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 ■ 1-6 John continues with his ethical concerns as impacted by the appearing of Christ. Verses 1-3 have his future appearance in mind, but verses 4-6 return to his first coming as John re-introduces the sin terminology from 1:7-2:2, 12. ■ 1 John commands the reader to see or remember (idete, an imperative) how great is the love the Father has lavished on us. The form ide 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). Another form, idou, appears in Rev related to the coming of Christ (Rev 16:15; 22:7, 12). The NIV does not translate idete and thus 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 and to understand (see eidōmen in 1 Cor 2:12). This verse recalls the visual language of 1:1-4 where one sees God’s love by looking upon Jesus. This love . . lavished by the Father has been wonderfully given—how great (potapēn which can mean “wonderful” [BDAG, 85])or even massive). Mark 13:1 describes the immense size of the stones of the Jerusalem temple with “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). The perfect tense, dedōken, indicates that this lavish love, given in the past, continues to have effect. Such lavish divine love is the foundation for inclusion in God’s family. By it one enters into relationship with God and receives the power to remain in spiritual community. 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 (dedōken) this love; it was not earned. This lavish love comes as a gift to us. It is not based on merit for God takes the initiative. We have opportunity to become true spiritual offspring of God only because divine love has been first offered to us. This initiative by God is often called prevenient grace. The word “prevenient” is formed from two Latin words meaning “to come before.” Prevenient grace makes our coming to God possible, because God has first comes to us (see John 6:44). John makes a bold declaration. What his readers are declared to be--children of God (tekna theou)—they actually are (kai esmen, and we are!). The passive voice of called (klēthōmen) suggests 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). Participation in the family of God makes the believer a mystery to the world. The non Christian does not know the Christian because it did not know him. This non-recognition of Jesus appears also in John 1:10 where the Greek words, although in a different order, are identical (Thomas 2004, 149). Ignorance of mind and heart toward Jesus’ true identity prevents the world from recognizing Jesus’ followers as children of God. They are unable to understand why Christians act and live as they do. As God’s children by birth we are to so live as those who cannot be understood apart from Jesus. To truly know us, they must learn to know him. And hopefully as they learn to know us, they will learn to know him. ■ 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 (nyn). Still, John says the present family likeness pales in comparison to what is to come. The experience of being God’s child is now, but the full reality of that transformation is not yet. Futuristic (“not yet”) eschatology and realized (“already”) eschatology stand in tension in Johannine writings. Due to this mixed nature Johannine eschatology can be described as a “progressively realizing eschatology” (van der Watt 2007, 74-76). Such future hope has not yet been made known (oupō ephanerōthē). The passive voice suggests that the disclosure comes at God’s discretion. The text is reserved in speculating about eschatological details, a modesty that contemporary Christians should 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” (NASB, Mark 13:7; Matt 24:6; “still to come” NIV, NRSV). The statement when he appears (ean phanerōthēi), or when he has been made manifest, fulfills the expectation of the not yet been made known (oupō ephanerōthē). And this is the certain truth of becoming like Christ. About the future state we know (oidamen) . . . we shall be like him (homoioi autō esometha). Present sight will be improved majestically, enabling followers of Christ to see him (opsometha) as he is in resurrection splendor. Post-resurrection knowledge will perfect the seeing / knowing of Jesus by the disciples (Smith 1991, 78). The final seeing of Christ will mean a full and unhindered knowledge of him. The veil diminishing the radiance of his holiness will 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 of understanding, as for the very first time. The standard for holiness is quite clear. Holiness is supremely to be like him. Being God’s offspring calls for us to reflect his character. Choices, values, attitudes, lifestyle—all these are to increasingly conform to the image 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). With Paul’s expectation, “all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit” (2 Cor 3:18, NRSV). ■ 3 John makes ethical application of v 2 with a simple, declarative statement: Everyone who has . . . purifies. It is