Text -- 1 John 1:8 (NET)

1:8 If we say we do not bear the guilt of sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: 1Jo 1:8

If we say ( ean eipōmen ).

See 1Jo 1:6.

Robertson: 1Jo 1:8

We have no sin ( hamartian ouk echomen ).

For this phrase see Joh 9:41; Joh 15:22, Joh 15:24. That is, we have no personal guilt, no principle of sin. This some of the Gnostics held, since matter was evil and the soul was not contaminated by the sinful flesh, a thin delusion with which so-called Christian scientists delude themselves today.

Robertson: 1Jo 1:8

We deceive ourselves ( heautous planōmen ).

Present active indicative of planaō , to lead astray. We do not deceive others who know us. Negative statement again of the same idea, "the truth is not in us."

Vincent: 1Jo 1:8

That we have no sin

Ὅτι that , may be taken merely as a mark of quotation: " If we say, sin we have not ." On the phrase to have sin , see on Joh 16:22, and compare have fellowship , 1Jo 1:3. Sin (ἁμαρτίαν ) is not to be understood of original sin, or of sin before conversion , but generally . " It is obvious that this ἔχειν ἁμαρτίαν ( to have sin ), is infinitely diversified, according to the successive measure of the purification and development of the new man. Even the apostle John does not exclude himself from the universal if we say " (Ebrard).

Heathen authors say very little about sin, and classic paganism had little or no conception of sin in the Gospel sense. The nearest approach to it was by Plato, from whose works a tolerably complete doctrinal statement might be gathered of the origin, nature, and effects of sin. The fundamental idea of ἁμαρτία ( sin ) among the Greeks is physical; the missing of a mark (see on Mat 1:21; see on Mat 6:14); from which it develops into a metaphysical meaning, to wander in the understanding . This assumes knowledge as the basis of goodness; and sin, therefore, is, primarily, ignorance . In the Platonic conception of sin, intellectual error is the prominent element. Thus: " What then, I said, is the result of all this? Is not this the result - that other things are indifferent, and that wisdom is the only good, and ignorance the only evil?" (" Euthydemus," 281). " The business of the founders of the state will be to compel the best minds to attain that knowledge which has been already declared by us to be the greatest of all - they must continue to rise until they arrive at the good" (" Republic," vii., 519). Plato represents sin as the dominance of the lower impulses of the soul, which is opposed to nature and to God (see " Laws," ix., 863. " Republic," i., 351). Or again, as an inward want of harmony. " May we not regard every living being as a puppet of the gods, either their plaything only or created with a purpose - which of the two we cannot certainly know? But this we know, that these affections in us are like cords and strings which pull us different and opposite ways, and to opposite actions; and herein lies the difference between virtue and vice" (" Laws," i., 644). He traces most sins to the influence of the body on the soul. " In this present life, I reckon that we make the nearest approach to knowledge when we have the least possible communion or fellowship with the body, and are not infected with the bodily nature, but remain pure until the hour when God himself is pleased to release us. And then the foolishness of the body will be cleared away, and we shall be pure, and hold converse with other pure souls, and know of ourselves the clear light everywhere, which is no other than the light of truth" (" Phedo," 67).

We find in the classical writers, however, the occasional sense of the universal faultiness of mankind, though even Plato furnishes scarcely any traces of accepting the doctrine of innate depravity. Thus Theognis: " The sun beholds no wholly good and virtuous man among those who are now living" (615). " But having become good, to remain in a good state and be good, is not possible, and is not granted to man. God only has this blessing; but man cannot help being bad when the force of circumstances overpowers him" (Plato, " Protagoras," 344). " How, then: is it possible to be sinless? It is impossible; but this is possible, to strive not to sin" (" Epictetus," iv., 12, 19).

Vincent: 1Jo 1:8

We deceive ourselves ( ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν )

Lit., we lead ourselves astray . See on Mar 7:24; see on Mat 27:63, Mat 27:64; see on Jud 1:13. Not only do we err, we are responsible for it. The phrase only here in the New Testament. For the verb as applied to deceivers of various kinds, see Mat 24:4; Rev 2:20; Rev 13:14; Rev 19:20; Rev 12:9; Rev 20:3. Compare πλάνοι deceivers (2Jo 1:7); πλάνη error (Jud 1:11; 1Jo 4:6).

Vincent: 1Jo 1:8

The truth

The whole Gospel. All reality is in God. He is the only true God (ἀληθινός Joh 17:3; see on Joh 1:9). This reality is incarnated in Christ, the Word of God, " the very image of His substance," and in His message to men. This message is the truth , a title not found in the Synoptists, Acts, or Revelation, but in the Catholic Epistles (Jam 5:19; 1Pe 1:22; 2Pe 2:2), and in Paul (2Co 8:8; Eph 1:13, etc.). It is especially characteristic of the Gospel and Epistles of John. The truth is represented by John objectively and subjectively.

1. Objectively . In the person of Christ. He is the Truth , the perfect revelation of God (Joh 1:18; Joh 14:6). His manhood is true to the absolute law of right, which is the law of love, and is, therefore, our perfect pattern of manhood.

Truth, absolutely existing in and identified with God, was also, in some measure, diffused in the world. The Word was in the world, before as after the incarnation (Joh 1:10. See on Joh 1:4, Joh 1:5). Christ often treats the truth as something to which He came to bear witness, and which it was His mission to develop into clearer recognition and expression (Joh 18:37). This He did through the embodiment of truth in His own person (Joh 1:14, Joh 1:17; Joh 14:6), and by His teaching (Joh 8:40; Joh 17:17); and His work is carried out by the Spirit of Truth (Joh 16:13), sent by God and by Christ himself (Joh 14:26; Joh 16:7). Hence the Spirit, even as Christ, is the Truth (1Jo 5:6). The whole sum of the knowledge of Christ and of the Spirit, is the Truth (1Jo 2:21; 2Jo 1:1). This truth can be recognized, apprehended, and appropriated by man, and can be also rejected by him (Joh 8:32; 1Jo 2:21; Joh 8:44).

2. Subjectively . The truth is lodged in man by the Spirit, and communicated to his spirit (Joh 14:17; Joh 15:26; Joh 16:13). It dwells in man (1Jo 1:8; 1Jo 2:4; 2Jo 1:2), as revelation, comfort, guidance, enlightenment, conviction, impulse, inspiration, knowledge. It is the spirit of truth as opposed to the spirit of error (1Jo 4:6). It translates itself into act. God's true children do the truth (Joh 3:21; 1Jo 1:6). It brings sanctification and freedom (Joh 8:32; Joh 17:17). See on Joh 14:6, Joh 14:17.

Wesley: 1Jo 1:8

Any child of man, before his blood has cleansed us.

Wesley: 1Jo 1:8

To be cleansed from, instead of confessing our sins, 1Jo 1:9, the truth is not in us - Neither in our mouth nor in our heart.

JFB: 1Jo 1:8

The confession of sins is a necessary consequence of "walking in the light" (1Jo 1:7). "If thou shalt confess thyself a sinner, the truth is in thee; for the truth is itself light. Not yet has thy life become perfectly light, as sins are still in thee, but yet thou hast already begun to be illuminated, because there is in thee confession of sins" [AUGUSTINE].

JFB: 1Jo 1:8

"HAVE," not "have had," must refer not to the past sinful life while unconverted, but to the present state wherein believers have sin even still. Observe, "sin" is in the singular; "(confess our) sins" (1Jo 1:9) in the plural. Sin refers to the corruption of the old man still present in us, and the stain created by the actual sins flowing from that old nature in us. To confess our need of cleansing from present sin is essential to "walking in the light"; so far is the presence of some sin incompatible with our in the main "walking in light." But the believer hates, confesses, and longs to be delivered from all sin, which is darkness. "They who defend their sins, will see in the great day whether their sins can defend them."

JFB: 1Jo 1:8

We cannot deceive God; we only make ourselves to err from the right path.

JFB: 1Jo 1:8

(1Jo 2:4). True faith. "The truth respecting God's holiness and our sinfulness, which is the very first spark of light in us, has no place in us" [ALFORD].

Clarke: 1Jo 1:8

If we say that we have no sin - This is tantamount to 1Jo 1:10 : If we say that we have not sinned. All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; and therefore every man needs a Savior, such as Christ is. It is very likely that the heretics, against whose evil doctrines the apostle writes, denied that they had any sin, or needed any Savior. In deed, the Gnostics even denied that Christ suffered: the Aeon, or Divine Being that dwelt in the man Christ Jesus, according to them, left him when he was taken by the Jews; and he, being but a common man, his sufferings and death had neither merit nor efficacy

Clarke: 1Jo 1:8

We deceive ourselves - By supposing that we have no guilt, no sinfulness, and consequently have no need of the blood of Christ as an atoning sacrifice: this is the most dreadful of all deceptions, as it leaves the soul under all the guilt and pollution of sin, exposed to hell, and utterly unfit for heaven

Clarke: 1Jo 1:8

The truth is not in us - We have no knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus, the whole of which is founded on this most awful truth - all have sinned, all are guilty, all are unholy; and none can redeem himself. Hence it is as necessary that Jesus Christ should become incarnated, and suffer and die to bring men to God.

Calvin: 1Jo 1:8

8.If we say He now commends grace from its necessity; for as no one is free from sin, he intimates that we are all lost and undone, except the Lord comes to our aid with the remedy of pardon. The reason why he so much dwells on the fact, that no one is innocent, is, that all may now fully know that they stand in need of mercy, to deliver them from punishment, and that they may thus be more roused to seek the necessary blessing.

By the word sin, is meant here not only corrupt and vicious inclination, but the fault or sinful act which really renders us guilty before God. Besides, as it is a universal declaration, it follows, that none of the saints, who exist now, have been, or shall be, are exempted from the number. Hence most fitly did Augustine refute the cavil of the Pelagians, by adducing against them this passage: and he wisely thought that the confession of guilt is not required for humility’s sake, but lest we by lying should deceive ourselves.

When he adds, and the truth is not in us, he confirms, according to his usual manner, the former sentence by repeating it in other words; though it is not a simple repetition, (as elsewhere,) but he says that they are deceived who glory in falsehood.

Defender: 1Jo 1:8

The heresy of perfectionism - that is, the claim that our sin-nature has been completely eradicated so that we no longer commit sin - is self-deception. It is related to the Gnostic heresy of the time which claimed that the soul had been set free from one's sinful flesh."

TSK: 1Jo 1:8

say : 1Jo 1:6, 1Jo 1:10, 1Jo 3:5, 1Jo 3:6; 1Ki 8:46; 2Ch 6:36; Job 9:2, Job 14:4, Job 15:14, Job 25:4; Psa 143:2; Pro 20:9; Ecc 7:20; Isa 53:6, Isa 64:6; Jer 2:22, Jer 2:23; Rom 3:23; Jam 3:2

we deceive : 1Co 3:18; Gal 6:3; 2Ti 3:13; Jam 1:22, Jam 1:26; 2Pe 2:13

the truth : 1Jo 2:4; 1Ti 6:5; 2Jo 1:2; 3Jo 1:3

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: 1Jo 1:8

If we say that we have no sin - It is not improbable that the apostle here makes allusion to some error which was then beginning to prevail in the church. Some have supposed that the allusion is to the sect of the Nicolaitanes, and to the views which they maintained, particularly that nothing was forbidden to the children of God under the gospel, and that in the freedom conferred on Christians they were at liberty to do what they pleased, Rev 2:6, Rev 2:15. It is not certain, however, that the allusion is to them, and it is not necessary to suppose that there is reference to any particular sect that existed at that time. The object of the apostle is to show that it is implied in the very nature of the gospel that we are sinners, and that if, on any pretence, we denied that fact, we utterly deceived ourselves. In all ages there have been those who have attempted, on some pretence, to justify their conduct; who have felt that they did not need a Saviour; who have maintained that they had a right to do what they pleased; or who, on pretence of being perfectly sanctified, have held that they live without the commission of sin. To meet these, and all similar cases, the apostle affirms that it is a great elementary truth, which on no pretence is to be denied, that we are all sinners. We are at all times, and in all circumstances, to admit the painful and humiliating truth that we are transgressors of the law of God, and that we need, even in our best services, the cleansing of the blood of Jesus Christ. The fair interpretation of the declaration here will apply not only to those who maintain that they have not been guilty of sin in the past, but also to those who profess to have become perfectly sanctified, and to live without sin. In any and every way, if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. Compare the notes at Jam 3:2.

We deceive ourselves - We have wrong views about our character. This does not mean that the self-deception is willful, but that it in fact exists. No man knows himself who supposes that in all respects he is perfectly pure.

And the truth is not in us - On this subject. A man who should maintain that he had never committed sin, could have no just views of the truth in regard to himself, and would show that he was in utter error. In like manner, according to the obvious interpretation of this passage, he who maintains that he is wholly sanctified, and lives without any sin, shows that he is deceived in regard to himself, and that the truth, in this respect, is not in him. He may hold the truth on other subjects, but he does not on this. The very nature of the Christian religion supposes that we feel ourselves to be sinners, and that we should be ever ready to acknowledge it. A man who claims that he is absolutely perfect, that he is holy as God is holy, must know little of his own heart. Who, after all his reasoning on the subject, would dare to go out under the open heaven, at midnight, and lift up his hands and his eyes toward the stars, and say that he had no sin to confess - that he was as pure as the God that made those stars?

Poole: 1Jo 1:8

In pursance of which scope, he fitly adds: If we should say i.e. either profess it as a principle, or think in our minds, or not bear in our hearts a penitential, remorseful sense, correspondent to the contrary apprehension; such as is implied in confessing, 1Jo 1:9 ; for saying usually signifies the habitual bent and disposition of the heart and practice, Job 21:14 Jer 22:21 .

That we have no sin viz. that we are so innocent creatures as not to need such an expiatory sacrifice as that above mentioned, and such purifying influence thereupon, but that we may be admitted to communion with God upon our own account, and for our worthiness’ sake, without being beholden to the blood of Christ.

We deceive ourselves delude our own souls.

And the truth i.e. the system and frame of gospel doctrine, as 2Jo 1:1,2,4 .

Is not in us cannot be duly entertained, lies not evenly and agreeably with itself in our minds, or hath no place with effect in us, as Joh 8:37 .

PBC: 1Jo 1:8

Denial of the incarnation represents one of the most serious departures from historic Christian faith. It must represent one of, if not, the leading essential doctrine of the historic faith. Why would anyone deny the incarnation or question any of its primary characteristics? Since Jesus came to settle the sin issue, anyone who tampers with the truth of the incarnation must not fully understand his sin problem. This is likely what John was dealing with in these verses. The Docetists denied that Jesus actually possessed a literal human body. If He did not have a human body, He could not suffer as man and die for man’s sins. Did these people deny their own sin? I know of no record that they held to this view, but it appears that John is imposing onto them the obvious consequences of their error.

Often otherwise sincere believers will deny either particular sins they have committed or they will deny some element of their inherent sinful nature. They may not hold to Docetic heresy, but they join the foolish conclusion John imposed on them here.

Mt 1:21 says Jesus was born to "save his people from their sins." 1Jo 1:8 and 1Jo 1:10 seem to deal with somewhat different issues of sin. Some use the singular form of the word sin in the eighth verse to interpret that verse as referring to our original sin or our "sin nature." Then they interpret the tenth verse with sins in the plural as referring to individual acts of sin committed in our lives. It seems a more natural interpretation in the context to notice the two verb tenses. Verse eight speaks of sin in the present tense. Verse ten speaks of sin in the past tense, more precisely in the past perfect tense. This distinction seems more natural to the context than to contrast inherent sin nature with acts of sin. The eighth verse deals with our attitude toward present conduct. Given the dominance of human pride, we might confess to some particular sin in our past, but strongly deny that it poses any problem to us in the present. To acknowledge present sin forces us to ask why we haven’t already dealt with it and repented of it. Rather than face the embarrassment of confronting present conduct, we might be tempted to deny the sin. Simply deny that you have any present sin. How does John deal with this problem? " ... we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." The cruelest deception we ever perpetrated on anyone is self-deception! Honest confrontation and confession of sin forms a foundational principle of our discipleship. If we refuse to face present sin in our life, confess it and repent, how can we witness to Jesus as our Savior with any degree of credibility?

