing of precious metal by fire to assure its purity (Prov 17:3; 27:21; Wis 3:6; Sir 2:5). In the NT the word relates to character (Rom 5:4) and to genuineness of faith (1 Pet 1:7). Paul admonished the Thessalonians, “Test everything” (panta de dokimazete, 1 Thess 5:21). A Christian writing not long after 1 John agrees that testing prophets is necessary (Didache 11-12) and makes their behavior a criterion of genuineness (Brown 1982, 506). The readers of 1 John are commanded to examine the spirits (imperative mood). The testing was an ongoing obligation (keep on testing). Proper testing would discern those genuinely from God (ek tou theou, perhaps out from God) in contrast to those who were false prophets (pseudoprophētai). These pseudo-prophets represented a serious and immediate challenge to the Christian faith as practiced by John and his readers. Those who had separated from the Johannine churches were now considered enemies of the faith. Further, they had apparently taken a significant number of people with them. The text reports they were many (polloi). This echoes an earlier reference to “many antichrists” (2:18) and seems to foreshadow the “many deceivers” of 2 John 7. The repetition of many in each case and the quite similar characteristics attributed to them argue for these as being the same group. In 2 John the elder warns against the “deceivers” and equates them with “antichrist” (Strecker 1996, 133). John describes the arena of these opponents’ activity as out--have gone out. The preposition ex attached to the verb emphasizes a place. In 2:19 ex appears five times as John describes those who had left the Johannine community. The secessionists were no longer in the churches identified with John, but were competing with them. These false prophets, formerly called “antichrists” (2:18) had transferred their citizenship into the world by having gone out from the Johannine churches (2:19).Symbolically, the world is the domain of anti-God activity (see Introduction, “Theological Themes”). The phrase have gone out (exelēlythasin, perfect tense) suggests that these pseudo-prophets had previously departed from the Johannine churches and had remained separated from them. Curiously, Brown sees here no significant distinction in the alteration between the simple past tense and the perfect tense(Brown 1982, 490). But the perfect tense highlights a past departure of some from the Johannine community that continued as an established separation. The simple past tense, the aorist, would have served well if John was only reporting a past event. ■ 2 An ongoing refrain throughout the letter stresses that the litmus test of orthodoxy is Christology, specifically the issue of the incarnation. The criteria as to how you can recognize the Spirit of God turns fully on Christology. The secessionists seem to have embraced a Christology that so emphasized the deity of Christ that his full humanity was denied. John, in contrast, affirmed a Docetic-rejecting, fully “Emmanuel” Christology. Jesus was for John one and the same as the Christ and was understood as having entered completely into the human experience–has come in the flesh (en sarki elēlythota). The pre-existent Christ was manifested as God’s glory in human form (Brooke 1912, 109) in that he became flesh (sarx, John 1:14). The phrase has come (elēlythota, a perfect participle), points not only to the fact of the incarnation but also to its enduring significance (Yarbrough 2008, 221; Rensberger 1997, 112). Is John saying there was a permanency about the incarnation? The perfect tense certainly permits such an understanding. This could mean that even though glorified, Christ’s incarnational presence in heaven is a continuing reality (Marshall 1978, 205). Christ, who came in the flesh, continues to be the incarnate Son, a living reality (Thomas 2004, 203). We recall that when Jesus appeared in post-resurrection glory to disciples in Jerusalem he reassured them they were not seeing a “ghost” (pneuma, spirit); he had “flesh (sarx) and bones” (Luke 24:39).
The embrace of a fully human Christ was something to be acknowledged (homologeō: “claim, profess, praise,” BDAG, 708). John the Baptist used the term to insist he was not the Christ—“He . . . confessed” (hōmologēsen, John 1:20). Paul before Felix employed it to affirm his clear allegiance to the Christian way—“I admit” (homologō, Acts 24:14). In Matt 10:32 the acknowledgement called for is crucially Christological, with destiny tied to the confession—“Whoever acknowledges (homologēsei) me before men, I will also acknowledge (homologēsō) him before my Father in heaven.” ■ 3 This verse and the second half of v 2 stand in antithetical parallelism. The positive, confirming confession leads to a discrediting denial (Jones 2009, 164): “Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God” (v 2): “But every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God” (v 3a). These are confessions that imply community. To fail in the confessions was to refuse to participate in the community (Jones 2009, 168). Both elements of the confession—“Christ” and “in the flesh”—are essential (Culpepper 1998, 268). Of the five uses of antichrist in these letters (2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7) all focus on the denial of Jesus as the Christ. Two of the three passages (4:2; 2 John 7) make explicit that the denials included his coming “in the flesh” (Burge 1996, 175). The battle for the allegiance was more than intellectual. John understood the struggle as also very much a spiritual battle. Spirit language abounds (3:24; 4:1, 2, 3, 6, 13). The same word (pneuma) is used both positively (God’s spirit as well as any spirit that rightly confesses Jesus) and also negatively (the spirit of antichrist and wrong confessors). The readers are warned not to trust every spirit but to “test the spirits” (v 1). The validation of “the Spirit of God” (v 2) comes when a spirit . . . acknowledges that Jesus has come “in the flesh” (v 2). But every spirit that failed to acknowledge Jesus as from God was identifying itself as not from God. Instead of not acknowledge (mē homologei) Jesus some manuscripts read with a much more stern sense—nullifies or destroys (lyei, from lyō: “destroy, bring to an end, abolish,” BDAG, 607). See 3:8 where the same verb is used: “the Son of God appeared . . . to destroy (lusēi) the devil’s work.” Although the reading destroys is supported by only a minority of manuscripts, some interpreters prefer it due to its being the more difficult (Lieu 1991, 46). Brown argues in favor of lyei in part by recalling the sense of 3:8 (1982, 496). Still, the majority reading is probably to be preferred (Haas 1972, 103). This would understand the harsh destroys as possibly an expression created for use in Christological debates of the second-century (Rensberger 1007, 113). This verse has a number of variant readings as scribal expansions of the text occurred over time. The best reading in the first clause simply reads Jesus. But some added the title “Christ” to be sure that more than the earthly aspect was present in the confession. A number of manuscripts add in flesh having come (ln harmony with v 2 and 2 John 7) in order to interpret the point as failure to confess Jesus’ coming in the flesh (Smith 1991, 98-99). The different manuscripts link coming in flesh as