Frank G. Carver Search ⌕

Book Chapter

Final Review 1 John Chapter 2

1 John 1:4 · 1 John 1:8 · 1 John 1:9-10 · 1 John 2:1-29 · 1 John 2:1-6 · 1 John 2:12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21

A detailed exegetical commentary and review of 1 John 2:1-29, focusing on the section 'Jesus Our Defender (2:1-6)'. The document analyzes Greek terminology, including 'teknia mou' (my dear children) and 'paraklēton' (advocate/counselor), to explore themes of pastoral concern, the distinction between habitual sin and occasional lapses, and the role of Jesus as the defender of the believer. The text also discusses the linguistic shift from 'we' to 'I' in the epistle and concludes with reflections on the importance of living out kingdom values in anticipation of Christ's return.

II. BELONGING TO GOD AND RESISTING THE ENEMY: 1 JOHN 2:1-29

A. Jesus Our Defender (2:1-6)

IN THE TEXT

■ 1 The expression of endearment—My dear children (teknia mou) is frequent in the letter (2:12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21). It suggests a close and warm relationship between author and readers. It also may hint at an author well along in years. The word teknia provides a powerful image of spiritual relationship, where both John and his readers are said to be “children of God” (3:1). With the interruption of my dear children, I write, . . . into the verse structure John has employed throughout vv 6-10, he stresses his pastoral concern. That 2:1-2 belongs to the train of thought (argument) began at v 5 is indicated by the continuation of the sequence--condition, consequence, explanation (vv 1b, 1c, 2; Nauck, 1957, 23f.). Whereas in 1:4 John penned “we write,” here he shifts for the first time to a first person singular—I write (also in vv 7, 8, 12, three times in 13, twice in 14, and near the end of the epistle at 5:13). Likely this indicates an understandable change of the “voice” that speaks from time to time in the letter. In the opening lines of 1 John the use of “we” represents the collective and historic testimony of the apostolic traditions. Now he speaks a more personal word using I, perhaps underscoring the urgency of his pastoral concern for them. Early in ch 2, John reveals both his pastoral heart and the high calling of being a Christian. He writes not only to maintain a relationship, but to buffer his readers from all that might lead them to sin. The goal is clear—so that you will not sin (hina mē hamartēte). The aorist tense may suggest the avoidance of definite acts of sin, thus producing the capability of “sinlessness” rightly understood (Brooke 1912, 23). John wants his readers to recognize the all-pervasive nature of sin, while at the same time, to live without habitual sinning (Marshall 1978, 116); he desires that they transcend sin and the consequences of it (Yarbrough 2008, 70). Sin as regular practice can be avoided. Habitual sin as the norm for Christians is foreign to 1 John. Yet not much earlier he insisted that one could not claim to have no sin with which to deal (1:8), that all had sins that needed forgiven (1:9-10). So now, what does 2:1 mean? Certainly he is not adopting here the position he criticized in 1:8, 10 (Kruse 2000, 71). The conditional statement but if anybody does sin (kai ean tis hamartēi) presents a hypothetical but quite real case. The verb hamartēi is in the subjunctive mood, indicating possibility though not inevitability. John says anybody (tis) could sin, and what if (ean) he does? Translating (and paraphrasing) with these nuances in view might yield let us consider the case of an individual who sins, though such need not be the practice. The verb is in the aorist tense, the simple past tense. Had John been interested to stress an ongoing, practice of sin, rather than an occasion, the imperfect tense would have served him better. The aorist subjunctive suggests more the idea of a lapse into sin, not a continuing life of sin (Painter 2002, 158). While the text affirms the standard of being kept from sin, John is realistic, and acknowledges that some do falter in their walk. To these he affirms the continuing offer of reconciliation to God. These first century Christians illustrate a timeless tension and challenge. Freedom from the habitual practice of sin, which can be met by us through God’s gracious help, is at times not the reality of our lives. How do we remain faithful both to God’s holy character and God’s expectations that holiness be authentically present in us, without denying the problem of spiritual lapses? This text, indeed all of scripture, calls God’s people to live holy before God; and as v 1 encourages, sin need not be fatal due to Christ’s atoning death (Rensberger 2006, 287). The passage subtly suggests that acts of sin affect not only the one who does them, but also the body of believers. Individual sins impact others. If anybody (singular) does sin we (plural) have one who helps us (echomen, Brooke 1912, 27). John affirms the holiness of God and God’s call that people be holy. God’s holiness works in redemptive ways with us. Though sin is real, we have one who speaks . . . in our defense. This phrase is a single compound word in Greek, paraklēton, composed of two words that mean “along side of” (para) and “to call” (kalein). The image could be that of a legal counsel, representing someone before a judicial proceeding. This person would speak on behalf of the other, as a lawyer does for a client in a court of law. Not only would the one speak for and represent the other, but also the paraclete likely stood alongside and offered the support of his presence. The word at times has a less technical sense of anyone being called in to help. While the word has wide usage in non-biblical Greek literature, it appears only in the Johannine writings (Gospel of John and 1 John) in the NT. In the Gospel it is the word Jesus uses to describe “the Holy Spirit” (John 14:26) and “the Spirit of truth” (John 14:17; 15:26). Paraclete appears four times in the Gospel (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7) and is always translated “Counselor” in the NIV. In the Gospel the paraclete is sent by the Father, based on Jesus’ request (14:16) and in Jesus’ “name” (14:26), or is sent by Jesus (16:7) from the Father (15:26). But here in 1 John, rather than the Spirit being the paraclete, Jesus is the paraclete. The views are not so contradictory as might first appear, since one of the primary tasks of the paraclete in the Gospel is to make Jesus known and to make Jesus’ words known—“The Counselor . . . will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26). The usage in the two writings does suggest either some fluidity in the term (that it could be applied to either Jesus or the Spirit), or perhaps some development in the use of the term. When Jesus was physically absent after the resurrection, the churches recalled his language about sending “another Counselor” (allon paraklēton, John 14:16, with allon suggesting another of the same sort) and could have quite naturally adopted the term for the “absent yet present-by-the-Spirit” Jesus. Jesus is called the Righteous One (dikaion). This is a title for Jesus in three instances in Acts (Acts 3:14; 7:52; and 22:14). Each of these occurs within a speech or sermon by a significant early Christian leader in which the title carries the sense of messianic identity. The first instance is in Peter’s response to the people who gathered after the healing of a crippled beggar at the gate Beautiful in Jerusalem (Acts 3:14 “You disowned the Holy and Righteous One”). In Acts 7:52, Stephen, in his first and last sermon, identified Jesus as “the Righteous One.” Paul, defending himself before a Jerusalem crowd, says his call from God was so that he might “know his will and to see the Righteous One” (Acts 22:14). The prophet Isaiah uses the same image when he speaks of the Lord God—“glory to the LORD” (Isa 24:15), which stands in parallel with “glory to the Righteous One” (Isa 24:16). Jeremiah anticipated “a righteous Branch” (Jer 23:5; 33:15) as “the LORD Our Righteousness” (Jer 23:6) from the line of David. Zechariah saw a “king” coming to “Zion” who was “righteous and having salvation” (Zech 9:9). Some passages in the book of Enoch call the Messiah “the Righteous One” (Enoch 38:2; 53:6), which likely reflects an early use of this term that found its way quite naturally into the vocabulary of the early Christians. ■ 2 “Jesus Christ, the Righteous One” (v 1) is the atoning sacrifice (hilasmos, also in 4:10) for our sins (tōn hamartiōn hēmōn). Christ comes alongside to help, and to speak for, the believer who has succumbed to sin. But he does more than stand beside so as to speak on behalf of the guilty ones. He enters actively to become the resolution of the dilemma sin has caused. This language of sacrifice, drawing on imagery from the Temple system, demonstrates the gravity of the offense of sinning against God.

[Sidebar begins] Hilasmos

The words hilasmos and the related hilastērion appear infrequently in the NT; besides here only in Rom 3:25; Heb 9:5; and 1 John 4:10. These passages are translated “atoning sacrifice” (1 John 2:2; 4:10) or “sacrifice of atonement” (Rom 3:25) or “place of atonement” (Heb 9:5). An array of other related words and images in the NT seek to explain what transpired in the death of Jesus that enabled reconciliation with God. These include terms reflecting the practices of animal sacrifices within Judaism (Heb 10:12; Eph 5:2); references to Christ as Lamb (1 Cor 5:7; John 1:29, 36; and 30 times in Rev); language of ransom (Mark 10:45), purchase (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23; Gal 3:13; 4:5), and redemption / forgiveness (Eph 1:7; Col 1:14), The word hilasmos in 1 John 2:2 is translated in several English Bibles as “propitiation” (ASV, ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV); and in the RSV and NJB as “expiation.” The NIV and NRSV have “atoning sacrifice” (a translation as early as Adam Clarke; Clarke n.d., 905). In the LXX hilastērion was associated with the place where reconciliation was accomplished—the “mercy seat” (see also Heb 9:5). Both hilastērion and the related hilasmos are connected also with the means by which the reconciling was done. Some understand the transaction suggested by the words as “the action in which God is propitiated and sin expiated (Bϋchsel 1965, 317-8). Such a statement suggests that God, as the offended party, needs to be placated, although the NT repeatedly indicates that it is God who takes the initiative toward sinful humanity (for example John 3:16; 2 Cor 5:18-19; 1 John 4:10). Translations that use “propitiation” incline toward an emphasis on the change that happens on the divine side of the transaction, God is appeased. The aspect of expiation places the focus more on the cleansing and restoration of the offender, the human side. A translation of “atoning sacrifice” or something similar attempts to stress the effect of Christ’s death without saying just how the change happens, whether more on the side of the holy God who is reconciled, or on the side of sinful humanity whose transgressions are cleansed. The term hilasmos surely contains movement / change on the divine side as well as transformation / change on the human side. In every varied attempt by NT writers to convey the sense of what transpired, the statement of Paul in 2 Cor 5:19 is a controlling perspective—“God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ” (Bϋchsel 1965, 317; Mitton 1962, 313). [Sidebar ends]