Our culture has cultivated a self-absorbed worldview so fully that its ideas have penetrated even many sincere believers. They would not think of joining the Docetic heresy; they are altogether orthodox doctrinally. But pride and self-absorption hold them tightly in their grip. To confess to specific sins would require too much honesty and too much loss of pride. They will not do so. They will deny or redefine their conduct so as to justify it. Do anything except confess to it as a real sin. Therein lies the self-deception. But more seriously such a person, according to John, does not have the truth in him. That is a grave question.

The next step John confronts deals with past sins. " If we say that we have not sinned, ..." . It is one thing to deny sin in your present conduct, and John gives this idea no comfort, but it is a far more serious problem to deny that you have ever had a sin problem. Since God said we are all sinners, to deny sin in our past is to contradict God’s conclusion about us. We make Him a liar; our denial of past sin charges God with lying about our sin problem.

Occasionally over the years I’ve confronted people who confess to past sins, but will tell you they now live above sin. When examined carefully in light of Scripture, their conduct will not stand up to their assertion. They apparently have redefined sin so as to justify this excessive pretense of sinless living.

In the midst of bruising our pride in more ways than we could imagine John also reveals to us a far better way to deal with our sins, " If we confess our sins..."  Have you ever discovered sin in your life and dealt with it by saying, " I’ll confess it to God, but it is no one else’s business. I don’t need to confess it to anyone else." Is this correct? Almost certainly it is wrong, a good indicator of pride’s influence in our conscience. Ask yourself one simple question if this attitude surfaces in your mind. Did you actually commit any of those sins in the presence of any other human being? If you did, you should confess that sin in their presence. Otherwise they might fall under your example and begin practicing the same sin because of your example. If you confess the sin in their presence, they quickly understand that you view the conduct as so unacceptable that you refused to allow it to stand in their mind. By confession to them you remove the stumbling block from their pathway.

But John goes beyond our confession to others. "He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." God honors His nature and character. He responds to our confession by forgiving us! There is nothing in us to deserve that reaction in God. We sinned! But He is faithful to His own nature, and that prompts Him to forgive us. "... and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Occasionally we will try to adopt a different view of sin than God’s view. Have you ever heard anyone say that God can forgive all sins, but His church cannot, indeed should not? Does it seem a bit strange for someone to justify a different course for the church than the God of the church takes? Never does God tell one of His children, "You can repent of this sin and I’ll forgive you. But even if you repent of that sin, I can’t and won’t forgive you." The promise gloriously extends God’s forgiving hand to His children that open honest confession will be met with His open and honest forgiveness! That is truly good news for sin-sick sinners.

Take note as we conclude our study of this first chapter of John’s epistle that he is writing to children of God, to believers, not to lost sinners. To apply this passage to unsaved sinners is to do it and its Author a terrible injustice. The whole letter is written to children of God, this lesson included. In that light we should notice carefully an ongoing progression in both the confession and in the forgiveness. Confession is not a once-in-a-lifetime event. Every time we become aware of sin in our life we should condition ourselves for immediate, full and genuine confession, both to God and to those impacted by our sinful conduct. I sin today and realize that what I did was sin. Immediately I confess it. I sin again tomorrow and realize the sinfulness of my conduct. Once again I immediately confess the sin. This practice of confession should become a regular habit. However, we should practice the habit with growth and purpose. We should not continually sin and confess the same sin repeatedly! To do that denies repentance. Confession without repentance amounts to dishonest confession. Godly confession includes acknowledgement of the sin and commitment to cease the sin that required confession. To confess with no intent of repenting is not Biblical confession. It is equivalent to a rebellious son being discovered in conduct that dishonors the father. When confronted by the father, the son responds with " Yes I did it and I intend to do it again. What do you plan to do about it?" Is this what you want to tell God when faced with your sin?

The whole process outlined in 1Jo 1:1-10 should form the process of growth and maturity in faith. By confession we learn to face our sins more honestly, more as God faces them. And as we face them in this manner, we remove them from acceptable conduct in our lives. We stop sinning! Thus we slowly remove sinful habits from our life and the nature of our confession changes. It becomes a process of purification or, to use the New Testament term, sanctification.

The joyful encouragement in this passage for sin-sick sinners is amazing. We keep on confessing our sins from a sin-sick heart, and God keeps on forgiving and cleansing us from our sins. His forgiveness and cleansing makes us more sensitive to sin, so the process actually discovers more sins in us, sins we may not have even know as sins before. Once we discover this sin in our improved sensitivity to sin, we promptly confess and seek God’s grace to help us cease the practice. He is always a willing helper in our battle with sin. Try it today!

275

Haydock: 1Jo 1:8

Not that we say or pretend we have no sin; [4] thus truth would not be in us, and we should even make God a liar, who has declared all mankind guilty of sin. We were all born guilty of original sin; we have fallen, and still frequently fall into lesser sins and failings. We can only except from this number our Saviour Christ, who, even as man, never sinned, and his blessed Virgin Mother, by a special privilege, preserved from all kind of sin: and of whom St. Augustine[5] says, "that for the honour of our Lord, when we speak of the holy Virgin Mary, he will have no mention at all made of any sin." (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Quoniam peccatum non habemus, &c. By which are confuted the errors of the Pelagian heretics, who denied original sin, and pretended that men by their natural strength could and did live free from all sins.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

St. Augustine, lib. de Nat. et Gra. chap. xxxvii. Excepta S. V. Maria, de qua propter honorem Domini, nullam prorsus, cum de peccato agitur, haberi volo mentionem.

====================

Gill: 1Jo 1:8

If we say that we have no sin,.... Notwithstanding believers are cleansed from their sins by the blood of Christ, yet they are not without sin; no man is without sin: this is not only true of all men, as they come into the world, being conceived in sin, and shapen in iniquity, and of all that are in a state of unregeneracy, and of God's elect, while in such a state, but even of all regenerated and sanctified persons in this life; as appears by the ingenuous confessions of sin made by the saints in all ages; by their complaints concerning it, and groans under it; by the continual war in them between flesh and spirit; and by their prayers for the discoveries of pardoning grace, and for the fresh application of Christ's blood for cleansing; by their remissness in the discharge of duty, and by their frequent slips and falls, and often backslidings: and though their sins are all pardoned, and they are justified from all things by the righteousness of Christ, yet they are not without sin; though they are freed from the guilt of sin, and are under no obligation to punishment on account of it, yet not from the being of it; their sins were indeed transferred from them to Christ, and he has bore them, and took them and put them away, and they are redeemed from them, and are acquitted, discharged, and pardoned, so that sin is not imputed to them, and God sees no iniquity in them in the article of justification; and also, their iniquities are caused to pass from them, as to the guilt of them, and are taken out of their sight, and they have no more conscience of them, having their hearts sprinkled and purged by the blood of Jesus, and are clear of all condemnation, the curse of the law, the wrath of God, or the second death, by reason of them; yet pardon of sin, and justification from it, though they take away the guilt of sin, and free from obligation to punishment, yet they do not take out the being of sin, or cause it to cease to act, or do not make sins cease to be sins, or change the nature of actions, of sinful ones, to make them harmless, innocent, or indifferent; the sins of believers are equally sins with other persons, are of the same kind and nature, and equally transgressions of the law, and many of them are attended with more aggravating circumstances, and are taken notice of by God, and resented by him, and for which he chastises his people in love: now though a believer may say that he has not this or that particular sin, or is not guilty of this or that sin, for he has the seeds of all sin in him, yet he cannot say he has no sin; and though he may truly say he shall have no sin, for in the other state the being and principle of sin will be removed, and the saints will be perfectly holy in themselves, yet he cannot, in this present life, say that he is without it: if any of us who profess to be cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ should affirm this,

we deceive ourselves; such persons must be ignorant of themselves, and put a cheat upon themselves, thinking themselves to be something when they are nothing; flattering themselves what pure and holy creatures they are, when there is a fountain of sin and wickedness in them; these are self-deceptions, sad delusions, and gross impositions upon themselves:

and the truth is not in us; it is a plain case the truth of grace is not in such persons, for if there was a real work of God upon their souls, they would know and discern the plague of their own hearts, the impurity of their nature, and the imperfection of their obedience; nor is the word of truth in them, for if that had an entrance into them, and worked effectually in them, they would in the light of it discover much sin and iniquity in them; and indeed there is no principle of truth, no veracity in them; there is no sincerity nor ingenuity in them; they do not speak honestly and uprightly, but contrary to the dictates of their own conscience.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: 1Jo 1:8

¹ tn Grk “say we do not have sin.” The use of ἔχω + ἁμαρτία (ecw + Jamartia) is an expression limited to John and 1 John in the NT. On the analogy with other constructions where ἔχω governs an abstract noun (e.g., 1 John 1:3, 6, 7; 2:28; 3:3, 15, 21; 4:16, 17; 5:12-13), it indicates that a state is involved, which in the case of ἁμαρτία would refer to a state of sin. The four times the expression ἔχω + ἁμαρτία occurs in the Gospel of John (9:41; 15:22, 24; 19:11) all refer to situations where a wrong action has been committed or a wrong attitude has already existed, resulting in a state of sin, and then something else happens which further emphasizes the evil of that action or attitude. Here in 1 John 1:8 the sense is the same. The author is addressing people who have sinned (resulting in a state of sin), warning them that they cannot claim to be free from the guilt of that sin. The context of 1 John does not imply libertinism (where sins are flaunted as a way of demonstrating one’s “liberty”) on the part of the opponents, since the author makes no explicit charges of immoral behavior against his opponents. The worst the author explicitly says is that they have failed to love the brethren (1 John 3:17). It seems more likely that the opponents were saying that things a believer did after conversion were not significant enough to be “sins” that could challenge one’s intimate relationship with God (a relationship the author denies that the opponents have to begin with).

Geneva Bible: 1Jo 1:8

^{( 5 )} If we say that we have no sin, we ^{( e )} deceive ourselves, and the ^{( f )} truth is not in us.

^{( 5 )} There is none but need this benefit, because there is none that is not a sinner.

^{( e )} This fully refutes that perfectness of works of supererogation (doing more than duty requires, the idea that excess good works can form a reserve fund of merit that can be drawn on in favour of sinners) which the papists dream of.

^{( f )} So then, John speaks not thus for modesty's sake, as some say but because it is so indeed.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: 1Jo 1:1-10

1 He describes the person of Christ, in whom we have eternal life, by a communion with God;

5 to which we must adjoin holiness of life, to testify the truth of that our communion and profession of faith, as also to assure us of the forgiveness of our sins by Christ's death.

MHCC: 1Jo 1:5-10

A message from the Lord Jesus, the Word of life, the eternal Word, we should all gladly receive. The great God should be represented to this dark world, as pure and perfect light. As this is the nature of God, his doctrines and precepts must be such. And as his perfect happiness cannot be separated from his perfect holiness, so our happiness will be in proportion to our being made holy. To walk in darkness, is to live and act against religion. God holds no heavenly fellowship or intercourse with unholy souls. There is no truth in their profession; their practice shows its folly and falsehood. The eternal Life, the eternal Son, put on flesh and blood, and died to wash us from our sins in his own blood, and procures for us the sacred influences by which sin is to be subdued more and more, till it is quite done away. While the necessity of a holy walk is insisted upon, as the effect and evidence of the knowledge of God in Christ Jesus, the opposite error of self-righteous pride is guarded against with equal care. All who walk near to God, in holiness and righteousness, are sensible that their best days and duties are mixed with sin. God has given testimony to the sinfulness of the world, by providing a sufficient, effectual Sacrifice for sin, needed in all ages; and the sinfulness of believers themselves is shown, by requiring them continually to confess their sins, and to apply by faith to the blood of that Sacrifice. Let us plead guilty before God, be humble, and willing to know the worst of our case. Let us honestly confess all our sins in their full extent, relying wholly on his mercy and truth through the righteousness of Christ, for a free and full forgiveness, and our deliverance from the power and practice of sin.

Matthew Henry: 1Jo 1:8-10

Here, I. The apostle, having supposed that even those of this heavenly communion have yet their sin, proceeds here to justify that supposition, and this he does by showing the dreadful consequences of denying it, and that in two particulars: - 1. If we say, We have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, 1Jo 1:8. We must beware of deceiving ourselves in denying or excusing our sins. The more we see them the more we shall esteem and value the remedy. If we deny them, the truth is not in us, either the truth that is contrary to such denial (we lie in denying our sin), or the truth of religion, is not in us. The Christian religion is the religion of sinners, of such as have sinned, and in whom sin in some measure still dwells. The Christian life is a life of continued repentance, humiliation for and mortification of sin, of continual faith in, thankfulness for, and love to the Redeemer, and hopeful joyful expectation of a day of glorious redemption, in which the believer shall be fully and finally acquitted, and sin abolished for ever. 2. If we say, We have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us, 1Jo 1:10. The denial of our sin not only deceives ourselves, but reflects dishonour upon God. It challenges his veracity. He has abundantly testified of, and testified against, the sin of the world. And the Lord said in his heart (determined thus with himself), I will not again curse the ground (as he had then lately done) for man's sake; for (or, with the learned bishop Patrick, though ) the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth, Gen 8:21. But God has given his testimony to the continued sin and sinfulness of the world, by providing a sufficient effectual sacrifice for sin, that will be needed in all ages, and to the continued sinfulness of believers themselves by requiring them continually to confess their sins, and apply themselves by faith to the blood of that sacrifice. And therefore, if we say either that we have not sinned or do not yet sin, the word of God is not in us, neither in our minds, as to the acquaintance we should have with it, nor in our hearts, as to the practical influence it should have upon us.

II. The apostle then instructs the believer in the way to the continued pardon of his sin. Here we have, 1. His duty in order thereto: If we confess our sins, 1Jo 1:9. Penitent confession and acknowledgment of sin are the believer's business, and the means of his deliverance from his guilt. And, 2. His encouragement thereto, and assurance of the happy issue. This is the veracity, righteousness, and clemency of God, to whom he makes such confession: He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, 1Jo 1:9. God is faithful to his covenant and word, wherein he has promised forgiveness to penitent believing confessors. He is just to himself and his glory who has provided such a sacrifice, by which his righteousness is declared in the justification of sinners. He is just to his Son who has not only sent him for such service, but promised to him that those who come through him shall be forgiven on his account. By his knowledge (by the believing apprehension of him) shall my righteous servant justify many, Isa 53:11. He is clement and gracious also, and so will forgive, to the contrite confessor, all his sins, cleanse him from the guilt of all unrighteousness, and in due time deliver him from the power and practice of it.

Barclay: 1Jo 1:8-10

In this passage John describes and condemns two further mistaken ways of thought.

(i) There is the man who says that he has no sin. That may mean either of two things.

It may describe the man who says that he has no responsibility for his sin. It is easy enough to find defences behind which to seek to hide. We may blame our sins on our heredity, on our environment, on our temperament, on our physical condition. We may claim that someone misled us and that we were led astray. It is characteristic of us all that we seek to shuffle out of the responsibility for sin. Or it may describe the man who claims that he can sin and take no harm.

It is John's insistence that, when a man has sinned, excuses and self-justifications are irrelevant. The only thing which will meet the situation is humble and penitent confession to God and, if need be, to men.