precisely the one who is purifying himself who possesses the hope of likeness to Christ. A changed present life proves the authenticity of the future hope. Such a resplendent hope (elpida, only here in the Johannine literature) calls the reader to holiness in the present. Salvation climaxes in Christ’s coming again and the hope of our resurrection. This eschatological yearning points toward a sharing in Christ’s glory; it is already begun by our now being children of God (Mayer 1990, EDNT 1:438). All will appear in God’s presence at the end of the age. Such hope compels us to a full surrender to him now. A hope with Christ as its focus inevitably has a purifying effect upon the one trusting in Christ (Bruce 1979, 88). Eschatology drives ethics and ethics makes our eschatology credible. We have a future appointment with God. But we are already citizens of God’s kingdom, and are to live daily by kingdom values. The believer strives for a life of purity because Christ is pure (hagnizei . . . hagnos). The pronoun, simply he, translates the demonstrative pronoun ekeinos (that one), a term used in 1 John to refer to the life of Jesus (Smith 1991, 78; 2:6; 3:3, 5, 7, 16; 4:17). The pronoun makes a specific designation—that one, the incarnate one who walked on earth (2:6) defines the purity in view. The word pure (hagnos), means holy, belonging to God (BDAG, 13). The purity of Christ calls for his disciple to embrace that purity as well. Yet, interestingly, hagnos is never used in the Gospels to identify Jesus (Brown 1982, 397). The verb form (hagnizō) appears only here and in John 11:55 in the entire Johannine corpus. More frequent in Johannine literature is katharos, “clean” (John 13:10, 11; 15:3; Rev 15:6, 14; 21:18), katharizō, “to make clean” (1 John 1:7, 9), and katharismos, “cleansing, purification” (John 2:6; 3:25). The measure of true holiness is Christ-likeness. Holiness is not first and foremost adherence to rules or standards. Rather it is the divine life being lived out through us. The phrase just as (kathōs, used of comparison) he is pure involves the possession of the same kind of character as Christ displayed. We will see Christ “as he is” (v 2) and that unhindered seeing leads to a purity of life that is like his. But what does John mean by purifies himself (hagnizei heauton)? The basic idea is probably that of the preparation required to enter the divine presence (Brown 1982, 397-98). The background of the terminology is cultic, that of ritual purity (Strecker 1996, 91). In John 11:55 those preparing themselves for Passover went to Jerusalem “for their ceremonial cleansing” (hagnisōsin, see Exodus 19:10-11). But here the term should be understood ethically as in the rest of the NT (Jas 4:8; 1 Pet 1:22). The concerns of “lawlessness” and “sins’ follow immediately (vv 4-6). Related language appears in John 17:19 when Jesus said “I sanctify myself” (hagiazō emauton). This is Jesus’ preparation just prior to his going (back) into the more immediate presence of the Father. Here Jesus’ sanctification (making himself holy!) is his dedication to the cross fulfilling the will of the Father (“that they too may be truly sanctified”). It is the ethic of the manner of the redemptive mission of the Christ, the supremely revealed way of life. 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; 2:1-2, 12; 3:4-6) that is available only through Christ’s atoning death (2:2; Brown 1982, 398). But after accepting Christ’s sacrifice for sin we present our lives “as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God” (Rom 12:1). It is in this placing of our redeemed lives 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 of hagnizei suggests an ongoing, dynamic translation—be continually purifying. This kind of living 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 are engaged in purifying ourselves. The fullness of “what we will be” (v 2) is not yet known. Yet, in the present we are preparing to stand in the presence of the Holy One by an ongoing obedient response to this word from God. Purity is not presented as future reward for the Christian. Rather it is a qualification for seeing God someday (Matt 5:8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God”). ■ 4 John’s return to the topic of sins (see 2:12) highlights an ongoing tension in the letter. The reality is that sin may occur (2:1). The goal to which we are called is that sin be dethroned. John sets forth a definition of sin (hamartia) as lawlessness (anomia), a combination of nomos (law) and an alpha prefix which negates the word). In some instances the word means a person who does not know the law. Gentiles can sin apart from, or independently of, the Mosaic law (1 Cor 9:20-21).