variously related to Jesus, or the Lord Jesus, or Jesus Christ. The numerous variant readings demonstrate how central this verse was to the Christological controversy in these letters. An unsatisfactory confession of Jesus meant one was opposed to Christ. The drama was a spiritual contest between “the Spirit of God” (v 2) and the spirit of the antichrist. The Greek text does not have spirit (pneuma) in this phrase, simply reading kai touto estin to tou antichristou (and this is the . . . of the antichrist). The omitted pneuma is understood as the most recent noun that agrees with the Greek article to. The construction here permits reading the verse as either the antichrist or the antichrist spirit . . . is coming. The verb erchetai may be translated as he is coming or it is coming. The false prophets of v 1 who had separated from the Johannine Christian community had so aligned with an errant theology that they were labeled by John as having a spirit of antichrist. Such a spirit could be present in “many” individuals (2:18). John seems not much interested in a distant future eschatological figure—the Antichrist. Rather, anyone in his time proposing an incarnation-denying Christology was demonstrating allegiance to an anti-Christ group that was already in the world. His concern was the now (nyn) of the Johannine churches. Whether John anticipated a single, cosmic figure as an end-times personality is difficult to ascertain. He did understand his era as an eschatological time (now and already). But his eschatological concerns were focused on a number of individuals whose teaching was undermining the faith of the churches within his sphere of influence. He seems not to be interested in future events and characters. The teachings of these first-century opponents, already introduced as “many antichrists” in 2:18, were powerful and dangerous. John’s pastoral instincts were on high alert (see “Antichrist” sidebar at 2:18 and FROM THE TEXT section of 2:18-23). The focus of this verse, indeed of John’s writing, is Christological. A comparison of 2:18-22 and 4:1-3 reveals how each passage returns the attention back to Jesus. In the first instance, right relation to the Father leads to a correct view of the Son. In the second case, right relation to the Spirit leads, again, to a correct view of the Son. John depicts the Son as central (Burge 1996, 176). Yet John’s Christology has inherent soteriological implications. For him, Christology determines the faith and life of the Christian as he demonstrates throughout the letter. The bond between theology and ethics is essential. ■ 4 The dear children (teknia) status of the Johannine Christians is tied to their being from God (ek tou theou). Their character was to be marked by righteousness and not committing sin, expressed as love both to God and to the brothers (Lieu 1991, 39). Though called children they had nevertheless already gained spiritual victory and continued in that experience (perfect tense--nenikēkate: have gained and are keeping the victory). John’s earlier mingling of categories in 2:12-14 (“dear children,” “fathers,” and “young men”) and what each achieves comes back into view. In 2:13, 14 it was “young men” who “have overcome the evil one.” Here John speaks of children who have overcome those who were of “the spirit of the antichrist” (v 3) and the one who is in the world. When and by what means was this victory gained? Does John refer to the event of the cross and what Christ accomplished there? Certainly the cross was viewed in Johannine circles as a place of ironic victory. The Gospel refers to Jesus’ appointment with the cross as a time of his being “glorified” (John 7:39; 12:16; 17:5). In a real sense the conquering had already been achieved through Christ on the cross. But the overcoming was also a result of personal faith embracing the Christ of the cross (see 5:4-5). They had accepted the Johannine declaration of the gospel and experienced its continuing effect as it was being lived out through them. Forms of the Greek word for victory—nikē—appear in every “letter” to the seven churches in Rev 2-3. Promises of reward are made to everyone “who overcomes” (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21), thus posing the victory as something yet to be fully accomplished. In this section of 1 John, the victory was already somewhat in place. Because of the one (either God [vv 4a, 6a] or possibly Chr.ist) living in them, they were indwelt by divine power. That power had already trumped (meizōn: greater) the one who is in the world. The overcoming of these Christians was not innate, but derived from God. Spiritual battle requires God’s strength. Wonderfully, it was strength already real in their lives because of God residing in them. ■ 5 John negatively highlighted “the one (ho) who is in the world” (v 4). This seems to refer back to “the spirit of the antichrist . . . in the world” (v 3). There are also a number of opponents—(note the plural they and them)—who are from the world (ek tou kosmou). The world can stand in for the devil as all that is opposed to God (Lieu 1991, 83). John also draws a sharp contrast by employing a parallel construction with what is coming in v 6. They are from the world (v 5) autoi ek tou kosmou eisin We are from God (v 6) hēmeis ek tou theou esmen The sharp line between Christ and the world recalls a passage from the Gospel: “If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (John 15:19). One’s allegiance, John contends in v 5, affects both how one hears and how one speaks. Those allied with the world and the leader “who is in the world” (v 4) have learned to speak the same language. The Greek text literally says of / from the world they speak (ek tou kosmou lalousin), though viewpoint does catch the sense. The use of from is not intended in the sense of separation and distance, but rather refers to origin and nature (Smith 1991, 100). The speaking is present tense, the action taking place in John’s time. When we listen in the biblical sense, we necessarily will order our lives by what is heard. The classic example is the Shema (“Hear, O Israel, and be careful to obey” Deut 6:3) though the idea appears in the NT also. For instance, listening to Jesus obviously means conforming to him in Matt 17:5—“This is my son . . . Listen to him!” Proper hearing means responding appropriately and being reconciled (Matt 18:15). ■ 6 John contended that the true believer would tune out messages from “the world” (v 5). This means they would refuse to give heed to the “false prophets” (v 1) who had left the Johannine churches (“gone out into the world,” v 1). John calls his readers to reject a Docetic Christology. By implication they should rather listen to him and those allied with him. He insists that when anyone does not listen to us and chooses to listen to a contrary gospel, they show themselves to be not from God. A positive statement of this principle appears in John 8:47 where Jesus says “He who belongs to God hears what God says.” The ongoing development of orthodoxy in Christianity is seen in the contest of questions between John and these opponents. For John, teaching alien to his views clearly placed a person into the arena of falsehood (planēs: deceit). Listening to him was to listen to truth (alētheia). A person will inevitably heed one spirit (pneuma) or another.