Then John says a surprising thing. He says that we can depend on God in his righteousness to forgive us if we confess our sins. On the face of it, we might well have thought that God in his righteousness would have been much more likely to condemn than to forgive. But the point is that God, because he is righteous, never breaks his word; and Scripture is full of the promise of mercy to the man who comes to him with penitent heart. God has promised that he will never despise the contrite heart and he will not break his word. If we humbly and sorrowfully confess our sins, he will forgive. The very fact of making excuses and seeking for self-justification debars us from forgiveness, because it debars us from penitence; the very fact of humble confession opens the door to forgiveness, for the man with the penitent heart can claim the promises of God.

(ii) There is the man who says that he has not in fact sinned. That attitude is not nearly so uncommon as we might think. Any number of people do not really believe that they have sinned and rather resent being called sinners. Their mistake is that they think of sin as the kind of thing which gets into the newspapers. They forget that sin is hamartia (266) which literally means a missing of the target. To fail to be as good a father, mother, wife, husband, son, daughter, workman, person as we might be is to sin; and that includes us all.

In any event the man who says that he has not sinned is in effect doing nothing less than calling God a liar, for God has said that all have sinned.

So John condemns the man who claims that he is so far advanced in knowledge and in the spiritual life that sin for him has ceased to matter; he condemns the man who evades the responsibility for his sin or who holds that sin has no effect upon him; he condemns the man who has never even realized that he is a sinner. The essence of the Christian life is first to realize our sin; and then to go to God for that forgiveness which can wipe out the past and for that cleansing which can make the future new.

Constable: 1Jo 1:5--3:1

II. Living in the light 1:5--2:29

"The teaching of 1 John is concerned essentially with the conditions for true Christian discipleship. The two main divisions of the letter set out these conditions and exhort the readers to live in the light (1:5-2:29) as children of God (3:1-5:13)."²⁷

John began his exposition of how his readers could enjoy fellowship with God by introducing the concept of God as light (1:5-7) and then explaining with four conditions what fellowship with God requires (1:8-2:29).

Constable: 1Jo 1:8--3:1

B. Conditions for living in the light 1:8-2:29

John articulated four fundamental principles that underlie fellowship with God to facilitate his readers' experience of that fellowship. One must renounce sin (1:8-2:2), obey God (2:3-11), reject worldliness (2:12-17), and keep the faith (2:18-29) to live in the light of God's presence.

"If the readers are to have fellowship with the Father and with the Son (v. 3), they must understand what makes this possible. They must know who God is in himself and, consequently, who they are in themselves as creatures of God. So the author first describes the moral character of God in terms of light (v. 5) and then goes on to deny three claims made by those who falsely boast of their knowledge and fellowship with God. The false positions are (1) moral behavior is a matter of indifference in one's relationship to God (v. 6); (2) immoral conduct does not issue in sin for one who knows God (v. 8); and (3) the knowledge of God removes sin as even a possibility in the life of the believer (v. 10). True tests' or evidence of fellowship with God or walking in the light are (1) fellowship with one another (v. 7), with subsequent cleansing by the blood of Christ; (2) confession of sin, (v. 9) which brings both forgiveness and cleansing; and (3) trusting that if we sin we have Jesus Christ as an advocate and sacrifice for our sins (2:2)."⁴³

"It would be difficult to find any single passage of Scripture more crucial and fundamental to daily Christian living than 1 John 1:5-10. For here, in a few brief verses, the disciple whom Jesus loved' has laid down for us the basic principles which underlie a vital walk with God."⁴⁴

Constable: 1Jo 1:8--2:3

1. Renouncing sin 1:8-2:2

John continued a structural pattern that he established in the previous section (vv. 6-7) in which he used pairs of clauses to present a false assertion followed by his correction.

1:8 This second claim (cf. v. 6) is more serious, and its results are worse: we do not just lie, but we deceive ourselves.

If a Christian claims to be experiencing fellowship with God, he may think he is temporarily or permanently entirely sinless. Our sinfulness exceeds our consciousness of guilt. We have only a very limited appreciation of the extent to which we sin. We commit sins of thought as well as deed, sins of omission as well as commission, and sins of nature as well as action.

Some have interpreted the phrase "no sin" to mean no sin nature or no sin principle.⁴⁵ However this seems out of harmony with John's other uses of "to have sin" (cf. John 15:22, 24; 19:11). Rather, it probably means to have no guilt for sin.⁴⁶

God's truth as Scripture reveals it does not have a full hold on us if we make this claim. "In us" suggests not that we have the facts in our mental grasp but that they have control over us. They are in us as a thread is in a piece of cloth rather than as a coin is in a pocket. The same contrast exists between intellectual assent and saving faith.

1:9 This verse is the converse of verse 8. Acknowledging the sins of which we are aware is opposite to saying we are not guilty for sinning. The Greek word translated "confess" (homologemen) literally means to say the same thing. Confessing therefore means saying about our sins what God says about them, namely, that they are indeed sins, offenses against Him, and not just mistakes, blunders, or errors.⁴⁷

"He who confesses and condemns his sins,' says Augustine, already acts with God. God condemns thy sins: if thou also dost condemn them, thou art linked on to God.'"⁴⁸

If we confess our sins, God will then forgive the sins we confess and will in addition cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Consequently we do not need to worry that He has failed to forgive us for sins of which we are unaware! Sin incurs a debt to God, but forgiveness (Gr. aphiemi) cancels the debt and dismisses the charge. Sin also pollutes the sinner, but God's cleansing (katharizo) removes the stain so we can be holy again.

God absolutely promises forgiveness that is consistent with His justice (because Jesus Christ paid the penalty for all our sins).

Some expositors teach that this verse cannot apply to Christians since God has already forgiven Christians and therefore we do not need to ask for what we already have.⁴⁹ This viewpoint fails to distinguish between forensic forgiveness that we receive at conversion and family forgiveness that we need after conversion. For example, a judge could pay his own son's fine in court but then discipline him when they got home. Jesus instructed His believing disciples to ask the Father for forgiveness (Luke 11:14). The fact that God has removed the penalty for our sins at conversion (Eph. 1:7) does not remove the necessity of confessing our sins frequently (cf. Matt. 6:11-12). Again, the issue is not acceptance by God but fellowship with God. Conversion (forensic) forgiveness makes us acceptable as members of God's family. Continual (family) forgiveness enables us to experience intimate fellowship as sons within God's family.

1:10 The false claim here is that what we have done is not really sin. This is the third and most serious charge (cf. vv. 6, 8). It puts God's revelation of sin aside and makes man the authority for what is and what is not sin. This claim says God is wrong in His judgment of man and is therefore a liar. The claimant dismisses His Word as invalid (e.g., Ps. 14:3; Isa. 53:6; John 2:24-25; Rom. 3:23).

Note that each of these three false claims in verses 6, 8, and 10 is a denial of the truth that immediately precedes it in verses 5, 7, and 9 respectively. The corrective to each false claim follows in the verse immediately after it.

Truth	False claim
God is light (v. 5).	We have fellowship with Him (v. 6).
Walking in the light is necessary for fellowship with God (v. 7).	We have no guilt for sin (v. 8).
Confession restores fellowship with God (v. 9).	We have not sinned (v. 10).

"What then is the principle of fellowship with God? Succinctly stated, it is openness to God and full integrity in the light of His Word."⁵⁰

2:1 John's preceding comments on the inevitability of sinful behavior (vv. 6-10) led to his assuring his readers here that he did not want them to sin. Avoidance of sin is important even though it is not entirely possible.

John used the Greek word translated "children" here (teknia) as a family term of endearment. It means "little born ones" (2:12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21; John 13:33; cf. Gal. 4:19). "My" adds a further note of tenderness. These terms do not require us to conclude that the recipients were necessarily John's personal converts.

"May not sin" does not mean "may never ever sin again." Sinning is inevitable for sinners, even forgiven sinners, but in every instance of temptation there is always the possibility that we will not fall (1 Cor. 10:13). "If" introduces a condition assumed to take place for the sake of the argument (a third class condition in Greek).

As our Advocate (friend in court, or defense attorney) Jesus Christ pleads the cause of the sinning Christian before God the Father (cf. Heb. 7:25). This ministry appears to be broader than simply aiding the sinner after he or she sins. It evidently includes pleading the sinner's cause with the Father whenever that becomes necessary, as when Jesus prayed that Peter's faith would not fail (Luke 22:31-32). Here, however, the emphasis is on Jesus Christ's help after we have sinned. Since Jesus Christ is righteous He is the perfect Advocate with God (cf. Acts 3:14; 7:52).

The Greek word translated "Advocate" is parakleton that transliterated into English is "Paraclete." It means one who gets called to the side of another to help. Jesus used this word four times in the Upper Room Discourse to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). He called the Holy Spirit another Paraclete like Himself (John 14:16).

"Whereas in the first part of this v[erse] John is anticipating too lenient an attitude toward sin, in the second half he is countering the possibility of too harsh a view."⁵¹

2:2 Jesus Christ did not just make satisfaction for our sins, though He did that. He is the satisfaction Himself. The Septuagint translators used the same Greek word translated "propitiation" here (hilasmos, satisfaction, cf. 4:10) to translate the "mercy seat" on the ark of the covenant. Jesus' body was the site where God placated His wrath against sin. Verses 1:5-2:2 all have Old Testament tabernacle connotations. Jesus' death not only expiated (cleansed) sins, but it satisfied God's wrath against sin.⁵²

This verse provides strong support for the fact that Jesus Christ died for all people (unlimited atonement). In His death the Lord Jesus provided salvation that is sufficient for all, though it is efficient only for those who trust in Him (2 Cor. 5:14-15, 19; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 22:17). "Our" refers to the sins of all believers, and the "whole world" means all humankind, not just the elect (cf. John 1:12; 3:16). Those who hold to "particular redemption" (i.e., that Jesus died only for the elect) limit the meaning of the "whole world" to the world of the elect.

John reminded his readers in this section (1:8-2:2) that fellowship with God is possible only when we deal with sin in our lives. This is true of believers (1:5-2:1) as well as unbelievers (2:2).

College: 1Jo 1:1-10

1 JOHN 1

I. THE WORD OF LIFE (1:1-4)

¹ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched - this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. ² The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. ³ We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. ⁴ We write this to make our ^a joy complete.

^a 4 Some manuscripts your

The Greek text of these first four verses is actually only one sentence, which makes it a little more complicated for us in the English text. But John begins this epistle, as well as his Gospel account, in much the same way as does the author of Genesis: with an assumption. He assumes with great assurance that God exists. Genesis begins with the statement "In the beginning God . . . ." John merely asserts the presence of God; he feels no need to prove the existence of Deity. In his Gospel account, he stated, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Now he begins this first epistle with the same self-assured faith that God is. And no argument is needed! He does not try to prove that God is. God is! And that is that!

This was John's first proclamation concerning the bodily reality of the Son of God. It is the first of several attacks on the docetic teachers who, because they perceived themselves as spiritually advanced, were claiming that Jesus was never clothed with the physical attributes of humanity. He only seemed to be physical. He was not born, did not die, but He only seemed to. Since this epistle was written to assuage the fears and to build the faith of those who would read it in the light of the Gnostics' teaching about the bodily reality of Jesus, John begins his argument at the outset. John had seen, felt, and touched Jesus; he had talked to him, and had heard him speak. He could testify personally to Christ's reality. This " Word of life" about whom John wrote involves the message of Jesus, and he declares that he was a witness.

1:1 That which was from the beginning,

In this prologue to John's treatise, at least five major ideas stand out as major themes for the book. The first of these is The Word was in the beginning . It was the "Word" of God who actually brought creation into reality. God spoke, and it happened. John begins his epistle with this great truth: That which was from the beginning . He then identifies what was from the beginning as the Word of life . It was also the "eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us." This phenomenal declaration has been identified with the beginning of all things. When one reads the fourth Gospel, it is easy to see the unity of John's entire message about the Christ. John opens the fourth Gospel with, "In the beginning was the Word [lovgo", logos , "word"], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning" (John 1:1,2). The same meaning is given to logos in 1 John as is given in the Gospel of John. John was not writing or speaking of something he had heard from others. He himself had seen, heard and touched Jesus.

At the time that John was writing, an early heretic by the name of Cerinthus also lived. He was a Gnostic who tried to explain the nature of Jesus in an altogether different way. He believed that Jesus was the Son of God, but he believed that Jesus was "adopted" by God sometime during Jesus' earthly life. This theory came to be known as the "Adoptionist Theory." Evidently, John was writing this treatise on the Word as a response to the false teachings of the Gnostics. Throughout this study, we will make reference to ideas that were gnostic in doctrine.

Jesus claimed to have been with God in the beginning. While praying his intercessory prayer, Jesus said "Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began" (John 17:5). If Jesus was not coeternal with God, he becomes the world's greatest liar. Either he is the Son of God, or he is an impostor.

which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched - this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 1:2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it,

The second theme of the prologue is The Word became flesh . The life appeared , John wrote. It is a completed action. Elsewhere, John states that the "Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (John 1:14). God himself in the form of his Son Jesus actually lived among us as a man! John makes repeated emphasis on the factual reality of Jesus' life: he could be heard, seen, and touched. The Word indeed became flesh!

It was necessary for Jesus to become a man. The incarnation is one of the cardinal truths of Scripture. Without it, salvation would not be ours. From Adam forward, humankind has transgressed the law of God. Every last person has disappointed their Creator, the God of heaven. Something had to be done. A sacrifice needed to be offered. "[T]he law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Heb 9:22). Christ became a man and offered himself "once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb 9:23-36). It was necessary for Jesus to die. The apostle Paul wrote that Jesus needed to die so that he would be exalted (see Phil 3:7-8). Salvation could not be ours unless he died. The Docetists maintained, however, that he only seemed to die. From the Greek word dokevw (dokeô "it seems"), Docetism claimed that all that Jesus did that would be human - being born, eating, dying, etc. - only seemed to happen. Cerinthus, mentioned above, promoted this doctrine. Jesus was "adopted" by God at his baptism when the Spirit descended on him, or at some other time, and then only pretended to die on the cross. It was claimed that Simon of Cyrene not only carried the cross for Jesus, but he also was crucified in the place of Jesus while Jesus was watching and laughing from nearby (see the footnote by Marshall at the previously cited reference). A number of references in 1 John will show the impact of this false teaching.

and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.

The third theme of this prologue is Jesus is with us now and forever . As he was about to ascend into heaven, he promised his disciples, "I am with you always" (Matt 28:20). On another occasion Jesus said, "[W]here two or three come together in my name, there am I with them" (Matt 18:20). Jesus is alive and with us.

We can be thankful that Christ brought us the greatest way of life one could conceive. Christianity is unique among all major world religions: it is the only religion with a living leader. No other world religion can make that claim. All the other leaders have been dead for centuries, but the religion Jesus brought did not even begin until he had died and was risen from the dead. His resurrection is the central fact of Christianity. John stresses the eternality of Jesus. He is so positive about this that he refers to Jesus' coming into the world this way: "The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it."

1:3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

The fourth major theme of the prologue is We have fellowship with the Father and the Son. John declares that this proclamation of eternal life is being made so that you may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ." "Fellowship" is a very important word in the New Testament. It is translated from koinwniva (koinônia, "to have in common") and is involved in many aspects of the Christian life. It is used in the New Testament to refer to sharing with or helping someone in some common goal (see Acts 2:42); giving someone the "right hand of fellowship" (Gal 2:9); having a "oneness" in someone's suffering (Phil 3:10), to name a few of the uses. It is also used in Acts 2:42 to refer to interpersonal and interspiritual relationships within the church. The early Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship . . ." (Acts 2:42). And John makes reference in these verses to the "fellowship" which we have with God, with Christ, with the Holy Spirit and with each other.