Begin Sidebar Anomia The words hamartia and anomia are used as equivalent expressions in the LXX in Ps 32:1. Employing synonymous parallelism, the text reads “Blessed is he whose transgressions (anomiai) are forgiven, whose sins (hamartiai) are covered.” The idea of anomia as 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). Second Thess uses anomia in an eschatological setting to describe “the man of lawlessness” (2:3) and “the secret power of lawlessness” (2:7). In the second-century writing the Didache (16:3-4), the last days, false prophets, and anomia are closely associated (Brown 1982, 400; Richardson 1943, 178). 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). So anomia was understood as a final outbreak of evil, as rebellion against God. Such would place one in the company of God’s enemy the devil (vv 8-10) and with the earlier mentioned “antichrists” of 1 John 2:18 (Marshall 1978, 176-177). This lawlessness of spirit 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). End Sidebar
Two senses may be present in 1 John 3:4. First, sin is a breaking of the law. People create a performance record of violations; they break the law in an ongoing way (tēn anomian poiei, lawbreaking he is doing). Secondly, people may have a spirit hostile to the laws of God (hē hamartia estin hē anomia, paraphrased as sin is a lawless spirit). Bruce speaks of sin as especially a lawless attitude toward God (1970, 89). Smith writes that sin is a condition from which persons need to be freed (1991, 82). Paul writes similarly 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). Foundationally, John appears to believe that people sin because they are first sinners. They have an anti-God attitude that manifests itself in opposition to the purposes of God. Thus, the most fundamental need for everyone is to find correction for the core character problem, an answer that will turn the heart’s affections strongly God-ward. Such a solution would make it 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. With similar terminology to that he had just used for Christ’s future coming (3:2), John writes now of Christ’s first appearance: You know that he appeared (ephanerōthē) to take away our sins. The incarnation, and by extension, all of Christ’s life and work, were for the very purpose of taking away (arēi) sins. Other manuscripts, preserving perhaps the better reading, have simply take away sins (so NRSV, NASB), without specifying whose. A minority of manuscripts read the sins of the world, perhaps an attempt to harmonize with 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, EDNT 1:41; Marshall 1978, 177; see 1 John 2:2; 4:10; 1 Peter 2:24). But the term may imply more than simply to take away. It can also suggest removal in the sense of destruction. John 11:48 uses the word to refer to the possibility that the Romans “will take away” (arousin) the Temple and the Jewish way of life. The Jews in John 19:15 call for the death, by execution, of Jesus, “Take him away (aron)! Crucify him!”(see Luke 23:18). Paul receives the same kind of death threats from the crowds in Jerusalem—“Rid the earth of him! (aire apo tēn gēs ton toiouton) He’s not fit to live!” (Acts 22:22; see 21:36). These usages suggest not just a new residence for sin, but its eventual 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, that is, to 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 The text now declares that for the one continually abiding in (menōn, a present participle) God / Christ, the habit of sin is broken. The verb that follows is also present tense and may be rendered—does not continue to practice sin (ouk hamartanei). John contends 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. The first, has not seen him strongly affirms that the person continuing to live habitually in sin has never truly seen Christ initially and certainly does not have Christ in view now. The second, has not known him (oude egnōken), stresses that such a one has never authentically known Christ and obviously does not know Christ now. True vision and knowledge have abiding results (Brooke 1912, 86). These verbs provide a direct contrasting link back to the opening lines of the letter. Abiding in Jesus means sin is excluded. Conversely, ongoing sinning means that Christ is not known. John’s views here are consistent with the dualism expressed 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 the practice of sin. 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. 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). These and other NT analogies draw from OT language that refers to Israel as “my son” (Hosea 11:1). God says, “I am Israel's father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son” (Jer 1:9). Some people misunderstand the idea of being a child of God, insisting 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 faith in Christ and obedience to him demonstrates our spiritual birth. Jesus said that some are, by their choices against God, are offspring of the devil (3:10; John 8:44). 2. Supporting Life in the Church. The church has a responsibility to nurture new believers—the children. We would not leave a newborn child to survive on its own. In the same way we give special attention to those new to the Christian faith. Also, if the church is healthy, offspring will be a natural outcome. Lack of new children should signal us to find out what is undermining the health of the body. How we tend to the spiritually wounded among us also indicates our commitment to spiritual life . 3. Being Well-Prepared for Meeting Christ. Health of spirit is needed to someday stand in Christ’s presence. The powerful phrase what we will be (v 2) speaks of an eternal life beyond our present comprehension. Christ’s presence on that future day will mean the full 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, our unobstructed view of him will transform us so that we will be 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., 6:914).