FROM THE TEXT
1. Christology. The issue of Christology took a great deal of time to work itself out in the formal creeds of the churches. In A.D. 325 the Council of Nicea declared Christ to be “begotten, not made” and “of one substance with the Father.” The Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) affirmed Jesus Christ to be at once fully God and fully human (Smith 1991, 101-102). Some minimize the humanity of Jesus in favor of a strong assertion of his divinity. Others so emphasize Jesus’ humanity that his divine nature becomes obscured or lost altogether. Both are essential for the salvation of humankind. 2. Choosing Friends. Whom we select as friends and the social contexts we embrace will incline us toward certain speech habits. Our words will eventually reflect our values. The associates we embrace will affect what we hear and take in by way of entertainments, and will be demonstrated in how we spend our time and money. Admittedly we cannot always choose our environment; workplace settings are sometimes beyond individual control. But what remains within our control permits choosing in the direction of the holy, rather than away from it. The mother of John and Charles Wesley advised, Whatever weakens your reason, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes off your relish of spiritual things; in short, whatever increases the strength and authority of your body over your mind, that thing is sin to you, however innocent it may be in itself (Susanna Wesley, letter to John, June 8, 1725). Choices as to habits and associates derive from our sense of the character of God and God’s expectations for how life is to be lived. The Christian faith must continually ask, “What is Jesus like?”, “What sort of gospel should one proclaim?”, and “How should we then live?” Choices shape habits. Habits influence direction, and direction determines destiny. The challenge of properly discerning the spiritually nurturing influences of life from the damaging ones is not always easy. How does one reject aberrant teachings and at the same time remain open to the new things that God may be doing? Surely an important part of the answer is to live anchored by Scripture and committed to a faith community. When counseled by the collective wisdom of God’s people both current and past, one can find the way. But the task is not something once done and left off ever after; it is a continuing assignment, a daily response of discipleship.
B. God’s Son an Atoning Sacrifice (4:7-15)
BEHIND THE TEXT For a discussion of “atoning sacrifice” see the sidebar on hilasmos at 1 John 2:2.
IN THE TEXT
■ 7 John returns to his concern for mutual love (see 3:11-24) as he appeals to his Dear friends (agapētoi: beloved) to live in love—let us love (agapōmen, subjunctive mood). Love manifests itself in relationships with one another. Love originates in God and flows out (ek) from God. God’s love comes to all, both by creation and from grace (Marshall 1978, 212); anyone can choose to receive and express this divine love. John is clear that one who expresses God’s love toward others manifests the very character of God (Akin 2001, 177; Brooke 1912, 117). Acting in love presents evidence that one is born of God and knows God. John brings together in born and knows the language of physical generation and intimate relation to enforce his point. Present as well in knows is the acknowledging of God for who and what he is—a God of love (Strecker 1005. 144). The statement—Everyone who loves (pas ho agapōn) may create troublesome theological implications if pressed too far. John is not saying that one’s single act of love provides conclusive evidence of the new birth, that one is a Christian. The phrase is better understood as everyone who lives in an ongoing loving way. The word agapōn is a present active participle, suggesting continuous action. By living so that a lifestyle of love becomes apparent, we demonstrate that the life of God is truly present in us. On such a basis one knows (ginoskei: he is presently knowing) God. ■ 8 This present knowing of God, and thus knowing the true nature of love, is not highly secret information disclosed only to a few. Rather it flows out of a relationship available to all. Just as loving is to be ongoing in one’s life, John states that to live in a habitual condition of not loving (ho mē agapōn) is to live as a stranger to God. Such a one does not know God (ouk egnō ton theon) because (hoti) God is love. But by manifesting love, we demonstrate that we know God. We become more and more in character what we were created to become, and then re-created to be by spiritual birth. Being born of God is to begin to truly know God.