It was especially important for John that our fellowship continue. False teaching and division tend to weaken or destroy the fellowship of the body. It appears to us that John views the role of fellowship as extremely vital. Although he uses the word koinônia four times in this chapter, he is careful to show the interrelation between God and his Son with each other and with all of us. It is highly possible that John is emphasizing fellowship with God and his Son Jesus Christ to further stress the dangers of minimizing the incarnation as the Docetists were doing. Our fellowship is not with God only or Jesus only, but with both God and Jesus, as well as with all of the saints though the generations.

The early Christians often practiced what was referred to as "love feasts," or "agape feasts." These love feasts provided an opportunity for the new and inexperienced Christians to build strength from fellowship with other Christians in order to be able to cope with the world. Newborn Christians will seek out associations, and if these associations are not provided in the church, they will seek for them outside the family of believers. There is a constant need of fellowship, or love feasts, to provide support and love for each other.

With blessings, there come responsibilities. Fellowship is a great blessing, and has its attendant obligations. At least four of these were stressed by the early church. First, a need to develop a mutual care for one another. The most common word for Christian "love" in the New Testament is ajgavph (agapç, "love"). Agapç does not mean the same thing as friendship love nor does it necessarily develop mutuality. Agapç can be commanded, for it involves thinking of others in terms of considering their best interests. Paul suggested this form of love when he wrote, "Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Phil 2:4).

Second, we should seek the presence of our brothers and sisters in the Lord. The early Christians sought the "fellowship" of their fellow Christians. We tend to become like those who are significant to us. If we constantly seek the presence of those who are spiritually minded, we will tend to develop more spirituality ourselves.

Third, we should share with those who have need. The Parable of the Good Samaritan is an excellent illustration of how to serve those who have need (see Luke 10:25-37). Later in this epistle, John wrote, "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love [ajgavph] of God be in him?" (1 John 3:17).

Fourth, we have partnership in God's service. What an exalting thought! To literally have fellowship with the Creator of everything. God is my partner! Paul refers to the Philippians' "partnership [koinônia] in the gospel from the first day until now" (Phil 1:5). They were partners because they shared with him in the work of preaching.

When we walk in the Light, and when we truly have the fellowship with God through his Son, we will have our sinful lives purified from all sin. We will live in a "purified-from-sin" relationship. We can constantly live in the presence of the Most High God. We can live in the shadow of the cross if we are willing to submit to the love of Jesus. What a highly favored people we are!

The fifth major theme of this prelude is The Word will abide forever. In other words, it is the Eternal Word. The expression "Word of God" should not be limited to the written word, or what we call the Bible. The living Word is Jesus Christ and he sent the Spirit to reveal to us the written word (see John 14:26). This Word is the living Word of God, the Son of God, and his revelation of salvation sent to us.

Christ is truly eternal. He died on the cross never to die again. He paved the way for all of those who believe on him so that they may never die. Death for the Christian becomes nothing more than a changing of worlds. We experience physical death, but, in truth, we have eternal life abiding in us already, because "Jesus lives forever" and intercedes for us to the Father (Heb 7:24- 25). Our future is secure; our hope is eternal. We believe in the Son of God who lives forever - the Eternal Word of God. In several places in this epistle, John assures us that eternal life is a here and now possibility, not a then and there. We have life now (see 1 John 5:11-13).

1:4 We write this to make our joy complete.

John ends the prologue with an interesting, if somewhat vague, statement. We write this to make our joy complete . John uses the expression "I write unto you" at least eleven times in this epistle and twice in the negative, "I am not writing . . . ." He is very careful to inform his readers that he has specific reasons for writing to them. This brief sentence is a little difficult to understand completely. Some translations read "to make our joy complete," while other translations read "to make your joy complete." If the correct translation is "our joy," then John is either speaking of his own joy (with an editorial use of "we") or a shared joy; if it is translated "your joy," then John is speaking about the joy of the recipients of the letter. I am prone to agree with the rendering of the American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version and New International Version which use the pronoun "our." Probably, in view of the discussion about the fellowship with God, Christ, and each other, the "complete" joy refers to how this great revelation of the Word to us affects all of us.

II. LIFE WITH GOD AND THE WORLD (1:5-2:27)

A. THE WAY OF LIGHT AND DARKNESS (1:5-7)

⁵ This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. ⁶ If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. ⁷ But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all ^a sin.

^a 7 Or every

1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you:

John is beginning to discuss some of the problems that the church is facing, mainly those associated with the gnostic movement. Having identified Jesus as the witnessed one who is the Word of God, he makes sure that his readers know that the message he is giving to them does not come from him, but from the "witnessed one," Jesus the Word. John R.W. Stott states that "[t]he link between this paragraph and the foregoing preface is in the word message . John has already used the verb a pangellomen ('we proclaim', v. 3); he now uses the very similar anangellomen, we . . . declare , in conjunction with the noun angelia, message . This message has not been invented by himself or the other apostles, but is what they have heard from him ." Through the Holy Spirit, John and the other apostles, Jesus the Word has given the readers the message as he promised he would (see John 14:26).

God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

The message that John declared to them was, God is light; in him there is no darkness at all . The concept of light versus darkness in a religious sense is not new to the Christian era. The prophets of old recognized that God is light. The Psalmist wrote, "The LORD is my light and my salvation" (Ps 27:1). Isaiah wrote, "Your sun will never set again, and your moon will wane no more; the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your days of sorrow will end" (Isa 60:20). The "light-darkness" motif was very prominent in the Persian Zoroastrian religion. Their two gods - Ahura Mazda (the god of light, standing for their god of good, also called Ormazd) and Ahura Mainyu (the god of darkness, standing for their god of evil, also called Ahriman) - form the basis for the dualistic religious concept. In the Qumran community of the Essenes, there were documents centered around the concept of light and darkness. There was one document entitled The War of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness . Just the mention of the title of this scroll emphasizes the importance of the "Light-Darkness" concepts of the early Christian world.

Light and darkness are also used by Jesus Christ and later by his inspired writers, like John in this reference. John wrote, "This is the message we have from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." Jesus was quoted by John as saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (John 8:12). Again, Jesus states that his followers are "the light of the world" (Matt 5:14). Jesus makes it clear that God is total light; no darkness is in him. Light, then, is God's representation of good; dark is God's symbol for evil. John states that "God is light, and there is no darkness in him." Not only is God light, but he is the source of all light; he spoke light into existence in the beginning (see Genesis 1:3). The Christians to whom John was writing were encouraged to "walk in the light;" we actually lie if we pretend to be God's children and "walk in darkness."

1:6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.

In the next two verses, John connects all of this: the message, fellowship, living in the light, and our purification from sin. Those false teachers who "went out from us" (2:19) were "trying to lead you astray" (2:26) causing these Christians deep trouble and turmoil. John is beginning his warning of what they must do to protect their souls from being tainted by these false teachings.

1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light,

This statement is a little difficult to understand. Jesus is the light, but John uses the expression, "he is in the light." Stott wrote, "God is eternally and necessarily in the light because he is himself light; we are called to walk in the light. God is in the light because he is always true to himself and his activity is consistent with his nature." The very concept of God being the ultimate light is beyond our human comprehension; but, I believe the explanation Stott gives sheds light on what John was telling us.

we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

The blood of Jesus, his Son would be repulsive to those who had separated themselves from those faithful to the incarnation of Jesus. The blood was a part of the incarnation, and this was physical and thus denied by those of the apostasy. The Gnostics, and especially the Docetists, would deny that blood would have anything to do with salvation. F.F. Bruce wrote, "Most serious of all the consequences of their apostasy is this: the blood of Jesus, which is constantly accessible for the cleansing of those who remain within the fellowship, is not available for those who show a persistent preference for 'walking in darkness.'" John connects the message, fellowship, living in the light, and purification from our sins together.

B. ADMITTING OUR SIN (1:8-10)

⁸ If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. ⁹ If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. ¹⁰ If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives).

^a 2 Or He is the one who turns aside God's wrath, taking away our sins, and not only ours but also

John is here attacking one of the central beliefs of the Gnostics: that real Christians do not sin. Bruce wrote, "These new teachers [those who went out from the Christians to whom John refers in 2:19] claimed to have reached such an advanced stage in spiritual experience that they were 'beyond good and evil.' They maintained that they had no sin, not in the sense that they had attained moral perfection but in the sense that what might be sin for people at a less mature stage of inner development was no longer sin for the completely 'spiritual' man." This becomes a very damnable doctrine, for it led some early Christians to live licentious lives, because they believed they would not be punished for it.

1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

Elsewhere in God's revelation we are told that there is no one who has not sinned except Jesus (Rom 3:23). These false teachers had undoubtedly convinced themselves that when one has the higher knowledge through their gnostic characteristics, they were above sin. Sin was physical and involved an abuse of the physical body. John tells them that this is a lie.

Some commentators have difficulty with the statement "if we claim to be without sin" in verse 8 and the statement in verse 10, "If we claim we have not sinned." Is there some difference between these two statements in the mind of John? John is saying that we ought not to claim we have no sins (present tense), and then we ought not to deny that we have had past sins. In either case - denial of present sin or denial of any past sins - we make God out to be a liar. J.W. Roberts stated that "in the first passage [v. 8] John refers to the sinful state; we must not argue that we are above sin so that no taint of its ugliness and stain may be found with us. Here [in v. 10] have not sinned refers to the committing of particular sins or deeds of unrighteousness."

Those who were promoting these false teachings regarding having no sin, John represents as sinners. They were not only deceiving themselves, but they were deceiving those who believed what they were teaching. John also taught that those of us who claim that we have not sinned call God a liar; but we also "deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." John is saying here that if we do not admit that we are sinners, the truth is not in us. In John's Gospel, he quotes Jesus as saying that, "I am the way and the truth and the life" (John 14:6). If the truth is not in us, then Jesus is not in us, for he is the truth.

1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Sin causes us to be guilty in the sight of God, therefore in need of forgiveness. John is writing to those who have been born again, or have been baptized. The requirement of confessing our sins does not invalidate other requirements that God has given for receiving forgiveness of sins (see Acts 2:38). Forgiveness is the result of God's unlimited love for us. The sin that makes us guilty in God's sight also makes us unclean, for sin not only defiles the body but also the spirit. So, when we are forgiven, we are also purified from all of the iniquities which stain the soul and spirit. There is a wonderful power in the blood of Jesus Christ.

1:10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

John makes one more charge to those who would minimize the power of sin. Here, have not sinned likely refers to having committed specific sins. If we claim that we have not committed specific sins, we make him out to be a liar . Hence, this eternal "Word" which John has stressed cannot live in one who claims to have not sinned. Bruce wrote that the statement his word has no place in our lives is a much stronger statement than "his truth is not in us" (verse 8). Whatever the case, John is insisting that the false teachers are leading the faithful away from God and must be rejected.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: 1Jo 1:1-10

 

THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF

S. JOHN.

——o——

CHAPTER 1

Ver. 1.— That which was from the beginning, &c. The beginning of this Epistle corresponds with the beginning of St. John's Gospel. Both here and there he sets forth the eternity and the Godhead of Christ, and next His Incarnation, these being the two chief Mysteries, and the cardinal points, of the whole Christian faith.

The word 'was' points, says St. Basil, 'to eternity,' "that thus we might understand," says Bede, "that the Word which was coeternal with the Father was before all time," for whatever time you may assign, or imagine beforehand, it is true to say that the Word then was; thousands, or millions of years, or ever the world was, for He was before any imaginable number of years, even from all eternity. Nor does it mean merely that He was before the beginning of the world, and of time, but that even then He was from all past eternity. And we speak of the Word in the imperfect, and not in the past time, to signify that He still exists. So St. Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, on John i 1. And St. John wrote thus against the Arians who would afterwards arise, and say that there was a time when He 'was' not, denying that He was eternal. This also was condemned by the Nicene Council, and therefore St. John repeats the word 'was' to show that whatever time you may think of, or imagine, the Word at that very time 'was'. "Carry your thoughts back (says St. Basil, Contr. Eunom.) as far as you can, and you will not be able to rise beyond that time."

Ver. 2.— But the word signifies not only His eternity, but His eternal generation, and (3.) His Godhead, for 'Being' or existence, as Elias Cretensis says, is peculiar ( proprium ) to God. For He is the fulness and boundlessness of being, a very boundless ocean of being. Whence Didymus ( in loc.), S. Cyril (in John i.), and S. Ambrose ( de.Fide i. 5) acutely observe that the several creatures are said to be this or that, but that God alone is said absolutely to be. (4.) The word 'was' signifies that the 'Word' still exists and abides. Thus St. Thomas says on John i., 'Was' signifies past, present, and future time. The Word then ever was, ever is, and ever will be. As St. Basil says ( de Sp. Sancto, cap. vi.) When John said 'In the beginning was the Word' he confines our thoughts within fixed limits. For the word 'was' allows our thoughts no outlet; and the word 'beginning' keeps our thoughts also from soaring beyond it, for however thou mayest strive to see ought beyond the Son, yet wilt thou never be able to pass beyond 'the beginning.' But if we speak correctly of God, His eternity cannot be bounded by any time whatsoever. For, as St. Gregory Nazianzen says, 'God both ever was, and is, and will be.' Or, to speak more correctly, He ever is. But our expressions designate only the flow and lapse of time. As St. Augustine says, "I separate in my mind every mutable thing from eternity, and in eternity itself I discern no spaces of time, for they consist in past and future motions, but in eternity there is nothing past or future, for the past has ceased to be, and future has not come into being; while eternity only is : it has not passed away as ceasing to be, nor is it future as not yet existing." Plato says the same. Why then does the Vulgate use the perfect and not the imperfect tense? 1. Because St. John in what follows uses the perfect tense. 2. Because 'first' signifies more clearly that the Word was from the beginning. 3. Both these tenses are used indiscriminately, as St. Ambrose uses the imperfect tense; and lastly, Holy Scripture uses both past, present, and future tenses in speaking of God, for His eternity includes them all. As S. Augustine says ( Tract xcix. in John ), "Although the immutable and ineffable nature of God admits not of past or future time, but simply Is as incapable of change, yet because time is ever changing with us (in this our mortal and changeable state) we say not falsely, He hath been, He shall be, He is: hath been, because He has never ceased to be; shall be, because He will never cease to be; is, because He ever exists."

From the beginning, referring to Gen 1:1. But here there is a distinction between 'created' and 'was.' God created the world in the beginning of time: but He begat the Son in the beginning of eternity, which is signified by 'was.' Tertullian rightly says that the Gospel was the supplement of the Old Testament. For John supplements Moses, by putting the beginning of the Word before the beginning of the world, which was created ages afterwards. But what then was this 'Beginning'? 1. S. Cyril and Origen, in John i., understand by it God the Father, for the Son was ever in the bosom of the Father. 2.  S. Augustine, Bede, and S. Hilary (de Trin. lib. ii.) understand by it the beginning of the world, or of time. For even before this the Word 'was' from all eternity. See Psa 119:3 (Vulg.); Pro 8:25. As S. Hilary says: "Conceive any beginning you please, you cannot bound Him by time, for He then was;" and again, "He is out-limited by any time, as to make that to begin which existed, rather than was made, in the beginning. 3. S. Augustine, Chrysostom, Theophylact explain it that the Word was before all created beings. See. Pro 8:22. Nonnus in his Paraphrase says that it means, He was before all time, coeval with the Father, of the same nature as the Father, incomprehensible, ineffable. 'In the beginning' then, is from all eternity (Micah v. 2). For eternity is a beginning without beginning. So S. Athanasius ( Contr. Ar.) and others. S. Ambrose ( de Fide i . 5) says that the word 'was' reaches indefinitely. That which was in the beginning is not included in time, is not preceded by any beginning." (Pseudo)-Augustine, Serm. vi . de temp. (ccxxxiv. in App.): "He who was in the beginning includes within Himself all beginning." And Nazianzen ( Orat. de Fide ): "Whatever beginning you choose to assign, will be objected to, for He was in the beginning." But S. Cyril (in John i.) speaks more expressly: "Nothing is more ancient than the beginning, if the word retains its proper meaning. In the beginning of a beginning cannot be thought of. For if it be conceived, this first beginning will be done away with, and then will be really no beginning. And besides, we should then be obliged to go through an infinite series, and not be able to rest simply in any beginning whatsoever." 4. But it may be explained thus. The Word was the beginning of the breathing forth of the Holy Spirit, and thus of the creation of all things (Pro 8:22). The Word being regarded as the pattern or idea according to which God created all things. By this expression John approves the Divinity of the Son of God against Cerinthus and the heretics of the day, who said that Christ was a mere man; as Paul of Samosata, and Photinus afterwards. The Arians partly held this opinion, for though they allowed that He existed before His birth in the flesh, yet they denied His eternal generation, and regarded Him as the first of all God's creatures. This one expression 'which was from the beginning,' implicitly includes the threefold statement in the gospel: (1) In the beginning was the Word.—(2) The Word was with God. (3.) The Word was God. And without quoting this passage S. John refers here to it, for that which was from all eternity must necessarily be God: for nothing is eternal but God.