Overshadowed in most translations is a Greek word that provides emphasis. The Greek text adds a pronoun (autos, he), although it is grammatically unnecessary, since the subject is already contained within the verb He is (estin). The pronoun provides emphasis—He himself (autos) is the atoning sacrifice. Thus, Christ is both the high priest who offers the hilasmos but also the hilasmos itself that is offered (Marshall 1978, 118-119; Brooke 1912, 28). In Heb 9:26 Christ offers “the sacrifice of himself.” God the Father initiated the process so God cannot be viewed as an unwilling reluctant judge waiting to be placated. The Father provides forgiveness of sins (1 John 1:9) and also provides the Son through whom the forgiveness is offered (1 John 4:9). This redemptive offering by Christ is not narrow in scope. The invitation is wide. It is for our sins and also for the sins of the whole world that Christ died. There is no limited atonement here. Calvin admirably affirmed that “Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world” though unfortunately also holding that the reference to the whole world (holou tou kosmou) actually meant only those who would believe (Parker 1959, 244). Yet the clear declaration of the text is that Christ died for all indeed, not merely for those who would believe. Christ held nothing back. All who believe may receive life through the merits of his death. The world (kosmos) occurs twenty-two times in sixteen verses in 1 John, and in the great majority of instances the connotation is negative. Only here and in 4:9 and 4:14 does kosmos refer to the object of God’s redeeming love, more like John 3:16. All other uses declare the world as alien toward God, a place of false prophets and hatred, and something to be overcome (2:15-17; 3:1, 13; 4:1, 3-5; 5:4, 5, 19). The removal of the sins of the whole world recalls a similar note in the Gospel (John 1:29, 36). There John the Baptist declares of Jesus, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” ■ 3-11 These verses replace the theme of fellowship with God with that of the knowledge of God. John moves from the reality of sin in human experience (1:5—2:2) to the necessity of obedience in knowing God (vv2-7). Then the obedience is given a particular definition as that of love (vv 7-11). John states his thesis in verse 3 that he expands on in vv 4-6. He does this first negatively (v 4), second with a positive reformulation, and finally with a more specific positively restatement(v 6) 5). ■ 3 The passage affirms a present knowledge of God (ginōskomen, we know, is present tense). This present knowing is based on a past experience that is still true (the perfect tense egnōkamen, we have come to know him). The implied sense of the perfect tense verb means they had come to know God and that reality was still true in that they obey his commands. The knowledge of their earlier Christian experience was being demonstrated through its abiding results (Brooke 1912, 30). Knowing God led to increased obedience. Obedience is presented not as “the condition,” or as a means of procuring the knowledge of God; rather, it is “the chacteristic of the knowledge of God” (Bultmann 1973 25). Obedience flows out from the knowing. Grace finds us and forgives us and begins to heal us; and our lives begin to say “thank you” by walking in obedience to God’s commands. ■ 4 John continues to hold up the difference between what one says and what one does, or more precisely what one is. If verbal claims conflict with one’s practice, those claims are useless. Such claims are fraudulent unless they result in a change of lifestyle marked by obedience to God’s word (Fleming 1999, 66). A testimony based on the past, I have come to know him (egnōka perfect tense, the result of a past action), that does not square with one’s life is presently demonstrating now (while saying, legōn, a present tense participle) is more than suspect for John. Indeed, it is to make oneself a liar (pseustēs, see 1 John 1:6 “we lie”). Such a one is not keeping, (mē terōn, a present tense participle) God’s commands. The participle suggests an ongoing practice of disobedience. The Greek text places pseustēs in an emphatic position at the front of the clause, liar he is. John minces no words when authentic Christian faith is challenged. The phrase is a liar says something more extensive than an individual experiencing an occasional lapse (Brooke 1912, 31; see 1 John 1:6, 8). John labels a person by a continuing practice—a liar. This label is then coupled with the assertion that truth is not in him. Some manuscripts make explicit the nature of the truth, reading the truth of God. This reading, however, is secondary. The charge “liar” appears on Jesus’ lips in the Gospel when he calls “the devil . . . a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44), then a few moments later asserts that his critics deserve the title also (John 8:55). John will soon also assign the label liar to the one who “denies that Jesus is the Christ” (1 John 2:22) and to “anyone . . . [who] hates his brother” (4:20). Those who do not believe the testimony of God about his Son would make God “out to be a liar” (5:10). In Revelation liars are given an emphatic place at the end of the list of those things that remain outside the New Jerusalem (Rev 22:15). ■ 5 The emphasis shifts now to those who obey and underscores the personal response required of the readers. The phrase anyone (hos d’ean, more literally whoever may) and the verb obeys (tērē, subjunctive mood) conveys the idea that obedience is not automatic. One may obey, but then again, one may not. The life that leads to Christ-likeness is reflected by ongoing obedient response to the word (logon) of God. The phrase obeys his word is distinctively Johannine. It occurs in the Gospel twelve times (John 5:24; 8:51, 52, 55; 14:15, 21, 23, 24; 15:10, 14, 20; 17:6), in the letters eight times (1 John 2:3, 4, 5; 3:22, 24; 5:2, 3; 2 John 6), and in Rev six times (3:8, 10; 12:17; 14:12; 22:7, 9). Those who claim to obey may or may not be keeping God’s word. Not obeying God’s word demonstrates the falsity of any verbal claims. But by keeping the commands, and by walking in obedience, the love of God achieves its purpose. How is God’s love (hē agapē tou theou—the love of God) to be understood? Is it meant as an objective genitive—one’s love for God? Is it a subjective genitive designating God’s love for the Christian? Or does the gentive tou theou point to a qualitative idea, namely a kind of love that is characteristic of God. The third of these options fits well with the context and while all three are possible, the grammar would more likely support the idea of the love that characterizes God (Marshall 1978, 124). The working of God is in persons—in him. Still, the reader knows that the divine love is prior to, and enabling of, any human response of love (Brooke 1912, 31; see 1 John 2:15; 3:17; 4:12; 5:3). When love attains its goal, it is made complete (teteleiōtai). This verb is in the passive voice which many times in the Bible implies that God is the one doing the action of the verb (see the sidebar “Divine Passive” at 1 John 1:2). The sense of made complete is not that persons are so completed as to need no further development, far from it. But the intent of divine love is being achieved in an individual as one is obeying God’s words. This obedience, John will go on to particularize in vv 7-11 as love of the “brother” (see 4:11-21). God’s love is decidedly God’s work. The divine love is prior to, and enables, any human response of love (Brooke 1912, 31; see 1 John 2:15; 3:17; 4:12; 5:3). It is God, not human effort, who brings to wholeness, to completeness. The completing, or perfecting, of love is in him, and thus decidedly not in us apart from Christ. The root word here is the same as that of Jesus’ statement from the cross—“It is finished” (tetelestai, John 19:30), and conveys the idea of bringing to the intended conclusion, even with a note of triumph. In the Gospel of John the term appears six time (John 4:34; 5:36; 17:4, 23; 19:28, 30) indicating the completing of the work given to Jesus by God (Thomas 2004, 99). This completing or perfecting in love is presented as fully normal for the Christian. John Wesley drew on the wording in this section of 1 John to support his doctrine of “perfect love” as characteristic of fully dedicated Christians (Wesley 1978-79, 366-446). The language of “perfected love” appears also at 1 John 4:12, 17. This divine love achieves its intended work, a perfect work (Marshall 1978, 125, note 14). In the Gospel of John, as here, obeying God’s commands means expressing love toward Christ, toward one another, and then that love returns to God in worship and settled intimacy (John 14:21, 23; see also 1 John 5:3). This reciprocal movement of love from God and back to God enables the completing, or perfecting, of love’s intention. It is love that is achieving the divine purpose as it develops in relationships (Brown 1982, 257). ■ 6 There is a significant moral obligation in v 6. One must (opheilei, what one owes, or ought to do) walk in a certain way. This call profoundly stretches us, for the specific standard is to walk as Jesus did (kathōs ekeinos periepatēsen kai autos houtōs peripatein, just as that one walked also himself so to walk). Making claims of an intimate relationship with Christ—to live in him (en autō menein, to remain / dwell in him)—does not prove one’s spiritual faithfulness. The proof is in the walk, in a strong, obedient, and growing relationship of journeying together. The image of walking stresses the daily, one-step-at-a-time, regular, lifestyle nature of the call to be God’s person. This walking is to be so distinctively holy as to be compared to the walk of the Lord Jesus himself. It is the language of authentic discipleship, to walk with, and so more and more to walk like the one with whom we walk. Walk imagery abounds in the OT. In Deut 5:33 (just before Israel’s great faith declaration of the Shema—“Hear, O Israel . . .”) God’s people are enjoined to “Walk in all the way that the Lord your God has commanded you.” The refrain repeats in Deut 10:12; 11:22; 26:17; and Josh 22:5. The Psalter promises access to God’s sanctuary to the one “whose walk is blameless” (Ps 15:2; 84:11). The great eighth century prophet Isaiah called the nation to walk in God’s paths (Isa 2:3), in the light of the Lord (Isa 2:5), and to “walk uprightly” (Isa 57:2). Likewise, Micah summed up much of the message of God’s purpose for persons in the majestic words that call people to “walk humbly with your God” (Mic 6:8).