Destroying the Devil’s Work (3:7-10) IN THE TEXT ■ 7 With Dear children (teknia), a favorite term (3:2, 7, 21; 4:1, 7, 11), the author continues to utilize family language to express his ethical concern in vv 7-10. Belonging to God by birth (v 9) as children (vv 7, 10) is to be a spiritual family, yet one still subject to being led astray. This family likeness of heart, described as right (dikaios) is lived out through right acts—He who does what is right (ho poiōn tēn dikaiosynēn, righteousness). God’s people reflect God’s character. The standard for righteousness in persons is the righteousness of Christ—just as he (ekeinos) is righteous (dikaios). The expression is similar to the earlier “just as he is pure” (v 3). This is the fourth time that Christ has been called righteous or “just” (1:9; 2:1, 29). The adjective describes the nature of Christ’s life; Jesus was and is always righteous in character and just in all his dealings (Brown 1982, 404). In classical Greek usage the dikaios person was one whose behavior fulfilled obligations to both “the gods” and his fellow-men (Brown 1978, 3:353). The OT idea of righteousness (dikaiosynē) moves toward the idea of behavior consistent with the relationship between God and persons. The dikaios person is devout and demonstrates God’s righteousness in God-like dealings with others (Brown 1978, 3:355). ■ 8 The fruit of one’s life is evidence of one’s allegiance. Committing sin demonstrates allegiance to the devil whose sinning was from the beginning. John 8:44 is similar; 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 displays allegiance to God who is holy. John continues to clarify the theme in various ways. The reason Christ came was for the purpose (eis touto, unto this) of conquering sin. The verb lusēi means in some cases to release,but it can also mean to destroy, to do away with completely. In Eph 2:14 Christ “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 indicates God’s aim as achieving a decisive and unmistakable defeat of sin. Poetic parallelism appears in verses five and eight 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) Verses 7 and 8 contain a similar 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 v 8, reference to Christ as having appeared speaks of his past coming to the world, 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. 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). His language suggests more a suppressing of sin rather than it being fully conquered. Yet, Calvin 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 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 John returns to the metaphor of new birth (2:29). As indicated by the chiasm, the idea of God’s seed is central. The matter is clear. Sin and Christ cannot finally co-exist. The seed (sperma autou) of God, by its very nature, expels sinning. The word sperma conveys the idea of having offspring rather than images of planting and harvest. 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 the discussion in Brown 1982, 408-411). The Gnostics thought of pre-existent divine seed as begetting divine children (Brown 1982, 411). John may be employing this language with a similar nuance, that is, to belong to God means the divine life resides in such a person. The “anointing” earlier described by John (2:20, 27) involved being taught by the Spirit; the same idea may be at work here. In 1 Thess 1:5-6 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 this 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 within one achieves radical change. Sin, formerly natural, perhaps better described 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 impossible in the life of the Christian? Surely not, else 1:8, 10; and 2:1 are emptied of meaning. It is not that it is impossible to sin, but that it is possible not to sin. Sin can happen, but it is an intrusion. Sin, when accommodated, puts one’s spiritual life—God’s seed—in jeopardy. When the life of God is given opportunity to do as it will, it 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 followers 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 him: 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 status as a child of God is a present reality, and freedom from sin is 