III. Christ-like Love Now and When Christ Appears: 1 John 3:1-24
When He Appears—A Call to Cleansing (3:1-6)
IN THE TEXT ■ 1 John commands the reader to see or remember (idete, an imperative verb) how great is the love the Father has lavished on us. The word is used as a revelatory declaration with prophetic insight in the Gospel of John—“Look (idete), the Lamb of God” (Thomas 2004, 147; John 1:29, 36, 47; 19:14, 26-27). Forms of the word appear in Rev related to the coming of Christ (Rev 16:15; 22:7, 12). The NIV doesn’t translate idete here and thus somewhat subdues this strong exhortation. Other versions render idete as “See” (NASB, NRSV, ESV) or “behold” (KJV). The reader is likely being enjoined both to recall (in 1 Cor 1:16 idete means to remember) and also to understand (1 Cor 2:12). This verse recalls the visual language of 1:1-4 where the reader sees God’s love by looking upon Jesus. This love had been wonderfully given—how great . . . lavished (potapēn which can mean great or massive). Mark 13:1 describes the immense size of the stones of the Jerusalem temple with the same language—“Look (ide), Teacher! What massive stones (potapoi lithoi)! What magnificent buildings” (potapai oikodomai!”). In Matt 8:27 the word denotes surprise at Jesus’ great power—“What kind of man is this” (potapos estin houtos; Brooke 1912, 80). This lavish love had been given in the past, continued to have effect (dedōken, a perfect tense verb). Such lavish divine love is the foundation for inclusion in God’s family. It is the means by which one enters into relationship with God and also the power by which one remains in spiritual community. Throughout the writing John employs family metaphors to depict spiritual relationships and ethical obligations (van der Watt 1999, 491). These images reflect the power of family identity in the ancient near east. People lived so as not to bring dishonor to the family. Loyalty toward one’s family excluded all other loyalties (van der Watt 1999, 497, 510). The Father gave this love, it was not earned. This lavish love came as a gift to us and is not based on merit. The initiative is from God. We have opportunity to become true spiritual offspring of God only after divine love has been offered to us. This initiative by God is often called prevenient grace. The word “prevenient” is formed from two Latin words that mean “to come before.” Prevenient grace makes our seeking for God possible, because God has first sought us. John makes a bold declaration. What his readers are declared to be--children of God (tekna theou)—they actually are. The verb called (klēthōmen) is in the passive voice, suggesting God as the one who makes the declaration. This is no merely, in-name-only, positional relationship to God. The character of God becomes a part of who we are. Just as the Creator intended the original pair as in the divine image before their creation, so here the readers are what God has declared them to be (Bruce 1970, 85-86). Family status with God makes the believer a mystery to the world which does not know the Christian because it did not know him. This ignorance appears also in John 1:10 and although the word order is different, the Greek words themselves are identical (Thomas 2004, 149). Ignorance toward Jesus’ true identity prevents the world from understanding Jesus’ followers. But acknowledging who enables a new understanding of who Christians are. ■ 2 John continues affirming family status—Dear friends (agapētoi, literally “beloved ones,” also in 2:7; 3:21; 4:1, 7, 11). Being children of God (teknia theou) is not something delayed into the future at the end of the age—when he appears. It is already true—we are (esmen). Christians are God’s family now (nun). Still, John says the present family status pales in comparison to what is to come. The experience of being God’s child is now; the full meaning of that is not yet. Futuristic (“not yet”) eschatology and realized (“already”) eschatology stand in tension in Johannine writings (see van der Watt 2007, 74-76 who describes Johannine eschatology as a “progressively realizing eschatology” due to this mixed nature). Such future hope has not yet been made known (oupō ephanerōthē), a passive verb form indicating the disclosure comes at God’s discretion. The text is reserved in speculating about eschatological details, a modesty that some contemporary Christians might consider (Smith 1991, 80). This future, yet-to-be-experienced, relationship with God comes only as it is revealed by God. The fullness of that revelation awaits a future day. The not yet is language at home in apocalyptic settings (Brown 1982, 392-393). The word oupō is used by Jesus in the eschatological discourses when he speaks of “wars and rumors of wars” but says that the end is not yet (Mark 13:7; Matt 24:6; though the NIV reads “still to come” in both instances). The statement when he appears, a passive verb form, translates (ean phanerōthē, he has been made manifest). This virtually reproduces the language just mentioned above. The experience of being like Christ has not yet been made known (ephanerōthē). Despite all that is not known, one truth is certain. The future state will involve being like Christ—we know (oidamen) . . . we shall be like him (homoioi autō esometha). Present seeing will be improved majestically, enabling followers of Christ to see him (opsometha) as he is in resurrection splendor. Post-resurrection knowledge perfected the seeing / knowing of Jesus by the disciples (Smith 1991, 78), and the final seeing of Christ will mean a full and unhindered knowledge of him. The veil diminishing the radiance of his holiness will someday be removed. The seeing is just as (kathōs) he is. Paul wrote of present limits to knowing and what will someday be—“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor 2:9). Seeing Christ as he is will be to see him with new eyes, eyes full of understanding, as for the very first time The standard for holiness is quite clear. Holiness is most importantly to be like him. Being God’s offspring naturally calls for us to reflect his character. Choices, values, attitudes, lifestyle—all these are to increasingly conform to the example of Christ. Seeing Jesus will have the effect of looking in a mirror but with one substantial difference. Rather than seeing ourselves as we now are we will be enabled to see ourselves in the possession of the shared glory of Christ (Marshall 1978, 172-173; see 2 Cor 3:18 “And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit”). ■ 3 Such a resplendent hope (elpida, only this one occurrence in the Johannine literature) calls the reader to holiness in the present. Salvation centers on Christ’s coming again and the hope of resurrection. This eschatological yearning points toward a sharing in Christ’s glory, and is already begun by the fact of our now being children of God (Mayer 1990, 1:438). The appointment is certain. All