To develop in relationship with God and God’s people is to deepen this knowing. As a child spends time with parents and others in the immediate circle of family and friends, that child begins to know a number of things; this knowing is based on, and enriched by, the relationship one has with these others. Just so, the text asserts, the absence of love equates to an absence, an ignorance of, God, whom to know, is love (see 4:18). John’s inspired assertion that God is love (ho theos agapē estin) indicates the basis of the preceding command to love. Along with the Johaninne “God is spirit’ (John 4:24) and “God is light” (1 John 1:5) God is love is not a definition of God’s being (ontological). These assertions function rather as descriptions of how how God works in revelation and redemption. ■ 9 John does not simply suggest that the love of God has been seen by his faith community. The translation God showed his love may be expressed as God’s love has been manifested (ephanerōthē: in 2:28 the verb refers to Christ’s future coming “when he appears”). Here God’s full revelation of divine love came in the person of the incarnate Christ: “The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us” (John 1:14). God’s future kingdom will also be revealed in that same person—Jesus. The divine love, John writes, appeared to the many—among us (en hēmin), John’s primary point. But the text may also be read in the sense of a love residing within us (en: in). His meaning may be nuanced as twofold: God’s love is experienced corporately, in worshipping communities of faith—among us; God’s love comes also quite personally—within us. Divine love transforms individuals as well as churches. Authentic experience of God is always personal but never solitary. God sent (apestalken, perfect tense) his one and only Son. John would have his readers understand that God’s sending of Christ into the world continued to have mission impact. This sent one, Jesus, enlisted others and sent them: “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (John 17:18; 20:21; “And how can they preach unless they are sent?” Rom 10:15). The verb apostellō means to send on a mission as an official representative (“apostle”). The arena of the missionary activity of God in 1 John—the world—is nearly always a reference to an anti-God locale or mindset (2:15-17; 3:1, 13; 4:1, 3-5; 5:4, 5, 19; also 2 John 7). However, it is also of necessity where God does saving work (2:2; see John 3:16). The phrase his one and only Son (ton huion autou ton monogenē, lit., his son the only begotten) echoes John 3:16 (ton huion ton monogenē). It also links the reader back to John 1:14 where the glory seen in Christ was “the glory of the only begotten from the Father” (doxan hōs monogenous para patros). In the Gospel of John monogenēs combines the ideas of “only begotten” and “well-loved” (Bruce 1970, 108). The word conveys not so much an “only child” idea as it does a child especially beloved (see Heb 11:17 where Isaac is said to be the monogenēs of Abraham; yet Abraham also fathered Ishmael). So Isaac is presented as the unique son, a “one of a kind” son in that it is through him that the promise continued (Jones 2009, 183). Likewise Jesus is the unique Son of God in the sense of full deity (Earle 1984, 107), and through whom all God’s promises are fulfilled. God sending his monogenes son demonstrates the unlimited reach of divine love toward us, and that only as the only begotten son of God can Jesus mediate salvation (see John 1:18). Further, because Jesus is monogenēs one must place faith only in him, there is no other, and to fail to believe in Jesus is to come under judgment (Bϋchsel 1967, 737-41). The sending of the only begotten son makes God’s life in us possible—that we might live (zēsōmen)—but does not guarantee it. Nor is the life irrevocable. The verb is in the subjunctive mood, suggesting the life as conditional. One may have life by accepting Christ or one may forfeit life by rejecting Christ. The offer made, and the ability to respond, are all of grace. God sent Jesus, and only because of this divine initiative toward fallen, broken, sinful humanity, can we have any hope to return to life. To live does not refer to mere physical life (bios). Here it is zoē, a unique quality of life. The phrase “eternal life” in the NT always uses zoē (three times in Matt and Luke, twice in Mark, sixteen times in John, and nine in Paul’s letters). One might live and breathe physically, and yet be utterly devoid of the abiding life of God. This life God offers is to know, and be known, by God. It is to live in intimate relationship with the Creator. Genesis conveys God’s warning that eating of “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen 2:17) means “you will die” (3:3). The result was not immediate physical death, but relational / spiritual separation from God symbolized by eviction from paradise. It meant a spiritual death begun by disobedience. The life offered by God is only through him (di’autou, by means of him) whom the Father sent. No other source for life exists; God alone, as manifested in Christ, is the only source of true life. To disobey is to put distance between self and God and increasingly embrace death. But obeying means life flows from the Son to us. ■ 10 This verse further clarifies that the initiative for spiritual transformation comes from God. The basis on which love for God develops is the fact that he loved us. God has taken the initiative since we as fallen creatures often exhibit selfishness rather than love (Smith 1991, 107). John speaks of a love grounded in God’s perfection, not in human imperfection (Yarbrough 2008, 239). This renewal of a broken relationship can only be accomplished by Christ (Burge 1996, 188). A person most authentically knows love because of the efficacy of Jesus’ saving death (Yarbrough 2008, 240), when God first acted lovingly by sending his Son (Brooke 1912, 119). In v 9 John used the perfect tense to describe the sending of Christ, stressing the continuing effects of the incarnation. Here he changes to the aorist tense to emphasize the event of God’s act (Marshall 1978, 214). This sending was for a precise and profound purpose. The