FROM THE TEXT

1. One who stands beside to help. What an incredible thought, that the one who died for us sinners, represents us before the Father (v 1). The paraclete Jesus who comes alongside to help believes in us so much that he has already endured supreme suffering for sin. We stand before God but we do not stand alone. Forgiveness is offered. Reconciliation is real. The work of God in our lives is made complete (teteleiōtai, v 5) at great cost to Christ. Christ’s declaration from the cross in John 19:30 contains strongly similar language. From the cross Christ calls out “it is finished” (tetelestai). This linkage offers a profound challenge to the serious disciple. Christ’s full obedience to the Father took him to the cross, where the divine intent of redemption was achieved. Just so, our full obedience to the Father, wherever it may lead, allows the achieving of the divine purpose in us. 2. Is sin necessary? Full obedience to Christ can mean that we not sin (v 1). Some would dismiss too readily this concept, arguing that “to err is human” and so, also, is to sin. Martin Luther found no energy to address the high aim of v 1 and instead focused on the inevitably of sin “But even if you fortify yourself to the utmost, yet sin remains, and you sin from day to day” (Pelikan 1967, 235). However, to his credit, Luther later affirmed concerning 1 John 3:6 “He who is in Him, that is, in Christ, does not sin; for when Christ is present, sin is conquered” (though Luther’s ambivalence even there is apparent “Even if they sin, yet they do not permit sin to reign” (Pelikan 1967, 270). While “all have sinned” (Rom 3:23), sin need not be the habit for God’s people. The matter turns importantly on how sin is defined. If by sin is meant any lack of perfect conformity to the law of God, whether known or unknown, then that kind of freedom from sin surely eludes humans now. But what if by sin is meant a willful violation of a known law of God? Then surely the redeeming work of God through Christ on the cross and the power of resurrection can so capture one’s affections that persons are freed from the habit of sin. Grace not only reaches, it also pardons, and, importantly, heals. Commenting on v 1 John Wesley wrote: All the words, institutions, and judgments of God are leveled against sin, either that it may not be committed, or that it may be abolished (Wesley, Notes 1983). 3. Honesty when sin occurs. A troubling aspect for the lived-out expression of holiness is when someone has failed to live holy (usually with a sharply-worded criticism or a deeply harbored resentment) and yet resists the idea of confessing those sharp words or nurtured bitterness. Testifying already to a grace that has freed them from sin, some are resistant to confess failure of any kind, thinking to do so is to deny their profession and harm their theology. Some people excuse themselves and fail to admit sin, calling it a “mistake.” At the same time, knowing they have hurt another person, they don’t ask for forgiveness from that one, nor God, perhaps saying “God knows my heart.” But shouldn’t the activity of the Spirit of God in us make us more likely to notice when we have wounded another, and more likely to admit fault, and ask for pardon? 4. Christ died for all. A further ministry emphasis that affects both preaching and pastoral care turns on the extent of Christ’s atoning death. He died for all—“the sins of the whole world” (v 2; see also 2 Cor 5:14, 15). His death for all does not lead to universalism, for some will not heed the invitation. Christ’s death is sufficient ground for anyone’s salvation, but his death does not demand that result in all. Paul distinguished the difference between the sufficient offer and the more limited embrace of atonement when he spoke both of the “all” for whom Christ died (2 Cor 5:14) and yet “those who live” as a more restricted number (2 Cor 5:15). God comes in grace and invites—drawing and enabling, but not coercing anyone. Christ’s death does not necessarily lead to a limited atonement theory; that he died only for “the elect” and not for all. The text in 1 John 2:2, as well as Paul’s statement in 2 Cor 5, both argue strenuously for understanding Christ’s death as truly for all, yet maintaining that a person makes a grace-enabled response to the merit offered in that death, for good or for ill and for eternity.

B. In the Light or in the Darkness? (2:7-11)

BEHIND THE TEXT

The dualistic imagery in this section calls to mind the literature and theology of some of the scrolls found near the Dead Sea at Qumran. Themes of light and darkness, love and hate, and truth and lies, all would have been fully at home in the sectarian Jewish circles of that community. The early Christians were, for the most part Jews and thoroughly a part of their cultural heritage (see BEHIND THE TEXT at 1 John 1:5-10). Another matter to keep in view as this section unfolds is how the language of command (vv 7, 8) would have been heard by Jewish ears. The Ten Commandments (Exod 20:1-17) surely would have come quickly to mind. While it is too much to assert that John presents himself as a “latter day Moses,” the use of command is prominent in the Johannine writings (see discussion at 2:5). Also the new command to love others (vv 7, 8; see also John 13:34; 2 John 5) draws on OT calls to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18) as a more tangible expression of one’s supreme love for God (Deut 6:5).

IN THE TEXT

■ 7 The epistle continues to be interwoven with endearing family language. John addresses his readers as dear friends (agapētoi, beloved ones, related to the word for “love” agapē). This warm language is common in the letters (agapētoi, 1 John 3:2, 21; 4:1, 7, 11; and agapēte, 3 John 2, 5, and 11). John says that he is writing them not . . . a new command (ouk entolēn kainēn, see 2 John 5) but an old command (entolēn palaian) that dates back to the beginning. The message to love others appears as early as Lev 19:18 “love your neighbor as yourself.” This is the text that was linked to the Shema in Deut 6:4 by the “expert in the law” who asked what was the greatest commandment in the law (Luke 10:27-28). But this command is as early as the beginning, says John. How is beginning to be understood? In the Gospel of John (1:1) the beginning is truly “the” beginning, prior to creation, in language that echoes the LXX text of Gen 1:1. But here John seems to be referring as in 1:1 more to the beginning of the gospel’s effect in his readers, the Dear friends. It is something they had heard (ēkousate). Understanding the beginning as the time of their having listened to testimony and preaching and having thus come to Christian faith seems indicated also by 1 John 2:24 and 3:11, where their hearing was “from the beginning.” This is similar to the opening lines of the Gospel of Mark—“the beginning of the gospel” (Mark 1:1) identified with the public ministry of Jesus’ message as proclaimed and received. The image thus is more about the beginning of the gospel in them. ■ 8 Having just said he was “not writing . . . a new command” (v 7), John, in the very next breath, says he is! The exact nature of the command remains to be defined. The wording may recall John 13:34—“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” The command of v 8 is linked to dualistic imagery of light and darkness and goes on to address love and hate, especially toward a “brother” (vv 9, 10, 11). The language is again reminiscent of the prologue to the Gospel “light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it” (John 1:5). The true light (to phōs to alēthinon) is identical to John 1:9. The light of Christ which is already shining has not fully eliminated all the darkness, but the shadows are living on borrowed time and are passing. Gen 1 speaks of God separating light and darkness (1:4-5), and a resultant correcting of chaos (1:1-2). In the Gospel of John Jesus is the “true light that gives light” and so sweeps back the darkness from all people (John 1:9). Here, the text seems to challenge the reader with the idea that hatred toward another believer is evidence of darkness, much in the spirit of anti-God chaos. Hatred threatens to undo what God, in creation and sovereign rule, is working to accomplish. The undoing of the sovereign God’s ultimate purposes is, of course, not possible. But the question the text raises is whether one will interfere with the divine purpose by aligning with the darkness [which] is passing or cooperate with God by embracing the light that is already shining. Paul, using similar language, expresses an eschatological expectation when he writes that “the night is nearly over; the day is almost here” (Rom 13:12). Paul, strikingly like John, writes of “love [for] one another” which is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom 3:8-10). The anticipation of this unfolding triumph of light over darkness means the people of God live in “the middle of time” (translating Die Mitte der Zeit from Conzelmann 1961), awaiting a future final victory by the true light. ■ 9 If someone claims to be in the light, that assertion does not necessarily prove one’s allegiance to God. The dissonance between the sounds one speaks—claims—and the clamor that accompanies hatred drowns out lip-service. The line of argument by John is consistent with his challenges in 1 John 1:6, 8, and 10—“we lie . . . we deceive ourselves . . . we make him out to be a liar.” It is dishonest to claim a state of Christian grace while one hates his brother. It is possible to believe that the light has come and claim to be aligned with that light, but in actuality be an individual who is still in the darkness. The word brother (adelphos), a favorite term with John, occurs with great frequency in the remainder of the letter (2:10, 11; 3:10, 12, 14, 15, 17; 4:20, 21; 5:16). The word is used by Jesus in the Gospels (Matt 25:40; 28:10; Mark 3:33, 35; Luke 6:42; 17:3; John 20:17). It appears in Acts (9:17; 22:13), and is a commonplace in the writings of Paul. To call one “brother” is a Christian adaptation of a spiritual “brotherhood” language used in Judaism, but the designation appears also in a religious sense in Greek secular authors (von Soden 1964, 144-46). The numerous occurrences of brother in 1 John should not trouble the modern reader about matters of gender inclusivity. Using a masculine noun and assuming both genders as readers is a feature of many languages. The use of adelphos (1 John 2:9-11; 3:10, 12, 15, 17; 4:20-21; 5:16) says more about the Greek language than the limits of divine love (Smith 1991, 58). However, recent translations that offer “brother or sister” (NRSV) are fully appropriate in their attempts to clarify the intent of language for the modern reader. How did John intend the first-century reader to hear the term brother? One has to at least ask the question as to whether brother had been narrowed in the Johannine circles to mean Christians who agreed with John. If one was not agreeing with Johannine teaching, was such a one now not a brother (see 2 John 10 for instance)? Some who had formerly been inside the Johannine community of churches had left (1 John 2:19), and John is not at all hesitant to label them “antichrists” (1 John 2:18). So does the repeated call in 1 John to love “one another” and love one’s brother extend to such as these? It seems an open question, at least, and perhaps likely that John intended brother as indicating one still inside the faith community of the Johannine churches. ■ 10 Loving a brother means bringing before him nothing that will cause spiritual defeat, nothing . . . to make him stumble (skandalon). The word means a trap or snare laid for an enemy, and, metaphorically, thus, a stumbling block or offence. Loving the law of God will keep one from stumbling (Ps 119:165). Jesus calls Peter a skandalon when Peter objects to Jesus pointing toward his destiny on the cross (Matt 16:23). Causing “little ones” to sin is a skandalon and receives strong correction from Jesus. The word appears six times in Matt 18:6-9. Paul, in Romans 9:33 uses skandalon while drawing on Isa 28:16 to refer to a stone that causes one to stumble. ■ 11 The hating of a brother demonstrates that one is in the darkness at the present and walks around in the darkness (an ongoing walking in the wrong path). Such a one cannot know (find) the way because a darkness that was chosen has blinded his eyes. Darkness is progressive (see 1 John 1:5-7, where walking in light means fellowship with one another and with God / Christ). Darkness that is chosen leads to even more darkness, and eventually blindness. Saul, in Acts 9, was already in spiritual darkness as a committed opponent of Jesus’ followers and was then physically blinded by the light of Christ’s presence. Saul did eventually regain his sight by a divine in-breaking on his life that vanquished the spiritual darkness and concurrently restored his physical sight. Saul, and those who would later hear him, moved “from darkness to light,” which was “from Satan to God” (Acts 26:18). The 1 John passage speaks of those who moved the wrong direction, rather, from light to darkness, and thus had increasingly chosen blindness. Ironically, Saul had once hated those who would eventually call him “brother” (Acts 9:17). Here John is urging those who call one another brother not to hate. While light is being given from God it is wise to walk in that light—“walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you” (John 12:35). In 1 John the meaning is close to that of Lev 19:14. In both, not seeing, blindness, or darkness is associated with skandalon (Stählin 1971, 339-58).