people will stand in God’s presence at the end of the age. This compels God’s people to a full surrender to him now. A hope that has Christ as its focus must inevitably have a purifying effect upon the person who is trusting in Christ (Bruce 1979, 88). Eschatology drives ethics. We have a future appointment with God. But we are already citizens of God’s kingdom, and are to live daily by kingdom values. One lives a life of purity because Christ is pure. The pronoun, simply put as he, translates the demonstrative pronoun ekeinos, meaning that one, a term used in 1 John to refer to Jesus (Smith 1991, 78; 2:6; 3:3, 5, 7, 16; 4:17). The pronoun makes a specific designation—that one (Christ, and not another) defines purity. The word pure translates hagnos, means hallowed, pure, upright, dedicated to God. Divine purity calls for the disciple of Christ to embrace purity as well. Interestingly, hagnos is never used in any of the Gospels to identify Jesus (Brown 1982, 397). It appears only here and in John 11:55 in the entire Johannine corpus (katharos, meaning “cleansing” is much more frequent; Balz 1990, 1:22). The measure of true holiness is Christ-likeness. Holiness is not first and foremost adherence to a set of standards, but rather the divine life being lived out through us. Purity in us means to come into the possession of the same kind of character as that of Christ. Thus the phrase just as (kathōs, in the same way, or of the same sort) as he is pure. We will see Christ “as he is” (v 2) and that unhindered seeing leads to a purity for us that is like his. But what does John mean by purifies himself (hagnizei heauton)? Brown suggests the idea of the preparation required to enter the divine presence (1982, 397-98). In most instances hagnizo implies ritual or ceremonial purity. Exod 19:10-11 reports Moses as needing to purify the people in preparation for the coming down of the Lord God on Mount Sinai. In John 11:55 people preparing themselves for Passover went Jerusalem “for their ceremonial cleansing” (hagnisōsin). Jesus said “I sanctify myself” (hagiazō emauton) just prior to his going (back) into the more immediate presence of the Father (John 17:19). Here the idea seems to involve a moral purity in anticipation of seeing Christ, since v 5 will quickly affirm Christ’s sinlessness. Yet one cannot humanly accomplish the cleansing, hallowing work required to conquer sin. Only the holy God can fully purge and hallow. To purify self is to be understood in the context of the pardon and cleansing from sin (1:7, 9) that is available only through Christ’s atoning death (2:2; Brown 1982, 398). But Christ’s sacrifice for sin is to be followed by our presenting our lives “as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God” (Rom 12:1). It is in this sense of placing our redeemed life fully at God’s disposal that the call to purify self should be understood. This full consecration to God is evidenced by ongoing choices toward the holy. The present tense verb hagnizei permits an ongoing, dynamic translation—be continually purifying. This kind of living-level faith honors God and adheres to scripture. A surrendered life gives God unhindered space in which to work. To the degree that we invite God’s purifying presence into our lives, to that degree we may be said to be engaged in purifying self. While the fullness of “what we will be” (v 2) is not yet known, still in the present we can prepare to stand in the presence of the Holy One by an ongoing obedient response to this word from God. Purity is not here presented as future reward for the Christian. Rather it is a qualification for someday seeing God (Matt 5:8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God”). ■ 4 John’s return to the topic of sins (not mentioned since 2:12) highlights an ongoing tension in the letter. The reality is that sin may occur. The standard to which we are called is that sin be dethroned. John sets forth something of a definition of sin (hamartia), namely that it is lawlessness (anomia), a combination of nomos (law), with an alpha prefix which serves to negate the word). In some instances the word means a person for whom the law is not known. Gentiles can sin apart from, or independently of, the Mosaic law (1 Cor 9:20-21). In 2 Thess anomia typifies “the man of lawlessness” in Paul’s discussion of “the coming of the Lord” (2 Thess 2:1-3). A “son of lawlessness” who is a false Christ appears in the post-NT writing Apocalypse of Elijah 3:1-10 (Limbeck 1990, 1:106; Charlesworth 1983, 729-30). The words hamartia and anomia are used as equivalent expressions in the LXX in Ps 32:1, where in synonymous parallelism the text reads “Blessed is he whose transgressions (anomiai) are forgiven, whose sins (hamartiai) are covered.” Two senses may be present in 1 John 3:4. First, sin is a breaking of the law. People create a personal performance record of violations; they break the law in an ongoing way (so reading tēn anomian poiei as lawbreaking he is doing). Or, secondly, people may be said to have a spirit that is hostile to the laws of God (hē hamartia estin hē anomia, somewhat paraphrased as sin is a lawless spirit). Bruce spoke of sin as most especially a lawless attitude toward God (1970, 89). Smith wrote that sin is a condition from which persons need freed (Smith 1991, 82). The sentiments are similar to Paul in Romans where he writes of an inner compulsion that combats his better, spiritual judgment—“but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members (Rom 7:23). The language of lawlessness suggests apocalyptic tones. In the Olivet Discourse Jesus says that “wickedness (anomian)” will be multiplied (Matt 24:12). Earlier Jesus spoke of false prophets who would work anomia (Matt 7:22-23). In the second century Christian writing the Didache (16:3-4) the language of the last days, false prophets, and anomia are closely associated (Brown 1982, 400; Richardson 1943, 178). Another eschatological passage using anomia is 2 Thess 2:3 (“the man of lawlessness”; see 2 Thess 2:7 for “lawlessness” as a “power”). So anomia was understood as a final outbreak of evil, as rebellion against God. Such would place a person in the company of God’s enemy the devil (vv 8-10) and those who opposed all that was good—the earlier mentioned “antichrists” of 1 John 2:18 (Marshall 1978, 176-177). This lawlessness, of spirit and acts, is part of an eschatological opposition to God and cannot be reconciled with a confident waiting for his return. One cannot be eager for the return of the Lord and at the same time in rebellion against him (Thomas 2004, 155). Most foundationally, it would appear John believes people sin because they are first sinners. They have an anti-God attitude that then manifests as acted out opposition to the purposes of God. Thus, the most fundamental need for everyone is to find correction for the core character problem, some answer that will turn the heart’s