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 (dikaiosynēn). John insists that righteousness is relational. It is relational first toward God—children of God. This presumes then a positive relationship toward others; 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 (diabolou; see John 8:31-59). Sins of omission, right actions one fails to do, can be as great an evidence of a failed spiritual condition as the sins one commits. John here clearly assumes the presence of an evil one in the world whose influence is always contrary to the right. Similar to James, “I will show you my faith by what I do” (Jas 2:18), v 10 determinedly holds faith and works together. God’s love for his children lives in the routines of life. His love flows in gathered worship but also, and authentically, in loving service that finds the people of God scattered into the community. Verse 10 summarizes and concludes John’s concern for “right” living that has governed 2:29-3:9. With the use of family metaphors John applies the twofold coming of Christ to the Christian ethic. This subtle polemic against the false teachers climaxes in the return of the theme that now takes over--love for the brother (see 2:9-11). Thus verse 10 functions as a transition to what follows in 3:11-18, and to a large degree in 3:11-4:21. 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. John both acknowledges sin (1:8, 10; 2:1) and calls his readers to live free from sin (see discussion at 1:8. If we accommodate sin in our lives we too readily dismiss the call to holy living in this writing. Our approach must embrace the entire text. Sin does occur but it can never be the standard for Christian living. 1 John 2:1 reassures that God has in Christ made provision for sin when it intrudes into the life of a believer. The task of the preacher is to offer hope for the restoration of those who have fallen, while also calling all to live in consistent obedience to God’s known standards, which means a freedom from willful sin. 2. The Devil and Evil. Some find it fashionable to dismiss the idea of a personal devil (diabolos). But four times this text speaks of such a one (vv 8 and 10). The devil appears some three dozen times in the NT. A personal anti-God being is clearly viewed 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 its history see Gilmore 1979, 9:488-89). Two extremes exist in modern Christendom. In one, believers seem obsessed with the devil. Lack of personal discipline or outright 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. 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 do not take seriously enough 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 leaves no truly adequate answer for the problem of evil.
Love and Hate, Life and Death (3:11-15) IN THE TEXT ■ 11 John states why he concludes with the theme of love in v 10. The command to love one another was in the message (angelia, news or announcement) that is not new (1:5). It was part of the faith from the beginning, which they had heard from the time of their earliest experience of being Christians. The message (angelia) recalls 1:5 where the term first appears in the move from the revelation of life in Jesus Christ (1-1-4) to its redemptive and ethical application in 1:6-2:11 (Strecker 1996, 107-108). 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 (Gen 4:1-16) that John develops as an illustration (ou kathōs, not like). Its example is negative. John reminds his readers that because Cain was “from the evil one” (tou ponērou, NRSV) love had so disappeared from his heart that he could murder his own blood brother. Casting his lot with the evil one took Cain much further into depravity than he could have imagined. Cain first belonged to the evil one and subsequently committed murder (esphaxen). John’s only answer to the why of Cain’s action was the unexplained “because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous” (dikaia, NRSV) The verb sphazō always includes a sense of violence (Brooke 1912, 92). It 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) where 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, “wonder, marvel, be astonished” BDAG, 444) if the world hates us. Other verbal 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). John describes it later 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 With vv 14-15 John introduces a new dualism--life-death. This adds to his previous dualisms--light-darkness, righteousness-sin, love-hatred--as he applies his gospel to the situation in the church. John speaks from within the community. The pronoun we (hēmeis) at the front of the sentence is for emphasis as the pronoun is inherent in the verb oidamen—We know). The sense is we ourselves know this! What is being so emphatically affirmed? It is a dramatic spiritual transformation—from death to life. 