FROM THE TEXT

1. Relationships in the church. As in the first century, so in all ages, people find it easy to forget things already known. This old command (v 7) to love God and others needs brought before the church from time to time. Truths learned early on in one’s Christian experience, even from the beginning (v 7) can get lost sometimes in the stretch and pull of decision-making in a local body of believers. The language of family in 1 John is mingled with passages using hate and darkness (vv 9, 11). Significant pastoral challenge arises when, within a congregation, people begin living out of hatred rather than love. Such acting out always turns the spiritual journey of a congregation in the direction of darkness (vv 9, 11), which always leads away from God and truth. The danger of labeling someone as evil with whom we disagree drives more distance between us. 2. Eschatology should influence our ethics. Persons who anticipate a climactic in-breaking of God into history should order their lives carefully in view of the suddenness with which such apocalyptic events are depicted in scripture and with an awareness that such may be soon. Those who think more of a gradual growth of kingdom of God principles gaining new ground surely will live so as to make those kingdom of God values more and more a reality where they live.

C. Words for All Ages (2:12-14)

BEHIND THE TEXT

The family language used in the letters of John draws from at least two contexts. The value of the family as an institution in Judaism provides a backdrop for the eventual use of family relational terms in the early church, especially evident in these letters. The use of family themes also derives from OT covenantal images. Jeremiah reports God identifying as “father” to “Ephraim” (Israel), God’s “firstborn son” (Jer 31:9). The prophet Ezekiel relates the allegorical image of Jerusalem as a cast-off child whom the LORD adopted and loved (Ezek 16). In Hos 11:1 God calls Israel “my son.” Hosea, in the story of children born to Gomer, his unfaithful wife, processes the pain of his situation in parallel with the Lord, whose people had become “not my people” but would yet be restored as children of God (Hosea 1:8-11). Cultural aspects of the first century appear in 1 John 2:13, 14. The one who is said to overcome (nikē, a victor) may be likened to an athletic champion who vanquished all foes in Greco-Roman athletic games, especially the Olympiad. The language of athletic contests arises most clearly in Paul’s several references to running a race (1 Cor 9:24-26; Gal 2:2; 5:7; Phil 2:16; see also Heb 12:1). The abundance of emphasis given to conquest, to being a victor, can be seen in the naming of a Greek goddess as Nikē. Only true conquest, some thought, could be achieved by the gods (Bauernfeind 1967, 942-5). The language of overcoming in 1 John 2:13-14 surely draws on this idea of being favored by the God of power. The concept of being victor was highly valued in Johannine circles. When John writes to the seven churches in Revelation he records the Lord’s promises to give reward to all who overcome (see Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21).

IN THE TEXT

■ 12-14 An interesting sequence of persons appears in repeated form—dear children (vv 12, 13), then fathers (vv 13, 14), then young men (vv 13, 14). Most commentators think of these categories as referring to physical age or developmental stages in the Christian life. But if John’s intent was to direct his readers thinking that way, the sequence is strange. Plus the descriptions of the various groups should be true of all, and overlap to some degree (Marshall 1978, 136-37). John’s habit of using warm family terms to address his readers is likely in view here. It may be that the first category in the first set (v 12)—dear children (teknia)—is a way of addressing the members of the churches collectively, without necessarily making a value statement about their spiritual development. The second set begins with another collective term (v 14 dear children, paidia, usually taken to be functionally equivalent to teknia). The references to fathers and young men could be referring to either chronological age or spiritual maturity. There are then in this approach two overall statements to the entire community (dear children) and then two categories of believers, the fathers and the young (Brooke 1912, 43; with some hesitation Akin 2001, 102-03). Still, the interplay of language throughout this section is at times difficult to follow. The children (v 13) know whom the fathers know, namely God (him who is from the beginning in vv 13, 14 is in parallel with the Father, v 13). Then, it is the young men who are taking the fight against the evil one (see Joel 2:28-29 where the prophet describes “sons and daughters . . . old and young . . . servants, both men and women” suggesting an all-inclusive mission that crosses boundaries of gender, age, and social status). In the sections addressed to dear children (two Greek words are used; in v 12 teknia and in v 13 paidia) the descriptions shift (from sins have been forgiven, v 12, in the first statement, to have known the Father, v 13). In the passages directed to young men, the description expands from the first statement you have overcome the evil one with the addition of you are strong, and the word of God lives in you (v 14). For fathers the descriptions remain unchanged in both instances. These shifts and expansions express nuances of spiritual affirmation poetically, but not necessarily chronologically. A bit curious is the absence of female imagery in the section, given that “the elder” of 2 John addresses churches as “chosen lady” (2 John 1) and “chosen sister (2 John 13). The verb have been forgiven (apheōntai) speaks of the activity of God who alone can forgive sins. The verb is in the perfect tense which conveys the idea of a forgiveness that had been granted in the past, but still held. The forgiveness thus spoken of addresses not only release from the guilt of the violations of the past but also a forgiveness that extends into the future (Bultmann 1964, 509-12). The forgiveness of sins is achieved through his name, referring back to “Jesus Christ, the Righteous One . . . who is the atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 2:1). The small word hoti (because, six times in vv 12-14) merits discussion. The word may also be translated that, which would be more a declaration that they are forgiven as he writes. However most English versions read because (for example NIV, NASB, NRSV, NEB), suggesting that he writes because they are among the already forgiven. Brown does not translate hoti at all but understands it to function as a colon, more of a declaration of present reality, something like “I am writing to you children: your sins are forgiven” (Brown 1982, 300-1), which attempts to capture both these senses. Smith prefers “because”—that is as a result of pardon they are able to refuse the love of the world (Smith 1991, 63). The perfect tense is used again (nenikēkate). These fathers had previously come to know God, and that knowing was still true—you came to know God and you continue to know God. The victory they had achieved over the evil one was not only a past event, it was an ongoing victory (you have conquered and continue to conquer). The perfect tense conveys assurance but also challenge. The conquering must continue. The battle, while decisively won through Christ’s victory on the cross, keeps playing itself out. The reference to children (paidia, v 14, a change from teknia in v 12, though probably to be considered as synonyms in 1 John) may refer to those who are children in the faith, thus an affectionate term as well as indicating they are under instruction. The English word “pedagogy,” formed from paidion and agō (meaning to lead), thus to be led as a child by a child guide, an instructor), derives from the word. There is a double use of the word father (patēra, v 14; pateres, vv 13, 14) in 1 John. When the word appears in singular form it always refers to God (13 times in the NIV, always capitalized as Father). When the word appears as a plural it addresses readers in the church (1 John 2:13, 14). Some variation occurs in the Greek phrases translated I write. The first three instances in the Greek text have a simple present tense verb (graphō), I write or, I am writing. In the latter three instances the verbs are in the aorist tense (egrapsa), a past tense, and could as easily be rendered I wrote, or, I have written, although use of the aorist tense with a present sense of I write is not unusual. Later, in 2:21 and 5:13 John uses egrapsa, and seems in those instances to intend a present sense, though using a past tense form, so the shift in tense forms in 2:12-14 may be stylistic only (Smith 1991, 63). Some late manuscripts, in an obvious attempt to harmonize the earlier readings, have substituted graphō in all three places in v 14. John speaks of young men (neaniskoi, vv 13, 14,). These were well developed spiritually—you are strong (ischuroi, v 14). The word suggests at times physical strength, but also can mean spiritual might. In the LXX it is occasionally used to describe a quality of God (2 Sam 22:31). In Revelation the word (“mighty” in NIV) is used of God (18:2), angels (5:2; 10:1; 18:2, 21), and opponents of God (6:15; 19:18). The young men were in Christ and the word (logos) of God was dwelling in them (as in John 15:7 “my words remain in you”). Thus, they were conquering. The word of God, which makes God and Christ known, gave overcoming power. The victory achieved is over the evil one (ton ponēron, vv 13, 14), a term for Satan in 1 John (see also 3:12; 5:18, 19). The language is relatively common in Matthew also (Matt 5:37; 6:13; 13:19, 38) and appears once in the Gospel of John (John 17:15) and twice in Paul’s writings (Eph 6:16; 2 Thess 3:3). This personified evil—the evil one—stands in dramatic parallel as adversary to Jesus—“the Righteous One” (1 John 2:1). In the Lord’s Prayer Jesus teaches us to pray to be delivered from “the evil one” (tou ponērou). Echoes of the Gospel of John, as well as opening lines of this letter, appear here with from the beginning and with the use of word (logos, v 14; see also John 1:1, 2; 1 John 1:1).