affections strongly God-ward. Such a solution could make it become as natural to do the right, the holy, as formerly it was “natural” to do the wrong, the sinful. ■ 5 Such a radical correction of the sin problem finds strong expression here. For he appeared (ephanerōthē) is identical to v 2 where it refers to the future manifestation of what Christians will be). Here the term points to Christ’s first appearance for the very purpose of taking away sin. The incarnation, and by extension, all of Christ’s life and work, were tied to providing a final remedy to sin—to take away our sins (airō). Other manuscripts, arguably representing the stronger witness, read simply take away sins, without specifying whose. A minority of manuscripts render the passage as the sins of the world, perhaps a harmonizing attempt with the earlier declaration at 2:2. The verb airō is used in the Gospel with the sense of a change of location (John 2:16; 11:39, 41; 19:31, 38; 20:1, 13). Sins are taken away by the atoning work of “the Lamb of God” (John 1:29) whose death was a representative bearing away of sin (Radl 1990, 1:41; Marshall 1978, 177; see 1 John 2:2; 4:10; 1 Peter 2:24). But the term may imply more than simply taken away. It can also suggest removal in the sense of destruction. John 11:48 use the word to refer to the possibility that the Romans “will take away” (arousin) the Temple and the Jewish way of life. The crowd in Luke 23:18 calls for the death, by execution, of Jesus, “Away (aire) with this man.” Similar is John 19:15 “Take him away (aron)! Crucify him!” Paul receives the same kind of death threats from the crowds in Jerusalem—“Away with him” (aire auton, Acts 21:36) and “Rid the earth of him! He’s not fit to live!” (aire apo tēn gēs ton toiouton, Acts 22:22). These usages certainly suggest not just a new residence for sin, but its eventual permanent removal by defeat / destruction (Radl 1990, 1:41). John is not presenting Christ as having come to simply counter-balance sin in the human heart, to somewhat hold down evil so as to give holiness a chance at succeeding in the believer. Christ came to complete a decisive victory over sin. Oecumenius (6th century) asserted that since Christ who had no sin came to take away sins, excuse for the practice of ongoing sinning disappears (ACCS 2000, 197). For John purity meant freedom from sin (Marshall 1978, 174). ■ 6 In the next line the text declares that for the one continually abiding in (menōn, a present participle indicating a continuous aspect) God / Christ, the habit of sin is broken. The verb that follows is also present tense and may be fairly rendered—does not continue to practice sin (ouk hamartanei). John is contending for a Christian faith that moves one to a higher level of living. God defeats and ultimately destroys sin. God does not co-exist with it. Two perfect tense verbs appear. They strongly affirm that the person continuing to live habitually in sin has never truly seen Christ initially and certainly does not have Christ in his field of vision now—has not seen him (ouk heōraken). True vision and knowledge have abiding results (Brooke 1912, 86). Such a one had never authentically known Christ and obviously did not know Christ now—has not known him (oude egnōken). These verbs provide a direct contrasting link back to the opening lines of the writing. Abiding in Jesus means sin is excluded. Conversely, ongoing sinning means an ignorance of Christ. John’s views are consistent with the dualism throughout the writing (Smith 1991, 83). This verse does not declare occasions of sin to be impossible. Rather it asserts that a sinful life does not characterize the child of God (Bruce 1970, 90). As one is constantly abiding, one is simultaneously kept from practicing sinning. The image of sinlessness is a lofty call to holy and consistent living in obedience before God.
FROM THE TEXT 1. Becoming part of the family. The language of calling Christians children of God (v 2) affords preaching themes around the images of birth (John 3:16; 1 Pet 1:23), and adoption (Rom 8:15, 23; Gal 4:6). Both of these are analogies to the new spiritual life experienced through faith in Christ. These and other NT passages draw from OT language that refers to Israel as “my son” (Hosea 11:1). Jeremiah reports God as saying, “I am Israel's father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son” (Jer 1:9). In 1 John the followers of Christ, those who compose the church, are fully also children of God. Modern voices that misunderstand the idea of being a child of God by faith and obedience to Christ want to say that all people are God’s children. This is true in a sense. All are created with immeasurable value and a residual image of God the Creator. But Jesus was willing to say that some are, by their choices against God, not God’s children but instead are those whose father is the devil (John 8:44). 2. Taking Care of New Life in the Church. The church has a responsibility to intentionally nurture new believers, the children. We would not leave a newborn child to survive on its own. Neither can we overlook the need for protection and feeding for those new to the Christian faith. Also, if the congregation of believers is healthy, offspring will be a natural outcome. Lack of new children should signal the church to examine itself and find out what is undermining the health of the body and impeding new life. Not only is the church to be a place of new life begun, and a nursery where that life is nurtured; it becomes, as needed, a caring facility that devotes intense energy to the spiritually wounded so as to return them to health. 3. Being Well-Prepared for Meeting Christ. This health of spirit is the needed preparation for someday standing in Christ’s presence. The powerful phrase what we will be (v 2) speaks of eternal life that is beyond our present comprehension. Christ’s presence fully invading human experience on that future day will mean the correction of infirmities and weaknesses. Theologians sometimes refer to this end-of-the-way work of grace as glorification. John is clear that the correction for sinning includes forgiveness as an essential aspect. The correction of sinfulness requires cleansing as a mandatory element. Both can, and should, occur here, and now. But the full restoration of all that was marred by sin, those residual effects will be corrected when he appears (v 2). Then, an unobstructed view of him will lead to a full and final transformation so that we are like him. Christ’s coming to take away our sins meant “to destroy them all, root and branch, and leave none remaining” (Wesley 1983, n.p.). Adam Clarke also emphatically urged God’s remedy for sin in this life: He came into the world to destroy the power, pardon the guilt, and cleanse from the pollution of sin . . . can it be supposed that he either cannot or will not accomplish the object of his own coming? (Clarke n.d., 914).