Son came to do something for us that we could not do for ourselves. Pardon for the sins of rebellious humanity was achieved by God assuming upon himself the suffering (Marshall 1978, 215). John extends the purpose of the sending of the Son beyond his incarnation to stress the atonement (Akin 2001, 180). Christ’s atoning death calls us to consider the enormity of divine love (Culpepper 1998, 270). The sending had reconciliation in view—the Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. The word translated atoning sacrifice (hilasmos, NIV, NRSV) is rendered “propitiation” in several other translations (ASV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, KJV) and “expiation” in others (RSV, NJB). The use of “propitiation” turns the thought toward the Son as effecting an appeasement of God the Father, the offended party. Translating “expiation” suggests more the cleansing and resultant restoration of the one who has sinned. Involved is the means by which that is achieved, a sacrifice that removes sin (Brown 1982, 519). Adopting the translation atoning sacrifice leaves the precise emphasis of the word to the reader / interpreter (see sidebar on hilasmos at 2:2). In the LXX hilastērion was used for the “mercy seat” (see Heb 9:5) as the place of reconciliation, The term had a technical cultic or sacrificial meaning in relation to the Day of Atonement (Lev 25:9) as well as a general reference to God’s forgiveness in Ps 130:4 (Lieu 1991, 63). Both translations have important emphases. God, the one who is violated by human sinning, is thus understood to be reconciled by Christ’s death (propitiation). The change suggested by propitiation is here viewed more from the divine side of the transaction. Sin is a serious matter before a holy God and must be atoned for in the sense of sacrifice. While the Johannine theology of the cross in the Gospel inclines more toward Jesus’ death as exaltation, passages indicating sacrifice do appear (Jones 2009, 184). John 1:29 and 36b (“Lamb of God”) have clear sacrificial overtones. Later, Jesus is handed over to death at the very time of the slaughter of the Passover lambs (John 19:14-16). The image of sacrifice is apparent also in the sacrifice of the shepherd who gives himself up for the sheep (John 10:11) But also, the coming of the Son addressed the need for sins to be removed or cleansed (expiation). In this regard the change is viewed more from the human side of the atoning event. Sin is a grievous matter in the human life and must be removed by a thorough purification. By insisting both on suffering due to sin and by providing the one who suffers in behalf of sinful humanity, God demonstrates that 1) Sin is serious and must be radically dealt with, and 2) God is gracious and makes the reconciliation possible (2 Cor 5:18-19). God reconciles by sending the Son. But God is also one who is reconciled by what the Son accomplished on the cross for our sins (peri: for, concerning). Those who were the object of God’s initiative are reconciled to God through a remission of, and cleansing from, sins (tōn hamartiōn). Just as John includes the many—our—in the violations that required the cross, so also the many are included in the provision. ■ 11 The love of God is described in the same way as the more familiar passage in John 3:16—God so (houtōs) loved. This love that sent the Son, John insists, should compel the readers to love one another—we also ought (opheilomen). The word suggests a debt owed—“one of his fellow servants who owed (ōpheilen) him a hundred denarii” (Matt 18:28), What is owed is sometimes a moral debt—“Let no debt remain outstanding (opheleite), except the continuing debt to love one another” (Rom 13:8). The addition of the pronoun hēmeis intensifies the statement since the word is not grammatically required; the pronoun is inherent in the verb form. Right spiritual relationship in the vertical plane—God to humankind—will rightly manifest itself in relationships on the horizontal—person-to-person. ■ 12 The idea of God as unseen—No one has ever seen God—is a consistent biblical notion. An identical statement appears in John 1:18. The LORD told Moses “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live” (Exod 33:20). God is described as “invisible” in the NT (1 Tim 1:17; Heb 11:27). John uses the perfect tense (tetheatai), meaning God had not been seen in the past, and continues to be not seen in the present. Though no one can literally see God, still the essence of God is knowable in degree. How is this so? Because God lives in us as we live in his love. God is known through the love demonstrated by God’s people This love of God on display among the people of God is a strong demonstration of God’s purpose in the world (Bruce 1970, 109). Even if God cannot be seen directly as perhaps the gnosticing false teachers thought, God can be seen when God’s people act in love. John insists that this divine love infused into us can be perfected, that is, it fulfils its purpose or achieves its end,. among us as we live in love. Love is made complete (teteleiōmenē, see 2:5 and 4:17—18). This passive voice participle can be understood as a divine passive. That is, God performs the action of the verb. The work of love becoming more and more fulfilled in God’s people has its ultimate source in God. It is not a human achievement based on merit or struggle; rather it is God graciously at work achieving the intent of divine love when we love one another. ■ 13 John has written throughout in sharp disagreement with those who might claim to have a special, esoteric knowledge. At the same time, both for himself and the true believers of his community, John insists on a definite knowledge of their own. He asserts that We know! The verb, ginōskomen, is a favorite Johannine phrase, appearing nearly forty times in the Johannine writings but only a handful of times in the Synoptics. And what is known? That we live in him (en autō menomen) and he (God) lives in us. This is a profound mutuality of relationship and a continuation of theme and language from v 12b. While the NIV here translates the verb menō as “live in,” elsewhere the NIV usually reads “remains” (sixteen times in the Gospel of