FROM THE TEXT

1. Who can forgive sins? The controversy is evident in the written gospels (see Mark 2:7-11; Matt 9:6; Luke 5:20-24). The issue extends into the history of the developing Christian churches. Is forgiveness of sins a direct transaction between a person and God, through Christ (largely the Protestant view), or must one engage the services of a priest or official agent of the church (primarily the Roman Catholic view)? Discussion along this point of theological difference extends out from such passages as John 20:23—“If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." Protestants tend to understand the pronouncement of forgiveness as recognition of what has already been transacted between God and the person (drawing on the perfect tense of the verbs in the passage—they have been forgiven and remain so). Roman Catholic views understand the Gospel of John passage often alongside traditions derived from Matt 16:19 and 18:18, claiming a general authority given to the church and its leadership to dispense forgiveness. The declaration in 1 John your sins have been forgiven (v 12) does not fall conclusively to one side or the other on this discussion. Of crucial importance is the statement that forgiveness is experienced only on account of his name (v 12), something upon which all Christians would agree. Preaching on this issue demands careful treatment of the verb forms in the above mentioned Gospel accounts. 2. Evil in the world. Reference to the evil one (vv 13, 14) can occasion important discussion as to the presence of evil in the world. Along with thinking of a person of evil Christians should be challenged to think of how evil manifests in organizations. How is evil systemic and corporate? What in nations, in corporations, and, yes, in churches, inclines people toward evil and not the good? The presence of evil in the world is hardly arguable. Watch any news broadcast for a few minutes. But that is usually perceived as evil “out there.” What warnings can the church and its leaders raise for themselves to be careful to recognize and overturn evil “in here,” both in the church corporately, and in people who compose the church? The writings of 1, 2, and 3 John give sufficient NT support to the dangers of divisiveness and hatred even in the churches.

D. Love God, not the World (2:15-17)

BEHIND THE TEXT

Standing behind the language the world and its desires pass away (v 17) is a tradition of apocalyptic warnings that point readers back to various texts that employ statements about “the day of the Lord” as a time of destruction (Joel 1:15) and “darkness” (Joel 2:1; Amos 5:18, 20). At that time “the sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood” (Joel 2:31). This theme of the world under judgment appears in several NT passages. In 1 Thess 5:2 “the day of the Lord” is described in terms of “destruction” and “pain.” In 2 Peter 3:13 extensive energy is devoted to words of warning to keep one’s self on the path of God’s will. The mindset of 1 John has some decidedly apocalyptic features: themes of the world passing away, warnings against apostasy in view of it being “the last hour” (1 John 2:18), and use of the terms “antichrist” and “antichrists” (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7). These themes make a great deal of sense in the context of the Roman presence in the first century Mediterranean world and the impact of Rome on the developing Christian faith. The note of urgency in 1 John reflects the pressure John felt about the social / political situation from increasing tensions between Christians and Rome. The entirety of Revelation can be read as a response against Rome as representing an entirely anti-God enterprise (Rossing 1999) and as a cry for justice (Fiorenza 1998). No doubt John also felt the pressure of strengthening the young Christian faith in the face of increasing distance from the synagogues. The adversarial language “the Jews” (more than fifty times in the Gospel of John in a negative sense) highlights the tension. Then the challenge also came from within the Johannine Christian churches. Some who had been part of their fellowship “went out” (1 John 2:19) and were thus deemed to be “from the world” (1 John 4:1-5).

IN THE TEXT

■ 15 John here counsels his readers do not love the world (mē agapate ton kosmon), yet John 3:16 reads “God so loved the world” (ēgapēsen ho theos ton kosmon). The term “world” is obviously used with a different meaning in these two passages. In John 3:16 the word indicates those for who Christ died, because loved by God. Here John uses the word to speak of a worldview, or a mindset, a philosophy that takes a position hostile to God. To embrace the world was to stand opposed to the revelation of God in Christ (Marrow 2002, 101). The world, due to its alien spirit toward God and all that is holy, creates opportunities for temptations that appeal to normal appetites, and so can lead to misuse of the good gifts of God. Valuing the things of the world disproportionately or illegally is to love things above God, which is always idolatry (anticipating the warning with which 1 John ends “Dear children, keep yourselves from idols,” 5:21). ■ 16 The alien-to-God world embraces the cravings (epithumia) of sinful man (sarkos, literally the flesh). In Paul’s writings sarx often refers to something within a person that manifests as hostility toward God, namely living “according to the flesh” (Rom 8:5, with 22 similar uses throughout the Pauline corpus) as opposed to living “according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:4). To live according to the sarx is to live for the temporary. To live according to the Spirit is to live for the enduring. Here John is not speaking of flesh as the physical but appears to be using the term as does Paul. The phrase the lust (again epithumia) of his eyes recalls language of Eden where Eve “sees” and experiences “delight to the eyes” (Gen 3:6). The eyes serve often as the gateway to the very center of a person. One must guard the eyes. Seeing and desiring outside God’s will is to live for the flesh. Seeing and desiring within God’s will is to live by the Spirit. The hazard of vainglory, or boasting calls attention to the problem of a too-much exalted view of self, rather than what is true according to the Father. Such always leads away from God. Wrongful desire and misplaced pride separate us from the holy, while doing “the will of God” leads to life “forever” (v 17). These fleshly habits, unholy desires, and an inflated sense of self are from the world. As such, they are marked for destruction along with the world that gave them illegitimate birth. ■ 17 John warns the world is passing away (see BEHIND THE TEXT discussion). This apocalyptic mindset or worldview, expresses the tension of the “already” (what has been accomplished by the in-breaking of God through Christ’s first coming) and the “not yet” (what remains to happen at his second advent). Paul voices the same idea—“this world in its present form is passing away” (1 Cor 7:31), as does Peter—“That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat” (2 Pet 3:12). The idea of such a time derives importantly from the Hebrew prophets who describe “the day of the Lord” in terms of cosmic signs of judgment (Joel 2:30-31) but also as an outpouring of God’s Spirit upon all (Joel 2:28-29). Isaiah thinks of the coming day as a time of “new heavens and a new earth” (Isa 65:17; 66:22), a refrain picked up by 2 Pet 3:13 as well as Rev 21:1. A balanced view would, with John, understand the passing of the world as different from the destruction of the created order. For John the world that passes away is the worldview of those who hold it, the end of a hostile-to-God posture.

FROM THE TEXT

1. People will love something. The passage makes a significant assertion that a person will love something. Whether one will love or not love is not an issue. Rather it is a matter of what one will choose to love. Saying “yes” to God excludes lesser loves. Love for the world (v 15) eliminates space for love toward the Father (v 15). There is not room in one’s heart to adequately love mutually exclusive things. We must choose. The personal dilemma, and the pastoral challenge, happens oftentimes at just this point. Some people seem able to live with a divided heart, with conflicted and competing desires. They really mean to love God but find a strong affection for other lesser and interfering things also. The remedy, both personally and corporately, surely is to so love God and to let God’s love so permeate the fellowship of God’s people, that the lesser loves are expelled. 2. God’s will. Verse seventeen raises the question to what degree one may know the divine intent. When John writes of one that does God’s will, inherent in the statement is the assumption that it is possible to understand what “the will of God” is. How does one know? First, one should turn to scripture, expecting to find there guidance in God’s intention. The counsel of scripture often needs the helpful perspective of godly people who have journeyed as Christians over the long term. The collective wisdom of Christians through the ages (tradition in the best sense of the word) can provide significant guidance toward divine purposes. While some may shy away from the thought of tradition, hearing it with negative connotations, such need not be the case. Trusting tradition is done with the touchstone of scripture as guide. Trusting tradition that has honored scripture consistently over time is to trust the work of the Holy Spirit in others who have gone before us. They have been at least equally as desirous to find and do God’s will as those of us in this age. Understanding God’s purposes also derives from a prayerful and teachable spirit. Jesus taught us to pray for God’s kingdom to come, God’s will to be done, on earth (thus in and through us), as it is already purposed in heaven (Matt 6:9-10). Further, God’s kingdom purpose will find confirmation in one’s heart. Careful preaching and teaching about God’s will helps us avoid the danger of ignoring the rich treasure of the Church’s experience of God over the centuries. Sensitive pastoral counsel may help people avoid the pitfalls of projecting selfish interests into decisions and calling those self-serving directions God’s will. God’s intent always leads toward deeper devotion for God and others, for how we serve, and with whom we make the journey. God’s purpose, when followed, secures our spiritual destiny, as well as a better quality of life along the way. That kind of person “lives forever” (v 17).