Destroying the Devil’s Work (3:7-10)
IN THE TEXT ■ 7 Dear children (teknia) is a favorite term in 1 John (3:2, 7, 21; 4:1, 7, 11). Belonging to God is to be spiritual family, yet still subject to being led astray. This evidence of righteousness (dikaios) of heart is lived through right acts—He who does what is right (ho poiōn tēn dikaiosunēn). The clear implication is that God’s people will reflect God’s character. The standard for righteousness in persons is the righteousness of Christ—just as he is righteous (reminiscent of the earlier “just as he is pure,” v 3). This is the third time that Christ has been called righteous or “just” (2:1, 29). It reminds the reader of the nature of Christ’s life, that Jesus was / is always righteous in character and just in all his dealings (Brown 1982, 404). In classical Greek usage the man who was dikaios was one whose behavior fulfilled obligations to both “the gods” and his fellow-men (Brown 1978, 3:353). The OT idea of righteousness moves toward the idea of behavior consistent with the relationship between God and persons. The dikaios person is one who is devout and demonstrates God’s righteousness in God-like dealings with others (Brown 1978, 3:355). ■ 8 The evidence of one’s allegiance shows up in the fruit of the life. Doing sin demonstrates allegiance to the devil whose sinning was from the beginning. The phrase is similar to John 8:44 where the devil is described as “a murderer from the beginning . . . a liar and the father of lies” (van der Watt 2007, 38). The absence of sinning demonstrates allegiance to God who is holy. John continues to speak the theme in various ways. The reason Christ came was for the very purpose (eis touto, unto this) of conquering sin. The word lusē means in some cases to release. But lusē can also mean to destroy, to do away with completely, as in Eph 2:14 where Christ is said to have “destroyed (lusas) the barrier” that separated Jews and Gentiles. In John 2:19 it means to put to death—“destroy (lusate) this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” The word may indicate God’s aim as achieving a decisive and unmistakable defeat of sin. Verse five and eight appear in poetic parallelism, suggesting that taking away sin and the destruction of the devil’s works are the same (Thomas 2004, 164). “he appeared [to] . . . take away our sins” (v 5) “[he] appeared to destroy the devil’s works” (v 8) Likewise vv 7 and 8 stand in poetic parallelism: “He who does what is right is righteous . . .” (v 7) “He who does what is sinful is of the devil . . .” (v 8) These lines highlight two mutually exclusive spheres of life. One can belong only to one realm and will thus bear the imprint of that realm and allegiance (Brown 1978, 3:362). In this verse, reference to Christ as having appeared speaks of his first coming to the world in the past, his first advent, to break the back of sin. But in 3:2 John writes of a still future coming to the world, a second advent, to fully and finally establish a cleansed, sin-free environment of righteousness. Commenting on v 8 Calvin rightly understood “that the flesh and its lusts do not prevail, but are tamed and as it were yoked, so that they are checked” (Parker 1959, 272). Calvin’s language suggests more a suppressing of sin rather than it being fully conquered. Still, he did not contend for a Christianity that allowed sin to flourish. He rather believed the Spirit of God brought superiority to the believer. Didymus (4th century) taught importantly that sin is not intrinsic to human nature. Rather it is accidental, a result of intrusion into God’s plan for humankind (ACCS 2000, 198). A full overturning of the curse of sin is the final answer from God. ■ 9 This verse is artfully structured as a chiasm (Thomas 2004, 165; a repetition of lines in mirror fashion): a–No one who is born of God b–will continue to sin c–because God’s seed remains in him b’–he cannot go on sinning a’–because he has been born of God The matter is clear. Sin and Christ cannot finally co-exist. The seed (sperma) of God, by its very nature, expels sinning. The word sperma suggests not images of planting and harvest. Rather sperma conveys the idea of having offspring. God’s seed means the very life of God deposited into the believer. A likely association of sperma is to the Spirit (Brooke 1912, 89; John 3:6, 9; see careful discussion in Brown 1982, 408-411). Gnostics thought of pre-existent divine seed as begetting divine children (Brown 1982, 411). John may be employing language with a similar nuance, that belonging to Christ is to belong to God, and means divine life resides in such a person. The “anointing” earlier described by John (2:20, 27) involved being taught by the Spirit, and the same idea may be at work here. In 1 Thess 1:5ff the Spirit and the word of God serve together to achieve new birth. By extension the Spirit and God’s word insure the growth of the new life, and divine life within necessarily expels sin. John insists that an ongoing practice of sin means that the life of God is being choked off, or was never present. God’s life in persons achieves radical change. Sin, formerly natural (or perhaps better as “typical”) now becomes unnatural (Bruce 1970, 92). When God’s seed is nurtured it remains in a person and life happens and grows. Is John saying that to sin is fully impossible in the life of the Christian? Surely not, else 1:8, 10; and 2:1 are emptied of meaning. Sin can happen, but it is an intrusion. Sin, when accommodated, puts one’s very life—God’s seed—in jeopardy. When the life of God is given opportunity to do as it will, God’s life expels sin just as lighting a candle dispels darkness. The more that light expands, the more the darkness flees. There may be gradations of the light’s success and shadowy corners still, but