John, and in 1 John 2:24, 27). The KJV typically renders menō as “abides.” The idea is of a close, connected, relationship with God / Christ (especially in John 15:4-10). The confirming evidence that God abides in the human heart is because God had given . . . of his Spirit (see 3:24). By this (en toutōi: not distinctly translated by the NIV) picks up v 12 and relates it to the character of the Spirit received. The presence of the Spirit of God is the Spirit of love (vv 7-12) and of faith (vv 14-16; see vv 9-10). This presence of the Spirit in the believer and in the midst of the worshipping community was not due to their efforts. Throughout, the text keeps grace clearly in view. God initiates, God abides / lives in, and God brings to completion. The Christian is not, however, swept along irresistibly by this grace; the believer responds. It is important to keep in view that even that ability to respond is due to grace (Eph 2:8-9). The Spirit had been given (dedōken, a perfect tense verb) as an abiding reality. Further, the Spirit was received not in solitary pursuit, but by a people in community with one another, to us (hēmin). ■ 14 The claim, we have seen, points back to v 12. There is a “seeing” of God in spite of the fact that “no one has ever seen God” (v 12). Instead, we, testifies John, have seen . . . that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world (see v 10). Linked to the Spirit’s presence in the community of love and faith, is a faith-seeing of God’s action in salvation: “the seeing of faith evinces its certainty in the fact that it carries its testimony with it” (Bultmann 1973, 70-71). First the ability to love and now the ability to believe carry with it the assurance of the Spirit’s presence (see 5:10). John makes careful use here of different verb tenses. He says we have seen (tetheametha, perfect tense), indicating a past vision with a continuing impact. The present tense that follows, we . . . testify (martyroumen), permits an ongoing practice of telling the story of the Father God who sent the Son to be the Savior (sōtēra). The noun sōtēr appears only here and John 4:42 in the Johannine writings. This title “has parallels in Hellenistic worship of heroes and in the Roman cult of the emperor, as well as in the worship of healing gods in the Hellenistic period” (Strecker 1996, 158). In the LXX God is sōtēr, especially in the Psalms and Isaiah. In the NT, while the term is still used of God occasionally, it often refers to Jesus as sōtēra (Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31; 13:23; Phil 3:20; 2 Tim 1:10; Titus 1:3-4; 3:6; 2 Pet 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:18). The saving that God intends is of the world, an unlimited offer of transformation to all that was once hostile to God. ■ 15 In a wonderfully winsome way, John holds the door of opportunity wide open for his readers—If anyone (hos ean, whoever may). No one is excluded from God’s invitation. Any may come by making the good confession of Jesus as God’s Son. The translation—acknowledges—might seem only to suggest the idea of mere consent, but the verb conveys a more public and active idea. The one who confesses (homologēsē) or claims something publicly (Matt 10:32) allows the confession to be life-shaping. In the Gospel of John, confessions of faith in Jesus were serious matters; they could get one expelled from the synagogue (John 9:22; 12:42). In Rom 10:9-10 confession of Jesus is inextricably linked to God’s saving work in persons (Hofius 1991, EDNT 2:514-17). Throughout this letter, John has stressed the relational aspect of the Christian faith, a faith not bound up in the obeying of laws as simply allegiance to a legal code. Rather it is being involved in a love relationship with God through Christ—God . . . in him and he in God—from which obedience and doctrinal consistency flow. This amazing privilege, the result of the Savior’s work (v 14), is effected through the confession that Jesus is the Son of God (see 1:9).
FROM THE TEXT
1. God-like qualities in not-yet-Christian people. Do people who are not yet Christians exemplify the divine character at times? Consider the countless acts of love in service and compassion done by those without a religious motivation. Are they manifesting the character of God also? Surely so, even if they don’t acknowledge it, and even if they don’t’ allow that God exists! Such compassionate, gracious work by an individual or a group of people is evidence of grace from God working through them; God is graciously working to bring them to faith. The smallest capacity for love is due to grace (Akin 2001, 177). This grace which precedes clear Christian faith is sometimes called prevenient grace, a grace that “comes before.” Because God is at work in redeeming ways in all lives and systems, God’s character can be demonstrated even among those who are not overtly aligned with God. 2. God-like qualities in Christians. Christians are called to exemplify the qualities of God, and most notably, God’s love. Just as God became manifest in the world by sending his one and only Son (v 9), so followers of Christ are called to make the love of God apparent in the world (vv 9, 14). Faithful following of Christ enables the unseen God to be seen. How is this so? It happens by living in love toward one another. God is and should be seen in the attitudes and relationships of God’s people. Augustine (fourth-century) criticized 1 John for saying nothing about loving our enemies: Why does John say so much about loving our brothers, but nothing at all about loving our enemies? Reaching out to our enemies does not exclude loving our brothers. Our love, like a fire, must first take hold of what is nearest and then spread to what is further off (ACCS 2000, 214). 3. God in Three Persons. The full expression of the Godhead appears in this section. In just vv 7-15 God appears thirteen times, Son four times, and Spirit in v 13. The activity of the Father is a love-motivated sending of the Son (vv 9-10, 14). The Son, by his death for sins, enables life (v 10). The Spirit provides confirmation that the relationship between God and believers, and between fellow Christians, is solidly in place (v 13).