E. Antichrists (2:18-23)

BEHIND THE TEXT

The anointing (chrisma, vv 20, 27) draws on a rich complex of images from the Hebrew Bible, though with consistent central meaning. Anointing oil was associated with the priestly functions of the temple (some two dozen times throughout Exod and Lev). Aaron and others after him were anointed to the office of the priest (Exod 29:7). The elements of the temple were anointed in a ceremonial dedication (Exod 40:9; Lev 8:10). Kings were anointed as they were installed into office (examples are 1 Sam 15:1; 1 Kings 1:34; 1 Chron 29:22). The symbol of anointing in the shepherd psalm suggested the idea of healing (Ps 23:5), an application continued into the Christian era (James 5:14). In all the above instances, the picture of anointing is one of applying oil to a person or thing to indicate it has been especially prepared for its function. When Jesus announced his unfolding mission in the synagogue service in his hometown of Nazareth, he drew on a passage in the prophet Isaiah to frame his ministry—“The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor” (Isa 61:1; see Luke 4:17-21). The association of the Isaiah passage, linking the anointing with the Spirit of God, is a controlling image in all the above mentioned usages. God’s Spirit installs persons into places of service and equips them. God is the one whose touch dedicates items into proper usefulness. The Spirit of the LORD brings healing of every kind. And, the Spirit alone brings authority and effectiveness to ministry. The words “anointed one,” used frequently in the OT with reference to Israel or Judah’s kings, eventually became a messianic title that looked to the future for a redeemer figure (Dan 9:25, 26). The usage of “Christ” as a title for Jesus of Nazareth is an extension of this anointing and messianic expectation language. In Acts 4:26 he is “the Anointed One” (Johnson 1962, 563-71; Szikszai 1962, 138-39).

IN THE TEXT

■ 18 John’s use of affectionate terms continues with Dear children (paidia). The family language perhaps reflects his relationship to them as spiritual “father” and maybe also his advanced age. He declares it to be the last hour (eschatē hōra). This phrase is loaded with eschatological implications. Whether John expected an appearing of Christ to happen in his lifetime is beyond our knowing. His language may be more that of a pronouncement of the eschatological age of Christ and the Church that was inaugurated by Christ’s death, resurrection, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), but with the full reality of the kingdom yet to come (Acts 1:6-7). A 20th century analogy may help. Sir Winston Churchill, in a speech in 1942, referred to an Allied victory in North Africa during World War II—“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” John’s reference to the last hour can be related to what Hans Conzelmann associated with the theology of Luke’s Gospel. He entitled his volume on Lukan theology Die Mitte der Zeit (“the middle of time”). His work suggests that while some, perhaps the great majority, of first century Christians expected a soon return (parousia) of Christ, the delay of the parousia called for a re-thinking of that expectation. Christ’s first coming may be understood as an inauguration of “the end of the beginning.” Thus, the church lives in “the middle of time” still expecting the eschaton, the last hour, to come. But now they were faced with living out the ethical aspects of God’s character over the long term. Faithfulness, and faithful confession, was now not thought of as something belonging only to the end times, but what the Church does over a long period. The Church lives in patient endurance (Luke 8:15), enabled to do so by the Spirit (Conzelmann 1961, 233-234). If such was understood to be the case in the first century, what occasions this comment? Certainly the church ministered in cultures at times hostile to the Christian faith. While last hour appears only in the Johannine writings in this single verse, the word “hour” is used a number of times in the Gospels. It marks a time of significance, even an appointed or prophesied time, when judgment comes, often at the appearing of the Son of Man (Mark 13:32; Matt 24:36, 42, 44, 50; 25:13; Luke 12:39, 40, 46; see also Rev 3:3, 10). The use of “hour” in the fourth Gospel also regularly has eschatological expectation. It can refer to resurrection (John 5:25, 28) as well as Jesus’ death as the means to glory / return to the Father (John 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1). A similar phrase—“last day”—occurs with some frequency in the Gospel (John 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48). In all but one instance “the last day” in John’s Gospel speaks of God raising the dead. The manuscript evidence is divided over whether to include the article (ho, the) with antichrist is coming (antichristos erchetai). How to understand the intent here has challenged interpreters in all ages. John immediately writes not of one antichrist but many (polloi) antichrists that have come. This verse may assume the idea of a single antichrist, but does not develop the idea of a solitary individual. John is most troubled not by “The Antichrist” as some cosmic, anti-God personality. His pastoral concern is over a plurality of antichrists that had left the Johannine churches (Painter 2002, 203) and whose influence was already being felt (Kruse 2000, 101). Any such who took a position about Christ that was contrary to traditional Christian teaching (the Johannine view), could fall into this “against Christ” category. Didymus (fourth century) understood that it was precisely because these had once been Christians that they could then be called antichrists (Bray 2000, 186-7). The preposition anti can also mean one who takes the place of another, so a usurper, one who presumes to be Christ. This would be similar to the usage in the Gospels (Mark 13:22; Matt 24:24) where the “false Christs” are mentioned. But the sense of anti here seems to be that of one who opposes another.