The first member of the sentence properly and explicitly sets forth when the Word, was: then where He was, and then what was His essence, and its identity with that of the Father. These three blessings did the Word confer on us in His Incarnation, wherein He betrothed His humanity (as it were) to the Eternal Word, and thus joined and betrothed to Itself the whole human race, that we who are temporal might become eternal, from being earthly might become heavenly, that we men might become Gods, in order that our being in time or place, our very essence, might be firmly fixed in the Divine and eternal Word.  S. Gregory Nazianzen ( Orat. xxxvii. on the Nativity ) beautifully says, "The Son of God, who was before all worlds, invisible, incomprehensible, incorporeal, that Beginning, coming from the Beginning, that Light of Light, that Fount of Light and immortality, that stamp of the Archetype, that firmly impressed Seal, betakes Himself to His own image, takes upon Him flesh for the sake of flesh, and is united to an intellectual soul for my soul's sake, in order that He might cleanse like by like." And again, "God united with manhood made one Person of two contrary natures, body and spirit, one of them being deified by the other."

"0 strange union, 0 wondrous interblending! He who exists is made, the uncreated is created; He who is unconfined is (by the medium of an intellectual soul) contained within the compass of a gross body of flesh; He who enriches others suffers poverty, for He takes my poor and humble flesh that I might attain to the riches of His Divinity. He who is full is made empty, emptied of His glory for a short time, that I might be made partaker of His fulness. What riches of His goodness! What a mystery encircles me: He becomes partaker of my flesh, in order to save man who is His image, and to confer immortality on our flesh."

That which we have heard, which we have seen. Lyra refers this to the preaching of John the Baptist, and what he pronounced Christ to be. Didymus and others to the prophecies respecting Christ, and to the several appearances of God to Adam, and the Patriarchs in the Old Testament. For though the whole three Persons were manifested, yet it was specially a manifestation of the Word of God, signifying and anticipating His real appearance, at His own due time, in the flesh. (See Clement, Constit. v. 22; Justin, contr. Trypho ; Origen , Hom. i. in Isa. vi., &c.) For though in all these appearances, and especially in that noblest of all, at the giving of the Law, there appeared, properly speaking, only the person of an Angel (see Gal 3:19), yet this Angel specially represented the Word or Son of God.

But these instances are not to the point, for the Patriarchs and Prophets heard and saw the Word only darkly and in type, and not as the Apostles and disciples of Christ did, which is what S. John here means (see Heb 1:1; Mat 17:5).

S. John puts hearing first, sight afterwards, ascending from that which is less certain to that which is more certain, for he adds lastly, and our hands have handled. As S. Augustine says ( de Diversis lxi. [ al. ccclxxi.]), "A man who could be seen was not to be followed, but God was to be followed Who could be seen. In order then that He might be made manifest, and be seen of men, and followed by men, He was made man." And on Ps. 33., "That man might not disdain to follow a humble man, God humbled Himself, that the pride of man might not disdain to follow the footsteps of God." See also S. Gregory, Mor. xxix. 1; and Hugh of S. Victor ( lib. Sent.) gives as one reason for the Incarnation, "that the inward eye might feast on His Godhead, the outward eye on His manhood." This is what S. Paul speaks of ( Tit. iii.) when he says that the love of God towards man appeared.

Which we have seen, and admired, as a most wonderful sight. It was with the mind only that the Apostles beheld Christ's Godhead, gathering it from His doctrine, miracles, holiness, &c. The Word was both seen and heard through the flesh, as a king is seen by His people, as we look on anything through a cloud, as fire is seen through the heated metal, &c. And though the union of the Word with flesh resembled all these, yet it was more perfect than any of them, for all of them, save that of body and soul, are accidental, but the union of the Word with the manhood is substantial. It is not, however, essential, for the Divine Essence is clearly separate and distinct from the manhood. But yet the union is hypostatical or personal, the manhood and the Godhead existing in the same Person. As in the Eucharist, the Godhead and manhood are hid under the species of the Bread and Wine. As S. Chrysostom says, "Behold, thou seest Christ, thou touchest, thou eatest Him." ( Hom. lx . ad pop.)

And our hands have handled, just as blind men do, touching everything by the hand, as S. Thomas did (Joh 20:27), and also the other Apostles (Luk 24:39). So S. Leontius ( Epist. xcvii.), S. Athanasius ( Orat. contr. Arian ), and many others; though Euthymius thinks that Thomas alone touched His wounds. And in their daily intercourse with Christ the Apostles must have touched Him, with love and veneration when they acknowledged Him as God. For as Oecum says, "He was both seen and not seen, tangible and intangible,—speaking as man, working miracles as God." But we may fully believe that S. John did this with peculiar devotion and affection, when he rested on His breast.  S. Clement Alex. seems to say that Christ's wounds miraculously yielded to the touch of the disciples, so as to make them feel as though they were open. S. Augustine, Ambrose, and others believe that the wounds remained open. ( See Suarez, par. iii . Disput. xlvii. sect. 2.)

S. John inculcates and enlarges upon the doctrine of the Incarnation, first against Basilides, who maintained that Christ assumed flesh in appearance only, and therefore did not really suffer and redeem us. So Epiphanius, Hær. xxiv.

Secondly, to confirm the faithful in their belief of the doctrine, and to convert unbelievers by an argument derived from the evidence of our senses. He maintains then that he himself had seen, heard, and touched Christ. So also S. Peter (Act 10:40). For, as Tertullian ( de Anim. ch. xvii) says, "It would indeed be false testimony, if our very senses proved false."

Thirdly, to show the condescension of the Word, and the dignity of the Apostles. For the Word deigned to come down from heaven, and to join together God and man in the closest personal union, so that all the attributes of God belong to man, and vice versa, and He accordingly, through the attributes of a man, manifests the attributes of God to the Apostles.

In this way the intangible became tangible (says Nazianzen, Orat. xxxviii.), for we cannot form in our minds any likeness of God, Who is a Spirit. In order then that we might conceive of Him, invoke Him, behold, address, and touch Him, He was made man. Whence Paulinus says (in his Epistle to Florentinus), "He, our Lord and God, Who appeared on earth, and held converse with men, is our Sheep and our Shepherd. He is our Emmanuel, God with us, the Lord of Majesty, and the Son of the Handmaiden, being one of these by nature, and being made the other. The same Person being the Creator and the Redeemer of man, God of God, Man for man's sake, the Son of God before all worlds, the Son of man for the sake of the world," &c. He then, Who in His Godhead was our Father, became, as it were, a mother to mankind by the manhood He assumed (see notes on Acts xvii. 24 and 29), but also because God as Bridegroom took to Himself our mother—humanity—as His spouse, and joined it to Himself in everlasting wedlock. (This was prefigured by the marriage of Adam and Eve.) By His humanity then He wedded ourselves and our nature, to become our Mother, as He was before that our Father, in order that we might approach Him with boldness, as children who are afraid of their father approach their mother first of all, and obtain their request. (2.) We therefore invoke Christ's manhood, when we end all our prayers 'through Jesus Christ our Lord.' And as a mother bears a child in her womb, and then trains and fashions it, so did Christ by His continual labours for us, especially on the cross, conceive us, bring us to the birth, nourish and fashion us. Thirdly, because the Incarnation was the work of the highest intelligence and wisdom, as well as of the highest goodness. This latter is ascribed to the Holy Spirit, as the former to the Word. But all of them are subordinate to the omnipotence of the Father. He conceived all things by His Word, as if in the womb, and by His goodness He pours forth His bowels of mercy on us, and especially through the Incarnation He addresses His children (Isa 49:15) as a mother. "The Gentiles," says S. Clement ( Strom. lib. v.), "used to call God μητζοπάτοζα."( See S. Augustine, de Civ. vii. 9.)

In order that we may understand the boundless benefits of the Incarnation, S. John suggests four points for our consideration—Who? What? For Whom? and Why?

1. Who then assumed our flesh? The eternal Word, the King of kings and Lord of lords, Emmanuel, Wonderful, Counsellor, &c. See Isa. ix. 6. This is what the Church says in the Preface for Christmas Day, "By the mystery of the Incarnate Word Thy new and bright light has shone in the eyes of our mind, so that by visibly beholding our God we may thereby be enraptured with the love of invisible things." The Divine Nature did not suffer change or loss by the Incarnation, but remained unaltered in Its own nature and impassible.  S. Leontius ( Serm. x. de Nativ.) says , "The same who took on Him the form of a servant, is in the form of God. The same is incorporeal, and yet assumed a body. The same Being is inviolate in His own might, and subject to suffering in our weakness. He was ever the same Being, never separated from His Father's throne, and yet was by wicked men crucified on the tree."  S. Cyril (in John i. 1) compares the Word made man to a heated coal or iron. As the fire consumes not the iron, but both substances remain uninjured, in like manner the Godhead changed not the manhood, nor the manhood the Godhead: both remain unchanged. This was signified by the burning bush. See too the three Dialogues of Theodoret, where he maintains this against Eutyches. As Damascene says ( Orat. i. de Nativ.), "Thy love, 0 Lord, towards me was so great, that Thou didst not carry out the work of my redemption by an angel or any created being, but as Thou didst create me at first, so didst Thou Thyself effect my redemption. And S. Augustine, Serm. lix. Verb. Dom. ( al. lxii.), says, "The all-powerful Physician came down to heal the sufferer. He humbled Himself so far as to take mortal flesh, just as the physician comes down to the bedside of his patient."

2. What did God become in the Incarnation? He became flesh, or man: "The flesh," says S. Augustine, "had blinded, the Flesh healeth thee. For the soul became carnal by yielding to carnal affections, and the eyes of its heart were thus blinded. But the Word was made flesh. Thy Physician made thee an eye-salve, that by His Flesh He might extinguish the sins of the flesh." The flesh of man is wretched, above that of other animals, subject to countless sufferings and diseases, and corrupted by concupiscence. But yet the Word assumed it, and passing by all the orders of angels, came down into this vale of misery, and united this very flesh to Himself by the closest bond of a personal union. Supposing a sheep were led to the slaughter, and a man from love and compassion wished to die in its stead, as S. Francis used to buy and set them free for love of Christ, would not this be termed an insane and extravagant love? But the love of Christ was as much greater than this, as God surpasses man infinitely more than a man surpasses a sheep. This therefore is the great mystery of godliness (1Ti 3:18). We ought then to wonder and be astounded at this when we see the Infant lying in the manger, and say, "Can this child be my God, the King of heaven, the Creator of the universe?" S. Thomas says ( 0pusc. lx.), God communicates Himself to all by His presence, to the just by His grace, and above all to our flesh by His substance; naturally, supernaturally, and personally, says Cajetan. And in fact, by His manhood He has raised all men, and through them the whole universe, and united it to Himself, that God might be all in all. And again, He united Himself to man, the first to the last, for man was the last created of all things, God coming round to that point from which He started.

3. But for whom did He become flesh? For man, a sinner, and like to the vilest worm. "The child was born, the Son was given for us." Christ did not assume our nature for Himself, as though He needed or delighted in that humanity which He assumed. It was for us. We were the ultimate end of His Incarnation. For He was born in the flesh, that we might be born spiritually in our souls. "For us men," &c., in the Nicene Creed. What, says S. Anselm, "can we imagine more compassionate, than God saying to a sinner, destined to eternal punishment, and unable to redeem himself, Take My Only Begotten Son, and offer Him for thyself; or for the Son to say, 'Take me, and redeem thyself.' Codrus sacrificed himself for his country; but what comparison can this bear to Christ, who, clothing Himself with our flesh, freed us from eternal death and hell, and made us heirs of His heavenly kingdom and eternal glory?"

4. But why was the Word made man? To deliver man from hell, death, sin, and utter misery of body and soul. For the Word gained nothing for Himself but the "emptying" of Himself, insults, poverty, death, and the cross. For our redemption "He was born in time, that we might be born for eternity, He was born in a stable, that we might be born in heaven." (S. Gregory Nazianzen). Hear S. Augustine ( Serm. ix . de Nativ.): Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is from eternity, the Creator of all things, became our Saviour by being born on this day. He was born for us in this ever-changing state, in order to bring us to the eternal Father. God became man, that man might become God, and, that man might eat angels' food, the Lord of angels became man." And also S. Gregory Nazianzen ( in. Distiches ).  S. Clemens Alex. says that by His Incarnation He changed earth into heaven, and made angels, and even gods, of men. (And so too [Pseudo]-Origen, Hom. ix . in diversis ; S. Leontius, Serm. vi . de Nat. ; and S. Anselm, Cur. Deus Homo.)

See then the immensity of this blessing. God not only rains down manna, but rends the heavens as it were, and showers all the treasures and compassions of the Godhead upon us. (See Isa. xlv. 8.) And S. Augustine, Serm. xxvii . ( nunc clxxxvii.): "My mouth shall speak the praise of the Lord, the Lord by whom all things were made, the Revealer of His Father, the Maker of His Mother, the Son of God—of His Father without a mother; the Son of Man—of His mother without a father; the Word of God before all times, made man at the fitting time. . . . Great in the form of God, little in the form of a servant. . . . And yet not so as to detract ought from His greatness, or that His littleness should be overwhelmed by His greatness," &c. And S. Gregory Nazianzen thus rejoices ( Orat. xxx. 7): "Christ is born: glorify Him; Christ has come down from heaven: go forth to meet Him. . . . Clap your hands together, all ye people, for unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given. . . . He who is without flesh is incarnate, the Word increases in stature, the invisible is seen, the intangible is touched, He who is without time begins to be the Son of God—is made the Son of man. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." See S. Bernard ( Serm. i. de Epiphany ): "What could declare His mercy so much as His taking on Him our misery? . . . for the more He humbled Himself in His humanity, the more did He exhibit His goodness; and the viler He became for me, the dearer did He become to me." And ( Serm. lxiv. in Cant.), "0 the sweetness, the grace! 0 the power of love! The highest of all has become the lowest of all. And who effected this? Love ignoring dignity, great in condescension, mighty in its affections, powerful in persuasion. And what mighty violence! love triumphs over God, to teach us that it was of His love that His fulness was poured forth, His height brought down, and His one nature associated with another."

Let us then open our heart wide to receive this manna pouring down from heaven, that so by our boundless desires we may embrace and taste all its sweetness. Let us imitate the Patriarchs, who waited four thousand years, and longed and thirsted for it, saying, "0 that thou wouldest rend the heavens and come down!"