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 verb to write of Jesus’ approaching death—“the time had come for him to leave (metabē) the world” (John 13:1). So here John describes a spiritual transformation. They had not just “turned over a new leaf”; they had received a new life. Their previous condition was spiritual death (thanatou). Now, by their faith in Christ, God had brought resurrection life (zōēn) to them. Acting lovingly is evidence of spiritual life—because we love our brothers. A lack of loving deeds demonstrates spiritual death. Just who are our brothers (NRSV “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 still in harmony with the teachings and practices of the Johannine churches. John may be emphasizing the command as a condemnation of the attitude and behavior of those who had left. In 2 John there is a strong caution against even granting hospitality (food and lodging) to any itinerant preachers whose Christology was in error. This discomfort over who is to be welcomed / loved, and who is not to be so welcomed, may be 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 rendered in the NIV—Anyone who does not love. It would be a 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. The one who hates his brother not only still resides in death but spreads a death-dealing spirit toward others. Love leads to life, lack of love leads to death; both are contagious. Like 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 often replaced by hatred. When hate seeps in, a person opens the door to the possibility of murderer status (anthrōpoktonos: 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 the 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? Because a lack of love invites in the evil one (v 12), and that can lead to murder. The motives that lead to hate, envy, lust, and murder, begin in withheld love. People who want to justify low-level living ask “How much do I have to do?” Christ-like love asks “What is the lavish thing to do? How much may I do?” All sin is a distortion of God’s purposes. Misshapen love toward another person can become a desire to control rather than to honor the other. Normal God-given sexual desires can become lustful thoughts and actions outside of God’s will. Appropriate self-esteem can, if unchecked, move to a life turned in on self. Necessary financial concern for one’s family can mutate into greed. 2. Losing the Way. Spiritual apostasy can manifest itself 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 that one could be initially among the people of God and yet become captured by hate and so experience the loss of eternal life (v 15). It seems clear that 1 John warns against moving outside the faith community. Such a one could reject the truth of God’s love and thus forfeit eternal life. Salvation is relational; when the relationships with God and God’s people are broken, then the life one enjoys in those relationships is also lost. 3. From Hate to Murder. How could a brother murder a brother? The story of Cain and Abel highlights the profound danger that lurks in our hearts. Unchecked, anger and jealousy grow. Eventually hatred follows. Sadly, 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). The ethic of love that John stressed in vv 11-15 he now describes in two ways in vv 16-24. First is what love looks like in practice (vv 16-18) and then how such love relates to the Christian’s assurance (vv 19-24). IN THE TEXT ■ 16 This section stands in sharp contrast to the tragic example of Cain. Instead of killing his brother, Jesus surrendered his life (tēn psychēn autou) for others (Brown 1982, 473). John argues that humankind would not be capable of knowing the full extent of what love looks like without seeing it in Christ’s self-sacrifice on the cross. It is by this (en toutōi) 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 NIV inserts the name Jesus Christ for the word ekeinos (that one). In 1 John eikeinos consistently refers to the incarnate life of Christ (2:6; 3:3, 5, 7; 4:17). 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—“you would have no power over me if it were not given you from above” (John 19:10-11). Further, this surrendered life had others in mind. It was for (hyper: in behalf of) us. John contends that the only adequate response to this love is to live a life of sacrifice and selflessness, that is, 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 Phil 2:5-11 for a vivid portrayal of Christ’s other-centered living). Christ’s example calls his followers to live in behalf of (hyper) our brothers. The repetition of hyper implies that our sacrificial living is 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 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 of the world (ton bion tou kosmou). The word bios appears rarely in the NT and always suggests life in its external aspects; it expresses concern over the affairs of material existence (Ritz 1990, EDNT 1:219; Brooke 1912, 97). In 2:16 the NIV translates it as what one “has and does.” Probably it 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, saying one may be tempted to lock (kleisēi) 