[Begin Sidebar] Antichrist While the term “antichrist” is used widely in Christian circles in the 21st century, the word is rare in the Bible, appearing only in the Johannine letters. The singular form antichrist occurs in 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; and 2 John 7. The plural form antichrists is used in 1 John 2:18. The term as used by John doesn’t focus on a coming singular figure at the end of the age, but rather a spirit or teaching about Christ at work among several opponents of Johannine Christianity, even as John wrote. For John “antichrists” were numerous and at work in the first century. Anyone who took a position denying that Jesus was the Christ (1 John 2:22; 4:3), or more specifically who denied that Jesus as Christ had come “in the flesh” (some readings of 1 John 4:3; and is the reading at 2 John 7) qualified as “antichrist.” A tradition of false Christs appears in Jesus’ teachings as reported in Mark 13:5-6; 21-22. But one who claims falsely to be Christ is somewhat different than the idea of one who sets himself up as the opponent of Christ. Admittedly, the concept of false Christs does seem at times to merge with that of antichrists as an eschatological motif. The phrase “man of sin” (2 Thess 2:10) is often viewed as another way to refer to “antichrist,” but the language of Paul and John lacks any clear link. The development of cosmic figures who are the embodiment of evil finds vivid expressions in the narrative of Revelation. Most notable are the two beasts who presume to be competitors for humanity’s allegiance. One feigns wounds and apparent resurrection themes, like Christ (“the fatal wound had been healed,” Rev 13:3). Another beast at first seems like Christ, the Lamb, but turns out to be personified evil, whose appearance suggested one thing, but whose words expressed something far different (“he had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon,” Rev 13:11). While a conflation of images from these texts outside 1 John and 2 John occurs, especially in later understanding, there is little in the Johannine letters with which to pursue a “doctrine” of antichrist/s (adapted from Rist 1962, 1:140-43; Watson 1992, 2:761). [End sidebar] ■ 19 John is adamant that these separatists were not ever truly part of the Johannine Christians (the language of separation—us five times in this verse and they four times—highlights the sharp differentiation John feels as he writes). Still, it is clear that these who were being labeled had entered into the life of the Johannine community at some earlier point. Otherwise the text would not read they went out from us (ex hēmōn exelthon). Those who went out can be likely identified with the “many false prophets” who are later said to have gone out into the world (1 John 4:1) and the “many deceivers [who] . . . have gone out into the world” (2 John 7, Strecker 1996, 63). The separation was apparently initiated by the opponents. No sense of excommunication type activity attaches to the wording. To say they did not really belong to us is a quite normal response by John. However, the statement is more to be understood as his rationale for how someone would conceivably leave the Johannine Christian communities, rather than a statement about their spiritual condition. The words should not be pressed to mean that these had been only apparent members (as suggested by Marshall 1978, 152). That is, the text does not teach that these who went out were never truly Christian, or were never “saved.” It was a way for John and his readers to attempt to understand the unthinkable, that someone, anyone, would reject the light and truth as they understood it. The word remained (memenēkeisan, from menō) is one of special significance for John (Brooke 1912, 54). The true believer was to remain in God (1 John 2:24, 27; see the Gospel of John 15:4-10 for repeated calls for the follower to remain in Christ). By saying these had not remained John is identifying the separatists with a host of categories that placed them among the “many antichrists” (v 18). Their departure demonstrated they had never, in the judgment of John, been truly and deeply part of the community. The translation showed (hina) somewhat minimizes the impact of the Greek language. Their going out was so that (hina, “for the purpose of”) it might be made manifest (phanerōthōsin, a passive voice verb, suggesting a revealing done by God). Again, we are hearing the voice of John seeking to make sense of their departure. For John, they were never truly part of the Johannine community because leaving the Johannine fellowship was unthinkable. To do so was to depart from the faith. Those being criticized had, however, formerly belonged to us. What kind of internal issues led to this break in fellowship is not fully known. Did they part ways about Christology? It would appear so given John’s reference to Christ as having come “in the flesh” as the matter of dispute (1 John 4:2). The Christological controversy especially appears to be a contention between a fully incarnate Jesus versus a Docetic-type Christology (see “Theological Themes” in Introduction). ■ 20-21 Did the opponents’ views develop from some kind of a pre-Gnostic emphasis? Note John’s strong statement that his readers’ anointing (chrisma) was from God, or Christ (see also later at v 27 where “anointing” appears three times). Some “antichrists” (v 18) seem to have claimed a special knowledge (did they link this knowing to the idea of anointing?). There is a frequent use of know in this section (vv 18, 20, twice in 21) whereby John claims that true knowledge resides on the side of the Johannine Christians and that they don’t need “anyone to teach” them (v 27). So rather than allowing an anointing (chrisma) as being upon the separatists, John says the authentic chrisma is upon those who have remained in the Johannine community. The Greek text wonderfully reflects the word play at work. To embrace Jesus as Christ (Christos, the anointed one) who had come in the flesh, in agreement with the faith community of John, was to experience anointing (chrisma). To separate from the Johannine community meant the absence of (or loss of) chrisma and also being labeled “antichrist” (antichristos, v 22). The Holy One (tou hagiou) may mean the Father or the Son; the text is not fully clear on what is intended. “The Holy One of Israel” is frequent in the OT as a title for God (Ps 70:22; 77:41; Isa 1:4; 5:16; 17:7-8; 30:12, 15; 37:23; 41:20). A reference, however, in Rev 3:7 speaks of “him who is holy” and seems a clear reference back to the vision of the glorified Christ in Rev 1 (all of the seven letters in Rev 2-3 link back to the vision in chapter 1 in some fashion). In the Gospels “the holy one of God” refers to Christ (Mark 1:24; John 6:69). The Holy One enabled their understanding—all of you know (oidate pantes). The Greek text lacks the words the truth here though some translations assume a link forward to v 21 where John says his readers know the truth (tēn alētheian) and include that thought here. An interesting variant reading occurs with some manuscripts having oidate panta (you know all things). Either reading strongly affirms the true knowledge of the Johannine Christians over against the supposed knowledge of those who had left the fellowship. ■ 22 The language is sharp. The one denying (ho arnoumenos) Jesus as the Messiah is the liar and the antichrist (see also 1 John 4:3). Using the article (ho, the) would seem at first to indicate one and not many. But John is saying that anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is a liar and an antichrist (recall the “many antichrists” in v 18). Anyone, so potentially many, could be antichrist. The text suggests that John’s focus is not a larger-than-life personality but rather doctrinal error that is hostile to orthodox Christology. John is much more concerned over the many anti-Christ activists in his time. He demonstrates meager interest in discussion of a cosmic figure. John Wesley in his notes on this passage referred to “the spirit of antichrist” as pointing to “all false teachers, and enemies to the truth” (Wesley 1983, nn.). ■ 23 The one who denies the Son (see also John 5:23; 15:23 for similar wordings) does not describes an individual devoid of Christian understanding. Rather these embraced a Christology out of line with Johannine orthodoxy, and as such may be thought of as an early trajectory of Christian expression. These opponents did not set out on a course intending to take themselves outside orthodox Christian circles. Near the end of the first century they were but one of a number of groups understanding themselves as Christians and seeking to make sense of who Jesus was. While Gnostic thought and especially Docetic Christology (see “Theological Themes” in the Introduction) took tangents that eventually led far from orthodox views, these opponents of John were people who were likely making a sincere effort to understand Jesus’ life and teachings. A close interplay between Son and Father appears numerous times in the Johannine letters. One who denies the Son has also rejected the Father. The reverse, positive affirmation is also true—whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also (see 1 John 4:15; 5:1; 2 John 9).

FROM THE TEXT

1. When is the last hour? This phrase—last hour (v 18) brings a word of challenge to the presumption that one will live a long life. One must not presume upon the luxury of having many years. Now is the time for careful living, today is the day for a close walk with Christ and the truth of the message received. Our contemporary last hour is fraught with danger for us if we do not watch with a discerning eye. All serious followers of Jesus seek to live with eternity in view, and so to live day by day with a Christian lifestyle. 2. Who is this “antichrist”? Much contemporary energy is spent on the matter of the antichrist (vv 18, 22). Considerable speculation continues through every age with a variety of interpretations. Prototypes, or antecedents, for the Christian idea of antichrist appear in some Jewish writings—Ezekiel’s Gog and Magog; Daniel’s use of beastly images to describe oppressors of the Jews; and non-canonical texts like Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, in which a demonic figure seeks to turn Israel aside from the worship of God. For the Christians importantly shaped by the ministry and influence of John, however, the original antichrists were those in the first century with faulty Christology. Polycarp (second century) follows the tone of 1 John in viewing antichrist as the spirit of heresy, especially at the point of denying the actual incarnation (Pol. Phil. 7.1). Early centuries of the Christian era include numerous writings that focused on the image of a mythic creature of evil, often building on the two beasts described in Rev 13; 16:12-16; 17; 19:19-21 (for post-NT apocalyptic literature see Charlesworth 1983). By the Middle-Ages some became so sharply critical of the papacy that it became associated in some minds with the antichrist, a link that many Reformers (Wyclif, Huss, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Cranmer) generally supported. A sample of this thinking appears in the writings of Calvin who allowed that “All the marks by which the Spirit of God has pointed out antichrist appear clearly in the Pope” (Parker 1959, 256). In response, some of the Reformers were accused by Rome of being antichrists. At various points in church history the label has been assigned somewhat recklessly, using inventive readings of Revelation’s 666 to identify the antichrist with a wide range of individuals (Rist 1962, 140-143). For a summary of scholarship about the theology of the term “antichrist” see Akin (2001, 267-70).