• Perfect Love Drives Out Fear (4:16-21)
IN THE TEXT
■ 16 John affirms the present experience of the churches. They have knowledge (we know, egnōkamen) and faith (rely on, lit.,, we have believed in, pepisteukamen). John describes experiences that arose in the past, but continue with impact into the present. The power of these perfect tense verbs can be conveyed as we came to know and continue to know and we believed and continue to believe. God and love are synonymous—God is love (ho theos agapē estin, repeating 4:8). God defines true love. This strong and clear equation is expanded by the idea of living (menōn, a present participle) in love, which is to live in God. The picture is of settling down in God’s love, taking up secure residence in the very heart of God. John depicts a Christian faith that is not occasional but daily; a faith saved not just for big events but lived out in all the moments that compose life’s routine. John expresses love as absolute, in love, thus an unlimited love: “He is thinking not only of God’s love for human beings or that of humans love for God but also of the love of human beings for one another” (Strecker 1996, 161). None of the three aspects can be isolated from the others. ■ 17 This living in love, which is to live in God and to have God live in us, has the effect of God’s love made complete. It is love brought to wholeness (teteleiōtai, from telos: end, goal, purpose; see on 2:5 and 4:12). The word indicates something accomplishing the purpose (telos) for which it was created (Boice 1979, 119). This perfecting work (in v 18 forms of telos are translated “perfect”) is not a human achievement. The passive voice of the verb describes the action that brings wholeness as coming not from within ourselves but from elsewhere. Perfecting believers is God’s work. Some stress too much the human element of “following Christ” as to how the perfecting of love comes about (so Smith 1991, 114). Still, the work is not God’s accomplishment achieved apart from human response. The perfecting work of God is done in people who are part of a believing community—among us (meth’hēmōn, suggesting in company with us, or in cooperation with us; Brown 1982, 527), and then through our expression of it to others. God’s love finds completion or perfection--its true end or telos--to the degree that it is shared among others (Burge 1996, 189). Holiness, John insists, develops not so much in solitude as it does in relationship. Quiet and withdrawn-from-the-routine times may be part of spiritual development, but the truest test of holiness for the Johannine community was when God’s love was manifested in their contacts with others. God’s love is not for private enjoyment but is meant to be shared. First-person plural language (us, we) appears three times in the verse. The desire of God is to so transform a collective people that we will have confidence (parrēsia, see on 2:28) in the divine presence some future day (2:28; 4:17) and also now as we pray (3:21; 5:14). This work of God that brings spiritual wholeness is not to be postponed for some far-off day. Indeed, the holy God who desires to perfect holiness in us can do so in this world (en tō kosmōi toutōi), the very place where antichrists (2:18, 22; 4:3), false prophets (4:1), and deceivers (2 John 7) operate. The loving God of the universe can be so lived out through us that others will see God. We participate in God’s nature now—in this world we are like him (kathōs ekeinos estin kai hēmeis esmen en tō kosmōi toutōi; lit., just as that one is also we indeed are in this world, see on 2:6; 3:7 ). The language is that of a present conformity with Jesus in love (Lieu 1991, 90), not a holiness reserved for after death. Calvin said “what God is in heaven, He bids us to be in this world, that we may be reckoned his children” (Parker 1959, 295). This astounding promise, to be like him, can hardly be overestimated. The very character of God is a present possibility for Christians; not someday but now; not at the time of death but as the only adequate preparation for when one stands before God on the day of judgment (en tēi hēmerai tēs kriseōs). This firm-foundation confidence is forever linked to the work of God’s love among people. Confidence before God and Christian love go together (Bruce 1970, 113).
[Begin Sidebar] Day of Judgment
The concept of a future judgment day appears early and rather frequently in the Bible. The term “day” need not be restricted to a literal time period since Hebrew practice often described decisive events of history in this way. Isaiah spoke of “the day of the Lord” (13:6, 9) and “the day of vengeance of our God” (61:2). Jeremiah echoes the idea with “day of the Lord’s anger” (Lam 2:22), as does Ezekiel (“the day of the Lord’s wrath” (7:19). In the LXX these become the Greek phrase “the day of the Lord” (kyriou). Numerous similar instances appear in the Minor Prophets—(Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 32; 3:14; Amos 5:18; Zeph 1:14-16). The phrase “day of God” appears seldom in the NT (2 Pet 3:12; Rev 16:14). In the NT “the day of the Lord” takes on apocalyptic association with Jesus as kyrios, and at times is explicitly so stated (1 Cor 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; Phil 1:6, 10; 2:16). Jewish literature from the time between the OT and the NT includes a number of instances of similar phrases (1 En. 10:6; 16:1; Jub. 5:10; 24:30; 4 Ezra 7:113; Pss. Sol. 15:13). These various OT, NT, and other Jewish and Christian texts envision a time of accountability when individuals and nations will stand before God. In the presence of the divine shekinah (glory) where holiness is the standard for judgment, all that was wrong will be made right. Evil will come to its deserved punishment. Righteousness will be rewarded. This divine and human drama brings God’s just judgment upon all, both the living and the dead. Judging the dead presupposes their resurrection, an idea most clearly found for the first time in the OT in Dan 12:1-3). It can be argued, however, that it was anticipated in the earlier vision by Ezekiel of the “resurrection” of the nation of Israel from the “dry bones” of Babylonian exile (Ezek 37:1-14), and a return to the land of Israel. The idea throughout Scripture is that such an appointed time is sure in God’s timetable. The eschatological judgment day is not one of many events of God judging individuals and nations throughout history. Rather it is the one grand and fearsome event of judgment that marks the transition from the present age to the age of the fullness of the kingdom of God. The most recognizable images in the NT are Jesus’ parable of the Son of Man separating “sheep” and “goats” unto “eternal punishment” or “eternal life” (Matt 25:31-46); and also the “great white throne” judgment of Rev 20:11-15 (see Hiers 1992, ABD 2:79-82; Jenni 1962, IDB 1:784-85). [End Sidebar]