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 ourselves away from the needy other. The verb kleiō suggests a key, or a locked door, holding someone outside (Matt 23:13; Luke 11:7). To have no pity is to close off any compassion from another. John employs the word splanchna (lit., the intestines), but intends 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 is 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 keeping one’s own material security, ironically, one does not experience the love of God. One’s own spiritual security is getting 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 lived-out love. True love works; it expresses itself in actions (ergōi, work or task, see Mark 13:34). The wording might suggest that one could feel love and not act on it—loving only (implied) with words or tongue. But such is doubtful in view of 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). The 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 In vv 19-24 John brings together his themes of an appropriate Christology and an ethic that corresponds to it. His intent is to deal with how the obligation to love (vv 16-18) relates to the Christian’s assurance. Expressed is the depth of John’s pastoral concerns (see 2:1). This then (kai en toutōi) or “And by this” (NRSV) signals John’s application of love’s demand to the believer’s conscience. John sets forth the grounds of Christian assurance first in theological / Christological terms (vv 19-20) and then as ethical in character (vv 21-22). The reference of both is love in action. Only a faith that works can set our hearts at rest. The plural hearts translates the singular kardia. So the text speaks of one heart. The biblical writers occasionally used the concept of corporate personality. Here, the many (hēmōn, of us, a plural pronoun), is placed with a singular noun (kardian: heart); the effect is to stress the unity of the body of believers. Though we are several, we have one heart. And when this one-in-heart group acts in love, our common heart can be at rest (peisomen, lit., we will persuade—see Heb 13:18) in the presence of God (emprosthen autou: before him). The expression, “reassure . .. before him” (NRSV) suggests the judgment seat of God or Christ (Matt 25:32; Luke 21;36; 2 Cor 5:10; 1 Thess 2:19; 3;13). The verb we know (gnōsometha) is a middle-voice suggesting knowledge that validates the claim of the person—for ourselves. A few manuscripts read simply ginōskomen (we are knowing or we know). This knowledge assures us that we belong to the truth (alētheias, see sidebar on truth at 1:6). ■ 20 Yet the heart may not be a reliable indicator. The issue is our exercise of love as we perceive it, that is, have we failed to love as we ought (see 1:7, “fellowship with one another,” 1:3; 2:6; 3:18)? At this point we are in need of assurance! 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; his mercy is the deciding word. He is more merciful to us than is our own conscience. John wants his readers to find their assurance from God, who in spite of knowing everything (panta) about us yet loves us immensely. But what is the everything that God knows, that we are better or worse than we think? Have we failed to love, or have we loved better than we think? That is, God “knows we are basically lovers of the brethren (v 14) and as such, are ‘of the truth’ (v 19)” (Bultmann 1973, 57). Fundamentally, is our assurance grounded in our performance or in God’s love and mercy? Since the issue here is whenever our hearts condemn us, we take it as the latter—the Christological ground of assurance (2:1). It is God’s forgiving love in the “blood of Jesus” (1:7; 5:6, 8; see 1:9; 2:1-2; 4:9, 19) that is greater than our hearts (see Nauck 1957, 78-82). The condition is our troubled hearts, the consequence is that God in Christ is greater than our hearts, and the explanation is that God knows us better than we know ourselves. We can trust his love! ■ 21 Now the condition is if our hearts do not condemn us. We are loving others to the best of time and ability with the consequence that we have confidence before God. Our conscience is clear. Why? Because we are obeying his commands (v 22; see vv 23-24). The ground of the Christian’s assurance is now that of one’s ethical response to God: we are genuinely loving. But fascinatingly, if not profoundly, living in obedience to God involves for John both believing and loving (v 23). Our response is beyond any legalism or moralism. Thus, the love of the all-knowing God enables the people of God to have confidence before God (parrēsian . . . pros ton theon). This terminology recalls 2:28: “so that when he appears we may be confident (parrēsian) and unashamed before him at his coming.” The Greek parrēsian carries the meanings of “courage, confidence, boldness, fearlessness” (BDAG, 781; see also 4:17; 5:14). 