F. An Anointing and Abiding (2:24-29)

IN THE TEXT

■ 24 The text calls John’s hearers back again to the beginning (archēs, as in 1 John 1:1). He urges them to continue to embrace the truth of the gospel that had come to them (see discussion at 2:7). A favorite Johannine concept, remain / remains (menō) appears. Forms of the word appear 188 times in the NT, and especially in the Johannine literature (Gospel of John forty times, 1 John twenty-four times, and three times in 2 John). John uses forms of menō three times in this verse alone. The word speaks of an abiding, settled relationship his readers were to have with the truth they had heard from the beginning. It assured them of a settled relationship in the Son and in the Father. This was to be a reciprocal reality—when a person “remains” in Christ then Christ will remain in him (John 15:4-7). The term menō carries with it the sense of loyalty toward Christ, as well as living in a new realm as a result of God’s presence in Jesus Christ (Hϋbner 1981, 407-08). ■ 25 The promise of eternal life (tēn zōēn tēn aiōnion) occurs sixteen times in the Gospel of John, most memorably at John 3:16. The phrase appears six times in 1 John (1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20), suggesting both a life that endures unto the ages as well as a quality of life now. This God had promised to the believers in Jesus. This eternal life is something one has already (“God has given us eternal life” John 5:11; and “you may know that you have eternal life” John 5:13). The verse utilizes a repetition of related words. Forms of a key word are used both as the verb and as the object of the verb. A translation with the duplication providing emphasis would be—the promise (hē epangelia) which he himself promised (epēngeilato) us. A similar example appears in Matt 2:10 where the Magi are literally said to have rejoiced (echaresan) a great joy (charan). ■ 26 The readers have this treatise because John was concerned about the impact of those who were deceiving the Johannine Christians. He writes out of an active pastoral concern, that his readers not be turned aside from the truth they had previously received. Another rival group is seeking to lead them astray (planōntōn, deceiving them). The word means one who wanders (Heb 11:38) and strays from the truth (Jam 5:19), though intentionally. Forms of the word are at 1 John 1:8 “deceive ourselves” and 2 John 7 “deceivers.” John is writing to warn them, recalling earlier statements (“I write” six times in vv 12-14 and at 1 John 5:13). ■ 27 The theme of anointing again appears (see 2:20). The passage reflects some similarities to the functions of the Holy Spirit, the paraclete in the Gospel of John. The idea of anointing as a teaching function of God recalls Jesus’ words about the Spirit as One who would teach, call to remembrance, and make Jesus’ words clear (John 14:26; 16:13). Some see the anointing (vv 20, 27) as referring to the ritual of baptism, or perhaps some ritual sealing with oil (Smith 1991, 72). Though support for this in the first-century and in Johannine churches is non-existent, anointing was linked to baptism by several early Christian authors—Severus of Antioch, fifth-century; Oecumenius, sixth-century; Andreas, seventh century; Bede, seventh-century; (Bray 2000, 188). The initial and continuing work of the Holy Spirit in the believer surely is in view (Smith 1991, 72), including especially the teaching role (Smith 1991, 74). There is some irony in John’s insistence that the readers not need anyone to teach them, while in fact John is earnestly doing just that. Probably one should understand the meaning as a caution against listening to any other teachers except for those whose message was welcomed in the Johannine churches. By referring three times in the verse to the anointing they have received, John urgently affirms the divine nature of the teaching they are to embrace. Sharp dualistic language appears—real (alēthēs, true) versus counterfeit (pseudos, false). The word order highlights the stress John wishes to make. He places alēthēs at the front of the phrase and the negative (ouk) in an emphatic position—true it is and not is it false. Having been taught by the true anointing, John commands them to remain in him (him likely referring to Jesus, see v 28). ■ 28 After strong warnings, John again employs personable and warm language—dear children (teknia). As these believers continue in him (menete en autō) they will be confident (parrēsia) when Christ appears (phanerōthe, more precisely is made manifest). The verb phaneroō indicates making something plain (see v 19). John especially affirms Jesus as the one who reveals God’s saving love through the incarnation (1 John 3:5, 8). In 1 John 1:2 “the life appeared” and God’s revelation continues in the churches living tradition of Jesus (Mϋller, 1993, 413-14). The verb is in the passive voice, which suggests that the appearance of Christ was a presentation of Christ that was done by the Father. Remaining in Christ prevents us from being made ashamed (aischunthōmen, a passive voice verb, e.g. God as the one who has the power to make ashamed). The word parousia (only this once in the Johannine writings) in general usage meant the arrival of someone, or their presence among (see 1 Cor 16:17; 2 Cor 10:10; Phil 1:26; 2:12). However, in the NT parousia developed a special nuance as referring to the future appearing of Jesus to rule, raise the dead, and fully establish the kingdom of God (Matt 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess 2:1, 8; 1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 1:10; 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13; James 5:7; 2 Pet 1:16; 3:4). The word was used for the visit of a king or emperor (Brooke 1912, 66, citing Diessmann). This is an example of a Christian use of words and titles in the public arena, and employing them as subversive protests against the blasphemous practice of emperor worship (Brooke 1912, 67). The true Lord of all, not the Caesar but Jesus, will appear and be the one before whom “every knee should bow” (Phil 2:10). The parousia involved going out to welcome a royal or powerful figure who was arriving into the city—but did not have the idea of going somewhere else with that royal figure (Wright 2008, 128-136). In some early church writings the return of the Lord is called hē deutera parousia, the second appearing (Justin, Apology, 1:52). An auditory word play may be present in the verse. The text promises that children who continue in him . . . may be confident (parrēsia) . . . at his coming (parousia). ■ 29 God (or Christ) is righteous, and everyone who does what is right gives evidence of having been born of him. The antecedent is unclear. If related to v 28 then it is Christ, but born of him refers to God; see summary of views in Von Wahlde 2002, 319-22). An emphasis on one who does what is right sounds quite a bit like James, who insisted that a life rightly related to Christ would manifest in a life of righteousness. “I will show you my faith by what I do” (James 2:18). John says we do what is right (dikaiosunēn, or what is just, see Mic 6:8) as a result of the new birth. The righteousness of God is lived out by a person as a present and likely continuous activity (suggested by the present tense participle ho poiōn the one doing). Righteous living is evidence that one has spiritual birth from God, has been born (gegennētai, a perfect tense verb in the passive voice suggesting has been born of God and continues as God’s child). Righteousness, or being right with God, being justified before God (all are derived from the same Greek word dikaios) is not a matter of standing only, how one is viewed by God. The righteous person is one who allows the life of God into which one has been born to be lived out. The figure of spiritual birth—born of God appears now as a new idea in the epistle (Marshall 1978, 167). However, the assumption of spiritual birth surely exists in the frequent use of children already in 1 John (five times in ch 2). Even so, a clearly intentional use of spiritual birth imagery is prominent from here forward (3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18). The language echoes the Gospel of John (John 1:13; 3:6, 8). John does maintain a distinctive status for Jesus, who alone is “son” (huios) of God, whereas Christians in 1 John are always “children” (teknia or paidia). But Jesus (Matt 5:9) and Paul (Rom 8:14; Gal 3:26; 4:4-7) both speak of people collectively as “sons” (huioi) of God (Marshall 1978, 168).

FROM THE TEXT

1. Constancy in one’s relationship with God. Being consistent in our devotion to God is crucial to spiritual stability. The word menō (remain, v 27 and continue, v 28) suggests the kind of Christian faith that is not confined to special moments of religious experience, though such are valuable and worthy of commemorating. But the Christian faith is mostly lived in the routine of ordinary days. Sporadic flights into faith provide little resources to build spiritual backbone and dependability in the long run. Cultivating the habit of remaining in a settled spiritual relationship is crucial. John urges the value of continuing trust, of relationship—remain in the Son and in the Father (v 24) and continue in him (v 28). The text also confirms the benefit found in solid teaching—“See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you” (v 24; see also John 15:7). 2. It pays to remember. Being reminded, remembering, keeps us doing what is right. So much of life seems to consist of re-learning what we already know. Keeping open, maintaining a teachable spirit is a life-long journey. Sometimes we fail to learn and grow spiritually because we aren’t sufficiently exposing ourselves to scripture. The habit of reading and meditating on Bible texts nurtures consistency in our Christian development. A teachable spirit also comes by being open to what the Spirit of God may be saying to us through others. Though these messages are always to be weighed by scripture, the will of God can at times be better understood when we are open to the voice of those who compose the covenant people. 3. We need each other. There is great strength in belonging to a committed faith community. But one dare not attempt to live the Christian life in mere human strength alone, even if surrounded by others who are like-minded. The text portion speaks importantly of an anointing (v 27). This grace gift stabilizes individuals and churches and keeps both on track. Spiritual drift occurs when a gap opens up between us and God, and such drift, unchecked, can lead us much further away than we may have imagined. But being attentive to the promptings of the Spirit keeps the anointing current and fresh. Attention to the gracious nudges of God’s Spirit is the only adequate preparation for the eschatological hope of “his coming” (v 28). Far too many times in the church’s history good and godly people have been so inclined to anticipate the coming of the Lord that they placed most of their energy in being ready for an early exit from the world. But God’s people are placed here to live out kingdom of God values all life-long. The pressing goal of the Christian life is not to achieve departure from the world. Rather it is to have so invested in kingdom living in the world that we can receive him “confident and unashamed” (v 28) and welcome him as the king who has appeared among us, bringing a wonderful, final answer to the prayer so many of us pray—“your kingdom come . . . on earth” (Matt 6:10).

Cite this document

Carver, Frank G. “Final Review 1 John Chapter 2.” Book Chapter, n.d.. The Frank G. Carver Archive.

Filed under

Related in the archive

Book Chapter

Chapter 2 True Knowledge 1:3-21 2 Peter

A scholarly commentary on 2 Peter 1:3-21, focusing on the nature of 'true knowledge' in the Christian faith. The document provides a linguistic and exegetical analysis of the Greek text, specifically examining the particle 'hōs' in verse 3 and the implications for paragraph structure. It explores the source of true knowledge as divine power (theia dynamis) for godliness (eusebeia), the virtuous nature of such knowledge, and its foundation in the testimony of eyewitnesses and Scripture. The text includes discussions on the grammatical antecedents of 'his divine power,' the distinction between conversion-based knowledge (epignōsis) and subsequent moral development, and the relationship between biblical truth and personal experience.

2 Peter 1:3-21 · 2 Peter 1:3 · 2 Peter 1:4

Book Chapter

Chapter 3 False Teachers 2:1-22 2 Peter

This document contains scholarly commentary and structural analysis regarding 2 Peter 2:1-22, focusing on the emergence and characteristics of false teachers. The text examines the historical occasion of the epistle, noting the threat false teachers posed to the faith of believers. It explores the literary relationship between 2 Peter and Jude, discussing parallels in their descriptions of immoral, greedy, and blasphemous teachers, as well as the scholarly debate regarding literary dependence. The author provides a structural analysis of 2 Peter 1:16–2:3, citing Bauckham's chiastic structure, and compares the false teachers of the second epistle to the false prophets of the Old Testament. Additionally, the text includes a sidebar from Green (1987) discussing the practical application of Peter's warnings to contemporary readers regarding various moral temptations.

2 Peter 2:1-22 · 2 Peter 1:16-2:3 · 2 Peter 2:1

Lecture

Chapter 7 - Faith of Israel

A lecture transcript discussing the historical context of Second Temple Judaism as a prerequisite for understanding the historical-critical study of Jesus of Nazareth. The text defines Second Temple Judaism by its period (c. 520/515 BC to AD 70), its formative influences (Ezra and Nehemiah), and its key features, including the continuity of the priesthood and festivals alongside the emergence of the synagogue and new feasts like Purim and Hanukkah. The document addresses the impact of Hellenistic culture, the Maccabean revolt, and the development of the Hebrew Scriptures canon. It also references scholarly shifts in understanding the period, specifically citing the work of Martin Hengel regarding Hellenism and E.P. Sanders regarding the rejection of the 'legalistic' view of Judaism.

Torah · Former Prophets · Latter Prophets

Book Chapter

Commentary 1 John 1 Chapter for Review May 2009

A draft commentary on 1 John 1:1-10, organized into sections titled 'Behind the Text' and 'In the Text.' The author examines the linguistic features of the prologue, specifically the use of first-person plural Greek verbs and pronouns to suggest a 'Johannine circle' or school of disciples. The text discusses scholarly debates regarding the authorship of the Johannine corpus (John the Apostle, John the Elder, and John the Revelator) and explores the relationship between the prologue of 1 John and the prologue of the Gospel of John. Additionally, the document analyzes the lack of formal Greco-Roman epistolary elements in 1 John, the use of affectionate address, and the theological implications of fellowship and doctrinal integrity.

1 John 1:1-10 · 1 John 1:1-4 · 1 John 1:6