The hallowing, perfecting work of God, done in this life, is an abundant source of reassurance for the future day. As a collective body of Christ, we will stand holy before the holy God “perfectly restored . . . changed from glory into glory . . . lost in wonder, love, and praise” (Charles Wesley, Love Divine All Loves Excelling). ■ 18 When considering the term perfect love some would emphasize being loved perfectly by God. This is only part of the story. Certainly the origin of all love is God, and we only know how to love “because he first loved us” (4:19). But God’s love is not only something received by us; it also transforms us and enables our response of love back to God and others (Haas 1972, 113). Abiding in God’s love, living in the flow of perfect love, we are enabled to authentically love one another (Painter 2002, 283). In a relationship of mutual love there is no possibility of fear in God’s presence (Marshall 1978, 224). Love is personified as the agent taking action to cast out the fear. The supreme power of love triumphs over fear (Strecker 1996, 167). This perfect love from God; a completed, achieving-its-purpose kind of love, in persons and toward one another, and back to God; drives out fear (Rensberger 1997, 122). Love on that day cannot be condemned by Love! The fear is literally cast out—exo ballei—a phrase recalling the casting of evil ones into darkness (Matt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30) and similar to the “casting out” done by Jesus of demon spirits (Mark 1:34—exebalen; Mark 1:39—ekballōn). The statement there is no fear (phobos ouk estin) has occasionally been forced to say more than it truly does. This delivering act of divine love removes the fear of punishment (kolasin). In the NT the word only occurs here and in Matt 25:46 where it denotes “eternal punishment” (kolasin aiōnion). So the fear from which one is delivered is the fear of standing before God at the final day (“the day of judgment,” v 17). The man who fears (a present participle suggesting a continual condition of fear) has reference to this eschatological appointment and how God’s love at work in believers takes that fear away. But one may still fear certain things. Indeed, people should learn to fear some things in the interest of personal safety and to be good stewards of the life given them. But perfected love can so harmonize our lives with the character of God that coming into the very presence of the Holy One holds no dread for us. The holy character of God, and the blazing judgment that can flow from that holiness, is met with an experience of God’s holiness. This holiness in the believer grants peace because it meets the divine requirement. God prepares us by his perfect love, by a love that flows to us and out through us, to come into the divine presence with confidence (v 17). ■ 19 People are able to love—we love—since God first loved us and thus enables the human response of loving. This is more likely a statement of fact—we do love, rather than an exhortation (“let us love”). It declares that love is not self-originated but is of divine origin (Brooke 1912, 125). Love, as also holiness, finds it origin and definition in God. We cannot become truly holy or genuinely loving by our own striving. Only when we have received the holy love, or loving holiness, of the Creator God, can we make any claim to these qualities. So it is all of grace. Some scribes felt the need to expand the text by clarifying who is the object of the human love. Thus, some manuscripts read we love God, others we love him, and still others we love one another. But the best manuscript evidence supports the reading as simply we love, so a love without designation, and so also without limit—we love (everybody). ■ 20 The proof of love is seen in action. In a succinct way John contends that love for one’s brother (adelphon) who is seen gives credible witness to one’s love for the Lord, who is not seen. The text minces no words. Whoever hates (misēi, see also 2:9, 11; 3:15) a brother while still claiming to love God is a liar. The word order in the Greek text gives strong emphasis—liar he is (pseustēs estin). Even though the unloving one may be identified publicly with the church, failing the love test relegates him to a category reserved for the worst imaginable offenders. The liar designation includes those who are disobedient to God’s commands (2:4) and who deny that Jesus is the Christ (2:22). Any such persons are “antichrist” (2:22), among the many who are denying God and Christ. Many manuscripts make a declarative statement at the end of the verse he . . . cannot love (ou dunatai agapan). Other ancient texts pose a rhetorical question how is he able to love (pōs dunatai agapan)? Semantically these two readings do not differ. The rhetorical rendering expects a negative answer (Haas 1972, 114). ■ 21 Love for God is evidenced by the attitudes and relationships one has toward a brother (adelphon). The term brother indicates a member of the Johannine community (fifteen times in 1 John, three times in 3 John). This loving is not necessarily automatic, and does not depend on feelings. Such love can be a command (entolē) and if it can be commanded, then one is able to choose a response of obedience. Our responses of obedience thus occur by an act of volition rather than at the level of emotion. The command is to do the right thing, regardless of how we may feel about another. If we can obey the command to love, then surely we can disobey it. Else the command is not truly such, and the hearer is not responsible.
FROM THE TEXT
1. God’s love comes through many people. Any truly loving expression has its origin in the God who is love. Love flows from God through people (v 16), whether that person acknowledges God or not. So even the atheist and the agnostic are part of God’s work in this world (v 15) when acting in love toward another. Such love, God at work in the life of anyone, is grace. When we express God’s love to another, at the same time God is drawing us closer to God’s heart. 2. Perfect love takes time, but can be real in us now. Perfected or complete love (v 17) encompasses a span of time. The perfecting of God’s love in persons began in the past. It began as early as Gen 1 that declares all creation “good” (Gen 1:18, 21, 25), indeed, “very good” (Gen 1:31). The restoration of what sin forfeited happens through the cross, as well as through our faith response to God’s offer in Christ. Further, the perfecting of love is a living, present reality, something done for us by God in this world so that we are like him (v 17). Luther fully missed the point of this phrase. He understood the likeness here as only our being human which affirms Christ’s full humanity and not to a spiritual condition in the present (Pelikan 1967, 302). John’s reference was to counter those who denied Christ as having come in the flesh; 4:2; 2 John 7) Finally, the completing of God’s love in us in this world (v 17) prepares us well for the future, when confidence on the day of judgment (v 17) becomes a reality. 3. Lived out love. This section of 1 John calls for applied love. The themes are eminently practical. Making claims to Christian faith obligates us to incarnate that faith by loving acts toward others (v 20), both in the church and beyond its walls. Pastoral practice that helps people reconcile to one another is part of the business of “saving souls” for the kingdom. Loving brother and sister in the churches frees one to fully love God (v 20) and demonstrates that God’s love is truly resident in us.