Let us imitate the Blessed Virgin, who after His conception longed for His birth, was torn away from the world, and wholly united to Christ. Let every one make known to Christ his necessities, and that temptation which specially weighs him down, and say confidently with S. Catherine of Sienna, "0 Lord, I have Thee present: Thou art mine, I will not let Thee go till Thou removest this temptation; grant me this virtue or grace, till Thou entirely possessest my heart, and imbuest it with Thy love." For He came on earth for this very purpose.  S. Jerome and S. Paula went to Bethlehem, that they might continually behold in their minds the birth of Christ. So S. Francis just before his death celebrated Christmas with an ox and ass, ever repeating, "Let us love the Babe of Bethlehem." And S. Bernard on this mystery surpasses himself, as he preached, saying, "Christ gave Himself wholly for thee: do thou give thyself wholly to Him; as He became man for thee, do thou in return be born to Christ—engraft thyself with the Word, betroth and give thyself wholly to God." See also Serm. in Cœna Dom. at the end of his works.

And our hands have handled of the word of life. That is, that Very Word which we have handled, seen, and heard. That which we could handle and touch, His humanity, e.g., and thus have found that He truly assumed human flesh, and was not a phantom or spectre. Happy they who were permitted thus to see, hear, and touch the Incarnate Word. See Luk 10:23.

Didymus refers all this to the Resurrection, a mystery which the Apostles constantly confirm and enforce. The Gloss confines it to the Transfiguration. But it is far better to refer it to the whole economy of the Incarnation of the Word of life, that is, the eternal, uncreated, Divine Word. S. Basil thinks that the Holy Spirit may be called the Word. But, as S. Thomas says, in an improper sense. See notes on John i. 1.

But it may be asked, (1.) why does S. John call the Son, the Word? 1st, Because both in his Gospel and Epistle he refers to that beginning which Moses speaks of. 2d, Because the Word Who is in the bosom of the Father has all wisdom. And this wisdom S. John sets forth, dwelling more on Christ's teaching and doctrine, while the other evangelists dwell more on what He did. He therefore calls Christ the Word, because he purposes to recount the sayings of this "Word." 3d, If he had called Him the Son, they might have imagined Him to be of a bodily and passible nature. But the "Word" signifies that His generation was not human but spiritual and divine, and consequently pure, perfect, and incorruptible, generated by the Divine mind as a word is generated in our mind. 4th, Because the "Word" signifies the mental conception of God the Father, and this is the generation of the Son, who represents and sets forth the wisdom and will of the Father, as a word would do. And this too is the very reason why the Son, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit, was incarnate, because the Incarnation took place in order to manifest God to man. But it is by a word that anything is manifested. And as the Word was begotten of the Father in the Spirit, so did it become Him to be born of His mother in the flesh.  S. John therefore leads us to the Word, and through Him to God, in order to teach us ever to hold sweet converse with Him. As Seneca says, "As the rays of the sun reach the earth, but dwell in their own source, so does a noble soul, which is sent among us to bring a closer knowledge of divine things, hold converse indeed with us, but is not separated from its own source." It is wedded to the eternal word, as S. Ambrose says and S. Augustine ( Serm. xxxviii . nunc Serm. cxvii.), "A man becomes happy by attaining to that which ever continues happy, and is itself perpetual happiness, and that by which man lives is perpetual life, that by which he becomes wise is perpetual wisdom, and that by which he is enlightened is perpetual light."

2d. But why is the Son called λόγος? (1.) That word can be translated 'wisdom.' And just as wisdom is intimately connected with ourselves, so is the Son with the Father. And (2.) as reason or knowledge proceeds from the mind, so does the Word or the Son proceed from the Father. So Origen, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius in John i., Nazianzen, Orat. iv., S. Basil, &c. And (3.) because He makes us subject to reason. See Rupertus on John i., and Eusebius, Demetrius, Evang. v . 5. "The Word has in Himself the reasons of all created things, and is accordingly termed the Wisdom and the Word of God." But this word 'reason' does not express so clearly His procession from the Father. (See S. Augustine, Quæst. lxiii. inter lxxxvii.) Besides which the word 'reason' speaks of the Essence of God and is common to the Whole Trinity, and is not merely personal as [Pseudo]-Dionysius says ( De Divinis Nominibus ). But lastly, 'reason' can exist in one who at the time does not understand (as when sleeping), but the 'Word' only in one who actually understands.

2d. The word λόγος may mean 'work.' For the Word is the coequal work of the Father as God. See Wisd. 7:25.

3d. It may mean 'power.' For the, Word is the arm of the Father, by which He created all things (as God), and by whom He redeemed all things. (See 1Co 1:23.)

4th. It may mean 'the form.' For the Word is the brightness of the Eternal Light. Wisd. 7:26; Heb 1:23. [Pseudo]-Dionysius speaks of the Father as the primordial Fount of Godhead, and the Son and the Holy Ghost as shoots (so to speak) of Godhead. And accordingly S. Augustine ( de Trin. vi. 10) says, "A certain person (S. Hilary, de Synod ) says that when he wished to express in the clearest manner the properties of the several Persons in the Trinity, he used to say that 'Eternity was in the Father, His Image in the Son, His use in the gift, i.e., the Holy Spirit the gift of the Father and the son.'" And (as above) "The Word increases not as we know Him, but ever remains one and the same, whether we adhere to or withdraw from Him, ever abiding in Himself, and renewing all things. The Form (or pattern) of all things, unfashioned Himself, independent of time and space."

5th. It can mean 'definition,' because He definitely and fully sets forth the nature of the Father, and of all things besides. As S. Gregory Nazianzen says, "The Son has the same relation to the Father as the definition to the thing defined. For he who sees the Son, sees the Father: for the Son is a brief and simple setting forth of the Father's nature." See Euthymius on John i. Again, it may mean 'a computation;' for the Word is the standard by which all things are computed.

6th. Again, it may mean the ' cause,' for the Word was both the efficient cause of all creatures, and also the idea which conceived them.

7th. Beza and others suppose it to be the promised Word, foretold by the Prophets. But Salmeron states in reply, that He was before all Prophets, and was with God. In fact, Beza denies the λόγος quite as much as do the Alogians (see Epiph. Hær. li.), as do also the Magdeburg Centuriators, and thus are semi-atheists.

8th. But the best meaning is that He is the 'Word,' not of the mouth and voice, but of the heart and mind. For as we conceive anything in our mind, so did the Eternal Father, knowing what was His own Essence and all its capacities, form and produce this Word from eternity in every respect equal and like to Himself, and consequently God, the Son of God, begotten of the Father. (See Suarez, lib. ix. de Deo Trin. cap. 4, 6, and others.)

Here note that the Word of God has a twofold sense, first, essential, because He is the very essence, mind, and will of the Father which He communicates to the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Arians believed this, but added that God began to be the Father only in time. (2.) There is the personal sense of the word, viz. the Word begotten of the Father, and a Person subsisting by Himself. Of Him S. John speaks both here and in his Gospel. S. Cyril ( Thesaur. vii. 1) says, "S. John chose the name of the 'Word' as most appropriate, and significative of the Godhead, and the procession of the second Person of the Trinity." But S. Augustine ( de Trin. xv. 14), "the Father knoweth all things in Himself—in Himself essentially, but in the Son as His Word."

The word λόγος is the same as discourse, or speech. Accordingly, Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, Jerome, use the word ' Sermo.' Erasmus adopted this in the passage before us. For this innovation he was sharply handled by theologians, but defended by Calvin.

The term 'word' ( verbum ) is more appropriate—(1.) as the simplest; (2.) the most general term; (3.) because it is the proper word for any mental conception, and the Son is the conception of the Father's mind; (4.) a word is uttered by the mouth, and so did the Father make known His will through the Word, as S. Epiphanius expressly says ( Hær. lxxi.), and S. Augustine ( de Fide et Symb. cap iii.), "He is called the Word of the Father, because the Father is made known through Him. For just as we by our words make our mind known to a hearer, so is that Wisdom, whom the Father begat, most fittingly called the Word, because it is through Him that the very secrets of the Father are made known." S. John here and elsewhere calls Christ the Word by reason of His Godhead and not His manhood.

S. Basil, describing the dignity and attributes of the Word ( lib. ii . contr. Eunom.), says, "In order to have a worthy understanding of His generation from God, we should consider it to be impassible, indivisible, before all time, like a ray shooting forth from a light, not carefully wrought out at some subsequent time, but as existing together with its prototype, which gave it its being, and coexisting with it, like the impression of a seal, or as when teachers impart knowledge, without losing anything themselves, and yet instructing their hearers." And Tertullian ( adv. Praxeam, ch. ix.) uses the same comparisons. "God brought forth His Word, as a root produces a plant, a fountain the river, and the sun its rays. But yet we cannot separate them from each other, as the Word cannot be separated from God." This doctrine is fully set forth in the Creed which S. Gregory Thaumaturgus is said to have received from S. John himself, at the bidding of the Blessed Virgin. The Gentiles knew this truth in a shadowy way, having learned it either from the Old Testament or from the Sibylline Books, or even from the light of nature, or Divine Inspiration. Plato accordingly was called the Attic Moses, (Eusebius, de Prep. Evan. xiii . ; and Theodoret, de Curando Græc. Affect. lib. ii.), Lactantius ( de Sap. iv. 9) says, "Philosophers were not ignorant of this divine Word. For Zeno calls the Orderer of Nature and the Maker of the Universe the λόγος."

But it will be asked, was this Divine Word like our Word, or unlike? Partly like, and partly unlike. It was like in these respects. 1. As being immaterial. 2. As being in either case the vehicle of our thoughts; and 3, of our conceptions. 4. As being within. 5. As being the idea according to which nations are moulded. Hence Tinneus calls the Word of God his pattern world, the model of all created things. 6. As the thoughts of our mind are uttered outwardly in word, so was it when the Word of God spake in the Flesh He assumed. 7. As our word is the image of our understanding, so is the Word the image of God the Father. 8. As our word or conception lasts as long as we understand any matter, so is it with the Divine Word. The Divine mind ever abides, so does His Word. And as the mind of the Father is ever active, so is it with the generation of the Word. It is ever going on. As the Ephesian fathers say, "Let the splendour of light set forth that the Son of God has ever been co-eternal with the Father, let the 'Word' declare that His generation was without suffering, and let the Name of Son reveal His consubstantiality." See, too, S. Basil ( Hom. i . on S. John ). 9. As the conceptions of our mind precede our action. As S. Augustine says ( de Trinit. lib. xv. 11), "There are no acts of ours which are not previously suggested in the mind. There may be words of ours which are not followed by action, but the contrary cannot be: and in like manner the Word of God could be when as yet no creature existed, but no creature could exist except by Him by Whom all things were made."

II. It is unlike: (1.) Because our word is merely an accident of our mind: but the Word of God exists as a Substance and a Person. See S. Athanasius, Serm. i. Contr. Arianos ; and S. Chrysostom, Hom. i. on John ix. 2. (2.) Our word is a thing of time, subsequent to its conception in the mind, whereas the Word of God is from all eternity, and coeval with the Father. And again our 'word' results from our being unable otherwise to understand others. But the Word of God arises from the infinite perfection and productiveness of the Father's mind. (3.) Our speech is imperfect, ever changing, and complex. Whereas the Word of God is perfect, ever constant, unchangeable, one and the same, as S. Augustine says (on Ps. xliv.), "All things exist in One," and S. Athanasius, Serm. iii . contr. Arian. (4.) Our word or speech is distinct from our mind, whereas the Word of God is consubstantial with the Father. (5.) Our speech (or word) is part of our nature, but the Word of God is a Person distinct from the Father. (6.) Our word is not our son whereas the Word of God is the Son of God, as S. Augustine says ( de Trinit. vi. i): "The Father is Very Wisdom, but the Son is Wisdom and Power from the Wisdom and Power of the Father. The Father is not wise by engendered Wisdom, but is in Himself unbegotten Wisdom." (7.) Our words are feeble and ineffectual; the Word of God is all-powerful. (8.) Our words soon pass away and come to naught. The Word of God is eternal, for eternal is the understanding and the generation of the Father. S. Hilary says ( de Trinit. ii.), "The sound of the voice ceases, and the expression of our thought. But this Word is a reality, not a mere sound." (See Suarez ut supra.)

And therefore, though we may in some measure ascend from the word of our mind to (the knowledge of) the Word of God, yet this ascent by the light of nature is only to (the knowledge of) His essential Word. For this God conceives, understands, and bringeth forth all things. But that He brought forth and begat His Personal Word, that is as Son, surpasses the understanding both of angels and men. It must therefore be wondered at and adored in mute and holy silence, rather than be pried into and set forth by our too curious and yet feeble understanding, so that we may wonder and cry aloud with the Seraphim, 'Holy, Holy, Holy,' &c. This was not known to Plato, or to Demosthenes with all his eloquence. "I will bring to nought the understanding of the prudent," says S. Jerome to Paulinus. "My heart hath uttered a good word. I will speak of thy works to the King," says the Psalmist (Ps. xly. i.) "Thou seest that this Word is the Son of God, and we believe that He came forth from the Father's breast; from the womb of His heart, so to speak." (Nazianzen, Orat. de Fide.) See Ps. cx., on which S. Jerome says, "He brought Him forth from His own Nature, from His own substance, from the very inmost being ( medullis ) of His Godhead. Whatever the Father is Himself in His Godhead He gave wholly to His Son."

Tropologically. S. Augustine ( Confess. xi . 9) explains how the Word preaches to the heart of man, and S. Bernard says ( Serm. xlv . in Cant.): "His beauty is His love, and it is the greater because it takes the lead. But then it is, that from the very depths of His heart, and from His inmost affections, He cries more ardently for our love in return, in proportion as He feels that He was more ready to love us than we were to be loved by Him. And hence arose His speaking to us, His pouring forth His gift, and the response of the soul, its wonder and its thankfulness. And it therefore loves the more, because it sees that it is mastered in love, and wonders the more, and feels that it was not the first to love." And S. Ambrose, ( de Virg. iii.) says, "the Word of God wounds, but leaves not a sore ( ulcerat )." There is a wound of gracious love, there are wounds of charity, as the Spouse says ( Song ii.), "She who is perfect is wounded with charity. Good then are the wounds of the Word—the wounds of Him who loveth us."

The word of life. "For as the Father hath life in Himself, &c." (Joh 5:26.) Being is here attributed to the Father, life to the Word, love to the Holy Spirit.

Life is threefold, divine, angelic, human. Of these the Divine is most perfect, boundless, eternal, uncreated, the origin and source of angelic and human life. Angelic life is created, but spiritual. Human life is partly spiritual, partly corporeal. It is also natural and supernatural. The natural consists in life, sense, and reason. The supernatural also is two-fold, begun by grace and consummated in glory. Further than this the Divine Life is formal and causal. Formal is that life with which God Himself exists, causal that by which He gives life (whether natural or spiritual) to others. The Word then is called the Word of Life, as having life in Himself and as being the cause of life to others. As S. John says, "in Him was life," being in Himself essential life. See S. Thomas, par. i. Quæst. 28, where he alludes to the words (Ps. 36), "With Thee is the Fount of Life;" as Theodoret says, "With Thee is the Eternal Word, the Fount of Life, and in the Light of the Holy Spirit we shall see the light of the only Begotten One."

But secondly, it may mean, that in the Word there exist, as in archetype, the eternal reasons of all things. "The Wisdom of God, (says S. Augustine in John i. 1) in art (or theory) contains all things. Thou beholdest the heaven, sun, moon, they exist in the theory; outwardly they are bodies, in theory they are life." And again, "All things which are made, and have not life, have life in the Word of God, though they are not life, in themselves." The same statement occurs in the Homilies ascribed to Origen. As Philo says, "When He resolved to create this world, He formed a conception of it, and from that fashioned the world we now see." See note in translation of S. Augustine (on Joh 1:3) in Library of the Fathers.