everywhere the light is given access, there it conquers darkness. John has already strenuously challenged claims to sinlessness by some (1:8, 10). At the same time this passage insists that the follower of Christ will experience freedom from sin as God’s holy character resides within. The text argues for a spirituality that eliminates willful acts of sinning as long as one is fully abiding in Christ. Sin is never the pattern in the lives of believers (van der Watt 2007, 63). One cannot simultaneously be actively obeying God and willfully disobeying: He whose life is governed by the law of love—love for God and for his fellowman—cannot sin because he cannot, at one and the same time, both love another and intentionally sin against him (Blaney 1967, 380). John Wesley addressed the matter like this: But “whosoever is born of God,” while he abideth in faith and love, and in the spirit of prayer and thanksgiving, not only doth not, but cannot, thus commit sin (Wesley 1978 Vol. V, 227). This child-of-God status is a present reality, and there is a freedom from sin associated with it. Indeed, the more that this divine seed transforms the Christian, the more unlikely it is for the Christian to sin (Brown 1982, 431). ■ 10 Christ “appeared” (ephanerōthē) to “take away our sins” (v 5) and so “destroy the devil’s work” (v 8). What Christ came to do will appear (phanera) in a life that does what is right. John is quick to insist that righteousness is relational. Righteousness is relational toward God—children of God—and that presumes also a positive relationship toward others, that one rightly related to God will love his “brothers and sisters” (NRSV). Anyone who does not do what is right is clearly among the children of the devil (diabolos; see John 8:31-59 for a rich passage related to being a child of Abraham, God, or the devil). Sins of omission, right actions one fails to do, can be as great an evidence of failed spiritual condition as sins one commits. John here clearly assumes the presence of an evil one in the world whose influence is always contrary to the right. In a certain similarity to James (“I will show you my faith by what I do,” Jas 2:18), v 10 determinedly holds faith and works together. The love of God lives in the routines of life. God’s love flows in gathered worship but also, and authentically, in service that finds the people of God scattered into the community.
FROM THE TEXT 1. Free From Sin. The statement cannot go on sinning (v 9) creates challenges for the minister of the word of God. How is one to preach / teach on this difficult text? Some would simply avoid it altogether, but that is irresponsible. It runs the risk of creating a “canon within the canon,” adopting a selective approach to what texts are authoritative for faith and practice. The tensions of acknowledging sin (1:8, 10; 2:1) in contrast to the call to live free from sin argue two distinct types of perfectionism in 1 John (Bogart 1977, 25-39). We could opt for the more “realistic” sense of the text and accommodate sin in our lives. But such too readily dismisses the call to holy living that is apparent in the writing. An approach that embraces the text wholly, as it has been transmitted canonically, seeks to work with both themes. Sin is a reality and does occur, even among those who would be considered brother or sister but can never be the standard for Christian living. First John 2:1 reassures that God has in Christ made provision for sin when it intrudes into the life of a believer. So an ongoing practice-of-sin religion cannot be the measure. Where Christ is fully present in the believer and the believing community, Christ excludes sin. The Spirit of God permeates all that is made available through consecration, and fills and purifies hearts by faith (Acts 15:8-9). The presence of Christ chases sin from the Christian and from the church just as light casts out the darkness. The task of the preacher is to offer redemptive hope for restoration for those who have fallen, while also calling all to a life lived in daily, ongoing, consistent obedience to God. Such a one lives in habitual conformity to the known standards of God, which means a freedom from willful sin. 2. The Devil and Evil. Some find it fashionable to dismiss the idea of a personal evil one—the devil (diabolos). But four times this text portion speaks of such a one (three times in v 8, once in v 10). The NT is quite familiar with the idea, the devil appearing some three dozen times. Of these, twelve appear in the Johannine writings (three in the Gospel, four in 1 John, and five in Rev). A personal, evil, anti-God being is manifestly treated as real and formidable by the NT writers. The seriousness with which many Christians view the devil comes in the wording of the baptismal creed still used in many churches that asks “Do you renounce the devil and all his works?” (for a history of this wording see Gilmore 1979, 9:488-89). There are two extremes in modern Christendom. In one, believers seem obsessed with the devil. Demonstrations of a lack of personal discipline or sin (gluttony or greed, for instance) are attributed to demonic activity. Financial pressures due to bad spending habits are excused as being Satan’s doing. Or physical illness that derives from poor eating, or a sedentary lifestyle, is blamed on the devil. Such spiritual sloth and theological error is offensive to the thinking and conscientious Christian. On the other hand, some Christians seem to have little or no appreciation for the enormity of evil in the world. They don’t embrace the doctrine of the Fall, preferring an anthropology of humankind as evolving upward. Such minimizing or ignoring of the problem of systemic and individual sin in the world leaves no truly adequate answer for the problem of evil.