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. Thus the confidence we enjoy is both now (specifically related to prayer) and preparation for the future (see discussion at 2:28). Two textual variants in the verse are worthy of note. Manuscript support divides rather evenly into two readings relating to kardia. As 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. In this way John can stress the corporate personality of the church; though many, they are of one heart. Other manuscripts omit the pronoun and read simply the heart, thus avoiding the grammatical problem of a singular noun matched to a plural pronoun. The second variant reading comes at the phrase do not condemn us. The large majority of manuscripts read simply that the heart does not condemn (mē kataginōskēi), though a number add our (hēmōn, plural) and a few read your (hymōn, 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 is directed to us or you (plural). The difference is slight; is John identifying with his readers or speaking to them? Both are possible. ■ 22-24 The Christian’s right to be assured is now made fully clear with these verses. The condemned conscience due to our failure of love is met by the greatness of God’s forgiveness in Christ (vv 19-2). The clear conscience due to the practice of love evidences the sanctifying presence, and thus the assuring presence of the Spirit, as the Christian lives before God and for others (vv 22-24). John now further explains: the Christian’s assurance is confirmed by living in obedience to God’s commands. He defines this obedience as doing what pleases him (aresta enōpion autou, v 22, what is acceptable before him; see John 8:29). The obedient or pleasing life enables us more readily to believe God for answered prayer (see 5:15-15). We 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 that contribute to the Christian’s “confidence before God” (v 21; see on 5:16-17)? In v 24 at least three appear. One is to be in God’s presence—to live in him. Another is to have the life of God in us. Though this is the first mention of God’s very self as dwelling in the believer, several divine qualities have already been said to live / remain in the Christian. These include “truth” (1:8), God’s “word” (1:10), the “anointing” (2:27), “God’s seed” (3:9), and in 3:15 “eternal life” (Thomas 2004, 194). The third answer to prayer is the inner witness of the Spirit he gave us. This is John’s first explicit reference to the Spirit, but the Spirit is surely present as the agent of “anointing” earlier at 2:20, 27 (Bruce 1970, 100, 102; see 4:1, 13; 5:6, 8). 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, to be 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 assurance inspired by the Spirit is experienced most profoundly in the ability to believe in the name of God’s Son, Jesus Christ and to love one another (v 23). The presence of the Spirit enables the Christian to receive God’s love and to respond to this love with love to others. This emphasis parallels the exchange between Jesus and “an expert in the law.” There 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 faith toward God will be evident in tangible love toward others. Both believing in the Son and loving one another constitute one command (hina, indicating a purpose clause connecting them as one). Faith that works flows from faith placed in Christ. No authentic faith can circumvent Christ, for this faith is in the name of his Son. The emphasis on one’s name appears often 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 giving 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. It is this Spirit of faith and love who enables us to believe and to love, thus enabling us to know that God lives in us. So God (Father), Jesus Christ (Son), and the Holy Spirit all are affirmed together 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. John will write more explicitly of this as he returns to the assurance theme in 4:7-21.
FROM THE TEXT 1. The most magnificent expression of love is the cross. When Isaac Watts surveyed the cross he found that nothing of earth 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 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. God defines love; love is self-sacrificing, even unto death (vv 16-17). Love is active, not reactive; to love God is to commit to love the family of God (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 we serve faithfully where God has located us, we can live out daily this laying down of life for others. In ministry we give a portion of our lives for others every day. 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 we will find ourselves asking largely for others and little for self. 3. Standing Before God. We find assurance and peace in being thoroughly known by God (see Heb 4:12-13). Yet it is ironic that for many, the thought of standing before God brings anxious thoughts, even dread. But God’s examining presence in our lives now flows from his grace. God is for us, not against us, and at work to build holiness into us, preparing us each day for that future day. When we embrace this truth the dread disappears.