But again, in Him is that which sustains and supports everything in life. See S. Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius in John i. 4, and Clement Alex. Adhort. ad gentes.

Thirdly, But it is best to understand it to mean that in the Word is our true life, both of grace and glory. He became man in order to communicate this life and light to men: that, just as the world at large was created by Him, so might man (this existence of the world) be re-created, and brought back from sin to the life of grace and glory. See below, verse 2, and chapter v. ii. See S. Chrysostom, Augustine, S. Ambrose, de Fide, cap. iii. and others. See too the many passages in this Gospel where life is spoken of as coming from the Word. See also Lactantius i. 11, on the meaning of Ζευ̃ς.

And the Life was manifested : By the Incarnation, by which He was beheld and even touched by men. This was prophesied by Isaiah; and see Luk 3:5. And S. Ambrose in Ps. xxxvi. (Psa 37:19)  says, "Christ is in all things our life. His Godhead is our life, His eternity is our life, His flesh is our life, His Passion is our life." Whence Jeremy says, "We shall live in His shadow, the shadow of His wings. The shadow of the cross is the shadow of His Passion, His death is life, His wounds are life, His blood is life, His burial is life, His Resurrection is the life of all men. Wishest thou to know how His death is life? We are baptized into His death, that we may walk with Him in newness of life [Rom. vi. 4]. And He says Himself, "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone, but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit (John xii. 24). He, that grain of wheat, was separated from the body for us, and died that He might bring forth much fruit in us. His death therefore is the fruit of life."

And bear witness. In our words, our life, our suffering death and martyrdom. As S. John says of himself (Rev. v. 1.). Again, it means, "We protest and denounce, by threatening unbelievers with the terrible judgment of God." As Cassian says ( de Incarn. v . 6), "In faithfully discharging His Office, He leaves those who refuse to listen, to bear the peril of their own disobedience."

And shew unto you that Eternal Life : Christ, who as the Word of God is eternal life: which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us—being made visible by His Incarnation, miracles, especially (says Cajetan) by His Transfiguration, Resurrection, and Ascension. By which latter He shows that not only as the Word, but as man also, He will live a glorious and eternal life.

With the Father. As the Gospel says, "The Word was with God." Being, as Nonnus says, "never parted from the Father: ever seated on His Throne."

S. John here answers the objection, "How could He be ever with the Father, when there was no place where He could be?  S. John replies that there was no need of space for Him. He was in the bosom of the Father. But the word 'with' signifies three things: (1) That He was a person distinct from the Father, (2) that He was closely connected with Him, (3) was equal to the Father. This overthrows the Eunomian heresy that the Son was not the Word, for S. John says that it was the same Word which was with the Father, and was manifested in the flesh. And to keep them from inferring that the Word was not God, S. John expressly adds, "And the Word was God." For the Divine Persons, though distinct the one from the other, have yet one and the same Essence. And that the Word was not, as Arian suggested, separable from the Father, as some article of dress (see S. Fulgent, contr. Monimum, lib. iii . cap. 2, 3), He is one with the Father as heat and brightness co-exist in the fire, or as memory and understanding co-exist in the same mind, or perhaps intellect, memory, and will are identical with the mind itself.

And was manifested unto us. This was at the Incarnation (as S. Dionysius Alex. says), where the invisible became visible, and when He who far surpasses every being came from the hidden shrine of Godhead, became man, and stood forth to our view. But God in truth is hidden even after this manifestation of Himself, or indeed (to announce a higher truth) even in this very manifestation. For the Godhead of Jesus was hidden, and the mystery which then was wrought respecting Him is not revealed or brought into light by anything which can be said or thought about Him, but even when it is spoken of cannot be explained, and when it is understood is still kept secret.

Ver. 3.— That ye also may have fellowship with us. That is, in the same faith and Church of Christ, where all partake in the same sacraments. It means also that ye should make increase and advance in the faith. It signifies a continuous and growing act. For he speaks to the faithful who already belonged to this society, though Œcumenius thinks it refers to unbelievers, whom John wished to attract to the Church of Christ. This is what S. Paul speaks of (Heb 12:22), "Ye have come unto Mount Sion," &c. For with all these we have fellowship in the Church—with Angels, with the Apostles, with the early Christians, with just men made perfect, with Christ and with God. Whence S. John adds,

And that our fellowship may be with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. Not with the god of Simon Magus, and with his mediating angels, whom he regards, as does Plato also, as demigods. For, as Bede says, "No one can have fellowship with God, unless he be first joined to the fellowship of the Church." And as S. Cyprian says ( de Unit. Eccelesiæ ), "Whoever is separated from the Church is joined to an adulteress. He is severed from the promises of the Church, and will not attain to the rewards which Christ offers. He who has left the Church of Christ is an alien, is profane, is an enemy. He cannot have God as his Father, who hath not the Church as his mother. If no one could escape who was without the ark, so can no one escape who is without the Church, &c." Excommunicated persons then who are separated from the Church are likewise separated from God. In the Greek this is stated more plainly and forcibly, Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. It sets forth the nobleness of the fellowship of the Church, as being our fellowship with God and Christ, for the Church is His spouse. (See 2Pe 1:4; 1Co 1:9 and 1Co 6:7.) All the faithful then have fellowship with Christ and God by faith, hope, and charity, and the more so as they advance in these graces, imitate His life, and help to propagate His truth, like the Apostles, who did and suffered so much for Christ, and devoted themselves entirely to promote His glory and the salvation of souls. This fellowship or society embraces all the qualifications of true friendship which Aristotle, Cicero, and others speak of. Accordingly S. Augustine ( Tract. lxxvi . on John ) says, "The Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son makes His abode with us as in a temple. The whole three Persons come to us, when we come to them: they come by succouring, we by obeying; they by enlightening, we by beholding the light; they by filling us, we by receiving—so that our sight of them is not outward, but inward, and their dwelling with us is not transitory but eternal." Dionysius the Carthusian beautifully and piously explains ( in loc.) how the faithful should hold converse with God. Hesselius and Lorinus describe our fellowship with Christ as that of a lord with his servant, a father with an adopted child, of the enlightener and the enlightened, the justifier and the justified, a ruler and subject, a giver and receiver, of one who invokes and one who hears, of one who bestows gifts and one who returns thanks, of Him who blesses and he who is blessed; so that, cleaving to God, we may be one with Him, and walking in the light as He is in the light, may have fellowship with Him. It is (as concerns Christ's human nature) like the relation of a master and his scholars, of a Priest and those for whom he offers sacrifice and intercedes, of one who suffers punishment which another deserved, and one who receives a favour which he did not deserve, &c. Scripture explains it under the type of a Shepherd and his sheep, the head and the members, of food and its eaters, the vine and the branches, and so on. We, in a word, who are partakers of His sufferings, are partakers of His consolations. Christ also calls us His friends, brethren, &c. He says that His God is our God, His Father and our Father. (See Eph 2:19; 1Jo 3:1; 2Co 11:2; Hos 2:19)

And these things write we that ye may rejoice in the fellowship of the Church of Christ, and that our joy may be full. Increase daily more and more (see Phi 2:2; Joh 17:13.) This is the result of a good conscience (2Co 1:12). As S. Bernard says to Pope Eugenius, "What is more precious, what more calm, and what freer from care than a good conscience? It fears not losses, it fears not reproaches, it fears not bodily tortures, for it is exalted rather than cast down by death itself." And so too Cicero, Horace, and other heathen writers. The Apostle therefore rightly sets forth the hope and confidence inspired by a pure and innocent conscience. For S. Augustine truly said [on Ps. 31], "The very charity of a righteous man gives him hope of a good conscience, for a good conscience inspires hope; for just as an evil conscience leads to utter despair, so does a good conscience inspire confident hope."

The joy then of believers is real and solid. Being joy in the Lord it satisfies and fills the mind, while joy in worldly delights, wealth, and honours, does but excite without gratifying. Hear S. Gregory ( Hom. xi . in Evang.), "Because unending lamentations follow after present joys, avoid vain joys in this life if ye dread sorrow in the next. For no one can both rejoice with the world here, and reign with Christ hereafter. Abstain therefore from the fleeting pleasures of temporal delight, subdue the desires of the flesh. And if anything charms thy mind here, let it shrivel to nothing at the thought of the eternal fire; and whatever makes thee merry in youth, let youthful discipline check and restrain, that so ye may more easily obtain eternal joys, by fleeing of your own accord from those which are only temporal." And S. Chrysostom ( Hom. xviii. ad populum ), "He that rejoices in the Lord can never by anything accidental be deprived of it. For all other things which delight us are subject to change, nor can they afford us so much pleasure

Commentary -- Other

Contradiction: 1Jo 1:8

96. Is it that everyone sins (1 Kings 8:46; 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8-10), or do some not sin (1 John 3:1, 8-9; 4:7; 5:1)?

(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage & Imposes his own agenda)

This apparent contradiction asks: 'Does every man sin?' Then a number of Old Testament passages that declare this are listed followed by one New Testament passage from 1 John 1:8-10:

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives."

After this it is claimed by Shabbir that: 'True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are children of God.' This is followed by a number of passages from the First Epistle of John showing that Christians are children of God. Shabbir is here imposing his view on the text, assuming that those who are children of God, somehow suddenly have no sin. It is true that a person who is born of God should not habitually practice sin (James 2:14ff), but that is not to say that they will not occasionally fall into sin, as we live in a sinful world and impinged by it.

The last of the verses quoted is from 1 John 3:9 which says:

"No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God."

Shabbir in his quote uses an older translation for 1 John 3:9 and so states, "No one born of God commits sin...and he cannot sin...," which is not a true translation of the Greek. In the newer translations, such as the NIV they translate correctly using the present continuous in this verse, as it is written that way in the Greek. Thus those born of God will not continue to sin, as they cannot go on sinning..., the idea being that this life of sinning will die out now that he has the help of the Holy Spirit in him or her.

It is interesting how Shabbir jumps around to make his point. He begins with 1 John 1, then moves to 1 John 3-5, then returns to the 1 John 1 passage at the beginning of the Epistle and re-quotes verse 8, which speaks of all men sinning, with the hope of highlighting the seeming contradiction. There is no contradiction in this as Shabbir obviously hasn't understood the apostle's letter or grasped the fact that the letter develops its theme as it goes on. Therefore quoting from the beginning of the letter, then moving to the middle of the letter, and finally returning to the beginning of the letter is not the way to read a letter.

The Scriptures clearly teach that all men have sinned except for one, the Lord Jesus Christ, therefore we have no quarrel with Shabbir on this point. As to Shabbir's second point I am glad he has come to realize that Christians are children of God therefore we have no quarrel with him on this subject.

It is Shabbir's third point, however, which is a contentious one because it does not take on board the development of the themes of the letter, of which the one pointed out here is the call to holiness and righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins by Jesus Christ's atoning death. It is for that reason that we are called not to continue in our sinful ways but to be changed into Christ's sinless likeness. In his attempt to show an apparent contradiction Shabbir has mischievously rearranged the order in which the verses were intended to be read in order to force a contradiction, which doesn't exist.

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: 1 John (Book Introduction)

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

ABOUT a.d. 85 TO 90

By Way of Introduction

Relation to the Fourth Gospel

There are few scholars who deny that the Epistles of John and the Fourth Gospel are by the same writer. As a matter of fact " in the whole of the First Epistle there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel" (Schulze). H. J. Holtzmann ( Jahrbuch fur Protestantische Theologie , 1882, P. 128) in a series of articles on the " Problem of the First Epistle of St. John in its Relation to the Gospel" thinks that the similarities are closer than those between Luke’s Gospel and the Acts. Baur argued that this fact was explained by conscious imitation on the part of one or the other, probably by the author of the Epistle. The solution lies either in identity of authorship or in imitation. If there is identity of authorship, Holtzmann argues that the Epistle is earlier, as seems to me to be true, while Brooke holds that the Gospel is the earlier and that the First Epistle represents the more complete ideas of the author. Both Holtzmann and Brooke give a detailed comparison of likenesses between the First Epistle and the Fourth Gospel in vocabulary, syntax, style, ideas. The arguments are not conclusive as to the priority of Epistle or Gospel, but they are as to identity of authorship. One who accepts, as I do, the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel for the reasons given in Volume V of this series, does not feel called upon to prove the Johannine authorship of the three Epistles that pass under the Apostle’s name. Westcott suggests that one compare John 1:1-18 with 1Jo_1:1-4 to see how the same mind deals with the same ideas in different connections. " No theory of conscious imitation can reasonably explain the subtle coincidences and differences in these two short crucial passages."

Gnosticism

The Epistle is not a polemic primarily, but a letter for the edification of the readers in the truth and the life in Christ. And yet the errors of the Gnostics are constantly before John’s mind. The leaders had gone out from among the true Christians, but there was an atmosphere of sympathy that constituted a subtle danger. There are only two passages (1Jo_2:18.; 1Jo_4:1-6) in which the false teachers are specifically denounced, but " this unethical intellectualism" (Robert Law) with its dash of Greek culture and Oriental mysticism and licentiousness gave a curious attraction for many who did not know how to think clearly. John, like Paul in Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles, foresaw this dire peril to Christianity. In the second century it gave pure Christianity a gigantic struggle. " The great Gnostics were the first Christian philosophers" (Robert Law, The Tests of Life , p. 27) and threatened to undermine the Gospel message by " deifying the devil" (ib., p. 31) along with dethroning Christ. There were two kinds of Gnostics, both agreeing in the essential evil of matter. Both had trouble with the Person of Christ. The Docetic Gnostics denied the actual humanity of Christ, the Cerinthian Gnostics distinguished between the man Jesus and the aeon Christ that came on him at his baptism and left him on the Cross. Some practised asceticism, some licentiousness. John opposes both classes in his Epistles. They claimed superior knowledge ( gnōsis ) and so were called Gnostics ( Gnōstikoi ). Nine times John gives tests for knowing the truth and uses the verb ginōskō (know) each time (1Jo_2:3, 1Jo_2:5; 1Jo_3:16, 1Jo_3:19, 1Jo_3:24; 1Jo_4:2, 1Jo_4:6, 1Jo_4:13; 1Jo_5:2). Some of the leaders he calls antichrists. There are stories about John’s dread of Cerinthus and his unwillingness to be seen in the same public bath with him. The Apostle of love, as he is, is a real son of thunder when Gnosticism shows its head. Westcott thinks that the Fourth Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while 1 John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity. Certainly both ideas appear in both books.

Destination

It is not clear to whom the Epistle is addressed. Like the Gospel, the Epistle of John came out of the Asiatic circle with Ephesus as the centre. Augustine has the strange statement that the Epistle was addressed to the Parthians. There are other ingenious conjectures which come to nothing. The Epistle was clearly sent to those familiar with John’s message, possibly to the churches of the Province of Asia (cf. the Seven Churches in Revelation).

The Date

The time seems to be considerably removed from the atmosphere of the Pauline and Petrine Epistles. Jerusalem has been destroyed. If John wrote the Fourth Gospel by a.d. 95, then the First Epistle would come anywhere from a.d. 85 to 95. The tone of the author is that of an old man. His urgent message that the disciples, his " little children," love one another is like another story about the aged John, who, when too feeble to stand, would sit in his chair and preach " Little children, love one another." The Muratorian Fragment accepts the First Epistle and Origen makes full use of it, as does Clement of Alexandria. Irenaeus quotes it by name. Polycarp shows knowledge of it also.