Love and Hate, Life and Death (3:11-15)
IN THE TEXT ■ 11 The message (angelia, news or announcement) is not new. It was part of the faith from the beginning, from their earliest experience of being Christians, since they had heard it. The call to love is a present reality experienced in community—you (plural), we, and one another (allēlous). The living out of mutual love among the Johannine Christians did not depend on feelings, since it could be commanded (John 13:34; 15:12, 17; 1 John 3:23). It was an obligation that one could and should do. To love was to act lovingly. ■ 12-13 Early biblical narrative relates a sad tale. John reminds his readers that love so disappeared from Cain’s heart that he could murder his own blood brother (Gen 4:1-16). Casting his lot with the evil one (tou ponērou) took Cain much further into depravity than he ever could have imagined. Cain did not first murder and then, as a result, come to belong to the devil. He first belonged to the evil one and subsequently committed murder (esphaxen). The word always includes a sense of violence (Brooke 1912, 92), and was used at times for the especially heinous crime of killing one’s family member (Michel 1971, 7:932, 934). In the LXX it often has sacrificial connotations (Gen 22:10; Exod 29:11; Lev 1:5; Num 11:22). Forms of the word are found in the NT only here and in Rev (5:6, 9, 12; 6:4, 9; 13:3, 8; 18:24). In Rev the term mostly refers to that which was done to Christ or to Christ’s followers. John depicts Cain’s violence as arising from a heart already compromised toward evil. His allegiance was wrong and wrong acts followed. The verse reminds us that we should not be surprised (thaumazete, to be astonished or to marvel at) if the world hates us. Forms of surprised appear in Acts 7:31 referring to the burning bush experience of Moses—“he was amazed (ethaumazen)” and in Rev 13:3 “the whole world was astonished (ethaumasthe) and followed the beast.” The world has already been depicted in 1 John as hostile to God (2:15-17; 3:1; see also John 15:18-20) and will soon be described as the domain of false prophets and antichrists (4:1-5), a place given to “the evil one” (5:19), and thus a sphere to be overcome (5:4-5). ■ 14 The pronoun we (hēmeis) at the front of the sentence adds emphasis since grammatically it is not necessary (the pronoun is inherent in the verb oidamen—We know). The sense then is we ourselves know this! What is being so emphatically affirmed? It is a dramatic spiritual transformation. The words we have passed (metabebēkamen, perfect tense) convey the idea of a settled relocation, of having “crossed over (metabebēken) from death to life” (John 5:24). The Gospel uses the same idea to write of Jesus’ approaching death—“the time had come for him to leave (metabē) the world” (John 13:1). So here in v 14 John declares a spiritual transformation. They had not “turned over a new leaf,” they had received a new life. Their previous condition was that of residing in spiritual death. Now, by their faith in Christ, God had brought resurrection life (zōē) to them. Acting lovingly was evidence of spiritual life. A lack of loving deeds would have demonstrated spiritual death. Just who are our brothers (NRSV attempts a more gender balanced translation by reading “one another”) in the mind of the elder? Those who had “gone out” from the Johannine fellowship (2:10) surely were not thought of in such a fashion. Indeed, those who had left are labeled elsewhere “false prophets” (4:10), “deceivers” (2 John 7) and “antichrists” (2:18; 2 John 8). The brothers whom the readers are called to love were those believers clearly in harmony still with the teachings and practices of the Johannine churches. In 2 John there is a strong caution against even granting hospitality (food and lodging) to any itinerant preachers whose Christology was in error. Is this discomfort over who is to be welcomed / loved, and who is not to be so welcomed, the reason for some of the textual variants of this verse? Most likely the original reading of the latter part of the verse was as it is rendered in the NIV—Anyone who does not love—a rather generic statement which some scribes apparently wanted to make more specific. Consequently some manuscripts were emended to read love the brother, and others more specific yet as love his brother. ■ 15 The text goes radically further. A lack of love means one still resides in death spreads a death-dealing spirit toward others. Love leads to life, lack of love leads to death, and both are contagious. In the fashion of Jesus, who linked “angry with his brother” (Matt 5:21-22) to murder and consequent judgment, John warns of the danger of lost love. When love leaks out it is too often replaced by hatred. When hate seeps in a person opens the door to the possibility of murderer status (anthrōpoktonos, literally a “man killer”). The word appears only one other time in the NT where it refers to “the devil” as a “murderer” (John 8:44). The text of v 15 speaks of a spiritual condition—eternal life that could be forfeited by hatred toward his brother.
FROM THE TEXT 1. Living in Love Toward Others. Why is love so important? The answer comes back, “A lack of love invites in the evil one (v 12), and that absence of love can lead to murder.” The motives that lead to hate, envy, lust, and murder, find their beginnings in withheld love. Compromised love keeps score and asks “How much do I have to do?” Christ-like love asks “What is the loving, the lavish thing to do? How much may I do?” All sin is a distortion of love. Misshapen love toward another person can become a desire to control rather than to honor and serve the other. Normal God-given sexual desires can turn toward lustful thoughts and actions that are outside God’s will. Appropriate self-esteem can, if unchecked, move to pride and a life turned in on self. Necessary concern for providing for one’s family can mutate into an inordinate love of money and possessions that becomes greed. 2. Losing the Way. Spiritual apostasy can manifest as hatred for “a brother or sister” (v 15, NRSV). The passage speaks of having passed from death to life (v 14). Implicit in these words of warning is an assumption that one could be initially among the people of God yet become captured by hate and so experience the loss of eternal life (v 15). It seems clear that 1 John is warning against moving outside the faith community. Such a one could thus reject the truth and in the act of refusing truth and living no longer in God’s love, one could forfeit eternal life. Since salvation is relational, if the relationships with God and with God’s people are broken, then the life one had in those relationships also becomes lost. 3. From Hate to Murder. The language of violence is troubling. How could a brother murder a brother? The story of Cain and Abel highlights the profound danger that lurks in the heart. Unchecked anger and jealousy may seek to control others rather than serve them. Eventually hatred follows. Sadly, and amazingly, wrong attitudes can lead a person, or a nation, to believe that murder of another is the best option. Love in Action (3:16-24)
BEHIND THE TEXT Genuine Christian faith expresses itself in tangible ways. The OT is replete with calls to be generous to “the fatherless” and to the “widow” (Deut 10:18; 24:17-21; 26:12-13; Isa 1:17, 23; Jer 7:6; 22:3; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10). Such admonitions to care for the poor and disadvantaged continue into the NT. Jesus had compassion on hungry multitudes and fed them (Matt 14:14-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-13). The early church distributed food to the widows as part of their ministry (Acts 6:1). James had sharp words of warning to the rich who did not treat others with justice (James 5:1-6). IN THE TEXT ■ 16 This section stands in sharp contrast to the tragically wrong example of Cain. Instead of killing his brother, Jesus surrendered his life (tēn psuchēn autou) for others (Brown 1982, 473). John argues that humankind would not even be capable of knowing the full extent of what love looks like without seeing it in Christ’s death. It is by this (en touto, referring to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross) that we know what love is. The death of Christ was not a colossal accident, it had purpose. His was a life given, not taken from him. The name Jesus Christ does not appear in the Greek text. The word is ekeinos (that one) which in 1 John consistently refers to Christ (3:3, 5, 7). He laid down (ethēken) his life (see John 10:11, 17-18). No earthly ruler had power to take his life, not even the Roman governor Pilate (John 19:10-11—“you would have no power over me if it were not given you from above”). Further, this surrendered life had others in mind. It was for (hyper, in behalf of) us. In the face of such love, John contends, the only adequate response is to live a life of sacrifice and selflessness, to live like Christ. Such living is not to earn merit with God, but to express gratitude toward God. This sacrifice and emptying of self extends as far as giving our lives (see the Kenosis hymn in Phil 2:5-11, a vivid portrayal of other-centered living by Christ). Christ’s example calls his followers to live in behalf of (hyper) our brothers. The repetition of hyper implies that our sacrificial living is to be of the same sort as that of Jesus, who was willing to die for another. Beginning in v 10 this section presents the spiritual family language of “brother” numerous times in a short span (vv 10, 12-17). The appeal to give self for one’s brothers stands in sharp contrast to the sad negative lesson of Cain who killed his brother. ■ 17 Passing love on to another is not merely to express warm thoughts. Shared love has substance. Love consists of giving goods, material possessions, literally the life (bios) of the world. The word bios appears rarely in the NT and always suggests life in its external aspects, concerns over the affairs of material existence (Ritz 1990, 1:219; Brooke 1912, 97). In 2:16 it is translated as what one “has and does” so probably is intended here as the “things of life” meaning what is necessary for living in the world. When the prodigal younger son requested his father to “give me my share of the estate” the father “divided his property (bion, Luke 15:12). When another has material lack we can open our hearts and respond to their need. Or, instead, we could have no pity. The Greek text is vivid, literally saying one may be tempted to lock (kleisē) away one’s inner being from him. To refuse to help another when God has placed the means in our hands is to lock those resources inside and lock the needy other outside away from hope. The verb kleisē suggests a key, or a locked door, holding someone outside (Matt 23:13; Luke 11:7). When one has no pity he closes off any compassion to another. The word used is splanchna, literally meaning the intestines, but intending the idea of one’s inner being. At that time splanchna conveyed the idea of the innermost center of a person, that part of one’s self that felt most deeply. For the modern reader in most cultures, a translation stressing feelings of compassion captures the sense. The rhetorical question John hangs in the air means, of course, that failing to be generous with tangible life goods means God’s love has been blocked toward the other. In that same moment and measure, while attempting to keep one’s own material security, ironically, the love of God, which is one’s spiritual security, gets away. It cannot be in him. Jesus taught that the way to save one’s life is to give it away (Mk 8:35). ■ 18 With warm words—Dear children—John urges moving from lip-service to a lived-out love. True love works; it expresses itself in actions (ergon, meaning work, labor, service—Mark 13:34). The wording might seem to suggest that one could feel love and not act on it—loving only (implied) with words or tongue. But such seems doubtful in view of comments in the larger context of the epistle. A “love” that is only words is not love at all (v 17; James 1:22; 2:16; Matt 7:16-20). This faith of which John speaks sees needs and acts to meet them. One with material means to help and in whose heart God’s life is active will instinctively show God’s love by sharing with others (Bruce 1970, 97). ■ 19 Only a faith that works can set our hearts at rest. The word hearts translates kardia and though translated as a plural is singular in form. So the text speaks of one heart. The biblical writers occasionally used this idea of corporate personality. Here, the many, literally of us (hēmon, a plural pronoun), is placed with a singular noun (heart), so the effect is to stress the unity of the body of believers. Though several, we have one heart. And when this common-hearted group acts in love, our common heart can be at rest (peisomen, literally we will persuade—see Heb 13:18) in the presence of God. The statement we know (gnōsometha) is a middle-voice verb suggesting knowledge that validates back to the person—for ourselves. A scattered few manuscripts read simply ginōskomen (we are knowing or we know). This knowledge assures us that we belong to the truth (see earlier expanded discussion of truth at 1:6). ■ 20 The heart may not be a reliable indicator. We may have a sense of living under condemnation, though our actual spiritual condition, known better by God than by us, is secure. A troubled heart may reflect an unnecessarily anxious, lacking-in-trust condition. But God is greater than our hearts. John wants his readers to find assurance from God, who in spite of knowing everything (panta), yet loves us immensely. ■ 21 The love of the all-knowing God enables the people of God to have confidence before God (recall 2:28 “so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming”). Strengthened by the God before whom all are to someday stand, we can come not fearfully but with assurance. God calls us to be holy and enables us to become what is required. There are several textual variants in the verse. Manuscripts divide rather evenly into two readings over kardia. As was the case in v 19 kardia is singular (heart) in Greek but translated as a plural because it is followed by a plural possessive pronoun our (hēmōn) in some manuscripts. However, other manuscripts omit the pronoun and so read simply the heart. The struggle is between a strict translation based on proper grammar and the idea of corporate personality, wherein the many are viewed as one entity. Another variant reading comes at the phrase set our hearts at rest. The large majority of manuscripts read simply that the heart does not condemn (mē kataginōskē), though a number add our (hēmōn, plural) and a few read your (humōn, singular). The simpler though less specific reading is likely the more original—if the heart does not condemn. The addition of the pronouns was probably due to scribal attempts to clarify. Whether the message about lack of condemnation is directed to us or you (plural), the difference is slight. In the first wording John would be identifying with his readers. In the second he would be speaking to them. Both are possible. ■ 22-24 By living in ongoing obedience to God’s commands, doing what pleases him (aresta, v 22, the good and acceptable things; see John 8:29), people can more readily believe God for answered prayer. They will receive from him (v 22, a present tense—we are receiving). Echoes of Mark 11:24 suggest themselves here—“whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” And what are some of the answers to prayers? In v 24 at least three appear. To be in God’s presence—to live in him—is one. To have the life of God in us is another. Though this is the first mention of God’s very self as dwelling in the believer, several divine qualities have been said to live / remain in the Christian (Thomas 2004, 194; 1:8 truth; 1:10 the word of God; 2:27 the anointing; 3:9 his seed; and 3:15 eternal life). To experience the inner witness of the Spirit he gave us is a third. This is the first explicit reference to the Spirit in the writing, but the Spirit is surely present as the agent of “anointing” earlier at 2:20, 27 (Bruce 1970, 100, 102). Though the Spirit is an under-developed presence in 1 John, this is still a strong affirmation. The Christian knows that God / Christ lives within by virtue of the Spirit’s testimony to the gift of God’s presence. Another answer surely is to become increasingly conformed to the likeness of Christ by God’s indwelling presence. Further, this being like Christ leads to generous gestures toward others. What better answers to prayer might one receive from him (v 22) than to be at peace with God, others, and self? The most profound expression of faith is to believe in the name of God’s Son, Jesus Christ and love one another (v 23). The emphasis parallels the exchange between Jesus and “an expert in the law” in which eternal life is said to rest in supreme love for God and selfless love for one’s neighbor (Luke 10:25-28). John insists that a faith toward God will be evident in tangible love toward others. Both believing in the Son and loving one another are equally part of one command (both are connected to the purpose clause denoted by the word hina). Faith that works flows from faith placed in Christ. No authentic faith can circumvent him. This faith is in the name of his Son. The emphasis of one’s name appears numerous times in scripture. To speak of the name of a person often was to refer to their authority as well as their character. All that a person represented was assumed within the name (Haas 1972, 97). The phrase the name occurs at 5:13—“I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God” and 3 John 7—“It was for the sake of the Name that they went out.” Six times in Revelation “name” appears in reference to God or Christ (2:13; 3:12; 11:18; 14:1; 16:9; 19:13). The most extensive usage is in Acts (in twenty-nine verses, with twenty-seven as references to God and Jesus. The absolute use in Acts 5:41 “rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name” (emphasis added) reflects a use of the phrase as a title for Jesus (as in 3 John 7). The assurance of living in God / Christ comes in several ways. There is first the confidence that comes from living consistently before God (22). Then there is the assurance of this very text, the witness of scripture (v 24). Finally there is the witness of the Spirit (v 24). The Holy Spirit is a gift to us that confirms what scripture promises and what our life has embraced. Confidence before God is more than mild hoping. It is an assurance that we know (ginōskomen). Forms of the word occur thirty-five times in John’s letters, strong assurance to the readers. Much in 1 John 3 has been encountered earlier, but these are not the repetitions of a meandering mind. Rather, they are deeply felt themes returned to in a calculated way. Loving one another can nurture not only the relationship among persons but also insures ongoing intimacy between the believer and God. The crowning evidence of this mutuality of life is that God gives the Spirit. Obeying God’s commands and doing what pleases him (22) demonstrates faith in God’s Son, Jesus Christ (23). God demands that we love one another (23), and our obedience to this and, indeed, all God’s commands means we live in him (24). The Spirit he gave us (24) bears witness to the intimacy of this relationship. So God (Father), Jesus Christ (Son), and the Holy Spirit all are closely affirmed in this portion. There is also another “trinity” of sorts present. God’s love into one believer flows then to another believer, and all three—God, believer, believer—share reciprocal expressions of love in action.
FROM THE TEXT 1. The most magnificent expression of love is the cross. When Isaac Watts surveyed the cross he found nothing of earth that would satisfy like knowing the one who died for all. The cross brings vividly before us the servant of the Lord who “bore the sin of many” (Isa 53:12). The cross recalls also Jesus’ words that as the good shepherd he lays down his life for his sheep (John 10:11, 15). The image of the dying Christ willingly giving himself up for others becomes a challenging model for ministry. In vv 16-17 abiding truths about love appear. God defines love; love is self-sacrificing, even unto death; love is active, not reactive; and to love God is to commit to love the family of God also (van der Watt 1999, 508-10). To minister in Christ’s name is to serve with a spirit marked by less of self and more of him. When a person serves faithfully where God has located him or her, such an individual can live out daily this laying down of life for others. We give a little portion of our lives for others every day. In so doing, we are following after our leader, Jesus. 2. Asking for Anything. The phrase, receive from him anything we ask (v 22) poses theological challenges about the nature of prayer and stewardship. In a section that speaks of receiving anything the text also confronts us with a clear obligation to give material possessions to his brother in need (v 17). Probably the anything could be wrongly construed to mean asking for more things, justified by thus having more to share with the needy after all! But it is only after we have demonstrated generosity through actions and truth (v 18) that we can experience a heart assured by God. Only after that are we positioned to ask for self. Even then the one who prays has confidence before God (v 21) only because of a habit of doing what pleases God. If we are situated that closely to the heart of God and God’s directives we will find asking largely for others and little for self. 3. Standing Before God. It is in being known by God that we find assurance and peace. Yet it is ironic that for many people the thought of standing before God brings anxious thoughts, even dread. But the examining presence of God someday should call us to live holy before God each day. When that happens the dread disappears, because we have prepared every day for that future day.
11/4/09 TIME \@ "h:mm:ss am/pm" 3:53:34 PM 3:1-24