JFB: 1 John (Book Introduction)

AUTHORSHIP.--POLYCARP, the disciple of John [Epistle to the Philippians, 7], quotes 1Jo 4:3. EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.39] says of PAPIAS, a hearer of John, and a friend of POLYCARP, "He used testimonies from the First Epistle of John." IRENÆUS, according to EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 5.8], often quoted this Epistle. So in his work Against Heresies [3.15; 5, 8] he quotes from John by name, 1Jo 2:18, &c.; and in [3.16,7], he quotes 1Jo 4:1-3; 1Jo 5:1, and 2Jo 1:7-8. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA [Miscellanies, 2.66, p. 464] refers to 1Jo 5:16, as in John's larger Epistle. See other quotations [Miscellanies, 3.32,42; 4.102]. TERTULLIAN [Against Marcion, 5.16] refers to 1Jo 4:1, &c.; [Against Praxeas, 15], to 1Jo 1:1. See his other quotations [Against Praxeas, 28; Against the Gnostics, 12]. CYPRIAN [Epistles, 28 (24)], quotes as John's, 1Jo 2:3-4; and [On the Lord's Prayer, 5] quotes 1Jo 2:15-17; and [On Works and Alms, 3], 1Jo 1:8; and [On the Advantage of Patience, 2] quotes 1Jo 2:6. MURATORI'S Fragment on the Canon of Scripture states, "There are two of John (the Gospel and Epistle?) esteemed Catholic," and quotes 1Jo 1:3. The Peschito Syriac contains it. ORIGEN (in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 6.25]) speaks of the First Epistle as genuine, and "probably the second and third, though all do not recognize the latter two"; on the Gospel of John, [Commentary on John, 13.2], he quotes 1Jo 1:5. DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA, ORIGEN'S scholar, cites the words of this Epistle as those of the Evangelist John. EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.24], says, John's first Epistle and Gospel are acknowledged without question by those of the present day, as well as by the ancients. So also JEROME [On Illustrious Men]. The opposition of COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES, in the sixth century, and that of MARCION because our Epistle was inconsistent with his views, are of no weight against such irrefragable testimony.

The internal evidence is equally strong. Neither the Gospel, nor this Epistle, can be pronounced an imitation; yet both, in style and modes of thought, are evidently of the same mind. The individual notices are not so numerous or obvious as in Paul's writings, as was to be expected in a Catholic Epistle; but such as there are accord with John's position. He implies his apostleship, and perhaps alludes to his Gospel, and the affectionate tie which bound him as an aged pastor to his spiritual "children"; and in 1Jo 2:18-19; 1Jo 4:1-3, he alludes to the false teachers as known to his readers; and in 1Jo 5:21 he warns them against the idols of the surrounding world. It is no objection against its authenticity that the doctrine of the Word, or divine second Person, existing from everlasting, and in due time made flesh, appears in it, as also in the Gospel, as opposed to the heresy of the Docetæ in the second century, who denied that our Lord is come in the flesh, and maintained He came only in outward semblance; for the same doctrine appears in Col 1:15-18; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 1:1-3; and the germs of Docetism, though not fully developed till the second century, were in existence in the first. The Spirit, presciently through John, puts the Church beforehand on its guard against the coming heresy.

TO WHOM ADDRESSED.--AUGUSTINE [The Question of the Gospels, 2.39], says this Epistle was written to the Parthians. BEDE, in a prologue to the seven Catholic Epistles, says that ATHANASIUS attests the same. By the Parthians may be meant the Christians living beyond the Euphrates in the Parthian territory, outside the Roman empire, "the Church at Babylon elected together with (you)," the churches in the Ephesian region, the quarter to which Peter addressed his Epistles (1Pe 5:12). As Peter addressed the flock which John subsequently tended (and in which Paul had formerly ministered), so John, Peter's close companion after the ascension, addresses the flock among whom Peter had been when he wrote. Thus "the elect lady" (2Jo 1:1) answers "to the Church elected together" (1Pe 5:13). See further confirmation of this view in Introduction to Second John. It is not necessarily an objection to this view that John never is known to have personally ministered in the Parthian territory. For neither did Peter personally minister to the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia, though he wrote his Epistles to them. Moreover, in John's prolonged life, we cannot dogmatically assert that he did not visit the Parthian Christians, after Peter had ceased to minister to them, on the mere ground of absence of extant testimony to that effect. This is as probable a view as ALFORD'S, that in the passage of AUGUSTINE, "to the Parthians," is to be altered by conjectural emendation; and that the Epistle is addressed to the churches at and around Ephesus, on the ground of the fatherly tone of affectionate address in it, implying his personal ministry among his readers. But his position, as probably the only surviving apostle, accords very well with his addressing, in a Catholic Epistle, a cycle of churches which he may not have specially ministered to in person, with affectionate fatherly counsel, by virtue of his general apostolic superintendence of all the churches.

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING.--This Epistle seems to have been written subsequently to his Gospel as it assumes the reader's acquaintance with the Gospel facts and Christ's speeches, and also with the special aspect of the incarnate Word, as God manifest in the flesh (1Ti 3:16), set forth more fully in his Gospel. The tone of address, as a father addressing his "little children" (the continually recurring term, 1Jo 2:1, 1Jo 2:12-13, 1Jo 2:18, 1Jo 2:28; 1Jo 3:7, 1Jo 3:18; 1Jo 4:4; 1Jo 5:21), accords with the view that this Epistle was written in John's old age, perhaps about A.D. 90. In 1Jo 2:18, "it is the last time," probably does not refer to any particular event (as the destruction of Jerusalem, which was now many years past) but refers to the nearness of the Lord's coming as proved by the rise of Antichristian teachers, the mark of the last time. It was the Spirit's purpose to keep the Church always expecting Christ as ready to come at any moment. The whole Christian age is the last time in the sense that no other dispensation is to arise till Christ comes. Compare "these last days," Heb 1:2. Ephesus may be conjectured to be the place whence it was written. The controversial allusion to the germs of Gnostic heresy accord with Asia Minor being the place, and the last part of the apostolic age the time, of writing this Epistle.

CONTENTS.--The leading subject of the whole is, fellowship with the Father and the Son (1Jo 1:3). Two principal divisions may be noted: (1) 1Jo. 1:5-2:28: the theme of this portion is stated at the outset, "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all"; consequently, in order to have fellowship with Him, we must walk in light (1Jo 1:7); connected with which in the confession and subsequent forgiveness of our sins through Christ's propitiation and advocacy, without which forgiveness there could be no light or fellowship with God: a farther step in thus walking in the light is, positively keeping God's commandments, the sum of which is love, as opposed to hatred, the acme of disobedience to God's word: negatively, he exhorts them according to their several stages of spiritual growth, children, fathers, young men, in consonance with their privileges as forgiven, knowing the Father, and having overcome the wicked one, not to love the world, which is incompatible with the indwelling of the love of the Father, and to be on their guard against the Antichristian teachers already in the world, who were not of the Church, but of the world, against whom the true defense is, that his believing readers who have the anointing of God, should continue to abide in the Son and in the Father. (2) The second division (1Jo. 2:29-5:5) discusses the theme with which it opens, He is righteous; consequently (as in the first division), "every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him." Sonship in us involves our purifying ourselves as He is pure, even as we hope to see, and therefore to be made like our Lord when He shall appear; in this second, as in the first division, both a positive and a negative side are presented of "doing righteousness as He is righteous," involving a contrast between the children of God and the children of the devil. Hatred marks the latter; love, the former: this love gives assurance of acceptance with God for ourselves and our prayers, accompanied as they are (1Jo 3:23) with obedience to His great commandment, to "believe on Jesus, and love one another"; the seal (1Jo 3:24) of His dwelling in us and assuring our hearts, is the Spirit which He hath given us. In contrast to this (as in the first division), he warns against false spirits, the notes of which are, denial of Christ, and adherence to the world. Sonship, or birth of God, is then more fully described: its essential feature is unslavish, free love to God, because God first loved us, and gave His Son to die for us, and consequent love to the brethren, grounded on their being sons of God also like ourselves, and so victory over the world; this victory being gained only by the man who believes in Jesus as the Son of God. (3) The conclusion establishes this last central truth, on which rests our fellowship with God, Christ's having come by the water of baptism, the blood of atonement, and the witnessing Spirit, which is truth. As in the opening he rested this cardinal truth on the apostles' witness of the eye, the ear, and the touch, so now at the close he rests it on God's witness, which is accepted by the believer, in contrast with the unbeliever, who makes God a liar. Then follows his closing statement of his reason for writing (1Jo 5:13; compare the corresponding 1Jo 1:4, at the beginning), namely, that believers in Christ the Son of God may know that they have (now already) eternal life (the source of "joy," 1Jo 1:4; compare similarly his object in writing the Gospel, Joh 20:31), and so have confidence as to their prayers being answered (corresponding to 1Jo 3:22 in the second part); for instance, their intercessions for a sinning brother (unless his sin be a sin unto death). He closes with a brief summing up of the instruction of the Epistle, the high dignity, sanctity, and safety from evil of the children of God in contrast to the sinful world, and a warning against idolatry, literal and spiritual: "Keep yourselves from idols."

Though the Epistle is not directly polemical, the occasion which suggested his writing was probably the rise of Antichristian teachers; and, because he knew the spiritual character of the several classes whom he addresses, children, youths, fathers, he feels it necessary to write to confirm them in the faith and joyful fellowship of the Father and Son, and to assure them of the reality of the things they believe, that so they may have the full privileges of believing.

STYLE.--His peculiarity is fondness for aphorism and repetition. His tendency to repeat his own phrase, arises partly from the affectionate, hortatory character of the Epistle; partly, also, from its Hebraistic forms abounding in parallel clauses, as distinguished from the Grecian and more logical style of Paul; also, from his childlike simplicity of spirit, which, full of his one grand theme, repeats, and dwells on it with fond delight and enthusiasm. Moreover as ALFORD well says, the appearance of uniformity is often produced by want of deep enough exegesis to discover the real differences in passages which seem to express the same. Contemplative, rather than argumentative, he dwells more on the general, than on the particular, on the inner, than on the outer, Christian life. Certain fundamental truths he recurs to again and again, at one time enlarging on, and applying them, at another time repeating them in their condensed simplicity. The thoughts do not march onward by successive steps, as in the logical style of Paul, but rather in circle drawn round one central thought which he reiterates, ever reverting to it, and viewing it, now under its positive, now under its negative, aspect. Many terms which in the Gospel are given as Christ's, in the Epistle appear as the favorite expressions of John, naturally adopted from the Lord. Thus the contrasted terms, "flesh" and "spirit," "light" and "darkness," "life" and "death," "abide in Him": fellowship with the Father and Son, and with one another," is a favorite phrase also, not found in the Gospel, but in Acts and Paul's Epistles. In him appears the harmonious union of opposites, adapting him for his high functions in the kingdom of God, contemplative repose of character, and at the same time ardent zeal, combined with burning, all-absorbing love: less adapted for active outward work, such as Paul's, than for spiritual service. He handles Christian verities not as abstract dogmas, but as living realities, personally enjoyed in fellowship with God in Christ, and with the brethren. Simple, and at the same time profound, his writing is in consonance with his spirit, unrhetorical and undialectic, gentle, consolatory, and loving: the reflection of the Spirit of Him on whose breast he lay at the last supper, and whose beloved disciple he was. EWALD in ALFORD, speaking of the "unruffled and heavenly repose" which characterizes this Epistle, says, "It appears to be the tone, not so much of a father talking with his beloved children, as of a glorified saint addressing mankind from a higher world. Never in any writing has the doctrine of heavenly love--a love working in stillness, ever unwearied, never exhausted--so thoroughly approved itself as in this Epistle."

JOHN'S PLACE IN THE BUILDING UP OF THE CHURCH.--As Peter founded and Paul propagated, so John completed the spiritual building. As the Old Testament puts prominently forward the fear of God, so John, the last writer of the New Testament, gives prominence to the love of God. Yet, as the Old Testament is not all limited to presenting the fear of God, but sets forth also His love, so John, as a representative of the New Testament, while breathing so continually the spirit of love, gives also the plainest and most awful warnings against sin, in accordance with his original character as Boanerges, "son of thunder." His mother was Salome, mother of the sons of Zebedee, probably sister to Jesus' mother (compare Joh 19:25, "His mother's sister," with Mat 27:56; Mar 15:40), so that he was cousin to our Lord; to his mother, under God, he may have owed his first serious impressions. Expecting as she did the Messianic kingdom in glory, as appears from her petition (Mat 20:20-23), she doubtless tried to fill his young and ardent mind with the same hope. NEANDER distinguishes three leading tendencies in the development of the Christian doctrine, the Pauline, the Jacobean (between which the Petrine forms an intermediate link), and the Johannean. John, in common with James, was less disposed to the intellectual and dialectic cast of thought which distinguishes Paul. He had not, like the apostle of the Gentiles, been brought to faith and peace through severe conflict; but, like James, had reached his Christian individuality through a quiet development: James, however, had passed through a moulding in Judaism previously, which, under the Spirit, caused him to present Christian truth in connection with the law, in so far as the latter in its spirit, though not letter, is permanent, and not abolished, but established under the Gospel. But John, from the first, had drawn his whole spiritual development from the personal view of Christ, the model man, and from intercourse with Him. Hence, in his writings, everything turns on one simple contrast: divine life in communion with Christ; death in separation from Him, as appears from his characteristic phrases, "life, light, truth; death, darkness, lie." "As James and Peter mark the gradual transition from spiritualized Judaism to the independent development of Christianity, and as Paul represents the independent development of Christianity in opposition to the Jewish standpoint, so the contemplative element of John reconciles the two, and forms the closing point in the training of the apostolic Church" [NEANDER].

JFB: 1 John (Outline)

• THE WRITER'S AUTHORITY AS AN EYEWITNESS TO THE GOSPEL FACTS, HAVING SEEN, HEARD, AND HANDLED HIM WHO WAS FROM THE BEGINNING: HIS OBJECT IN WRITING: HIS MESSAGE. IF WE WOULD HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH HIM, WE MUST WALK IN LIGHT, AS HE IS LIGHT. (1Jo 1:1-10) Instead of a formal, John adopts a virtual address (compare 1Jo 1:4). To wish joy to the reader was the ancient customary address. The sentence begun in 1Jo 1:1 is broken off by the parenthetic 1Jo 1:2, and is resumed at 1Jo 1:3 with the repetition of some words from 1Jo 1:1.
• THE ADVOCACY OF CHRIST IS OUR ANTIDOTE TO SIN WHILE WALKING IN THE LIGHT; FOR TO KNOW GOD, WE MUST KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS AND LOVE THE BRETHREN, AND NOT LOVE THE WORLD, NOR GIVE HEED TO ANTICHRISTS, AGAINST WHOM OUR SAFETY IS THROUGH THE INWARD ANOINTING OF GOD TO ABIDE IN GOD: SO AT CHRIST'S COMING WE SHALL NOT BE ASHAMED. (1Jo. 2:1-29) (1Jo 5:18.)
• DISTINGUISHING MARKS OF THE CHILDREN OF GOD AND THE CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL. BROTHERLY LOVE THE ESSENCE OF TRUE RIGHTEOUSNESS. (1Jo. 3:1-24)
• TESTS OF FALSE PROPHETS. LOVE, THE TEST OF BIRTH FROM GOD, AND THE NECESSARY FRUIT OF KNOWING HIS GREAT LOVE IN CHRIST TO US. (1Jo. 4:1-21)
• WHO ARE THE BRETHREN ESPECIALLY TO BE LOVED (1Jo 4:21); OBEDIENCE, THE TEST OF LOVE, EASY THROUGH FAITH, WHICH OVERCOMES THE WORLD. LAST PORTION OF THE EPISTLE. THE SPIRIT'S WITNESS TO THE BELIEVER'S SPIRITUAL LIFE. TRUTHS REPEATED AT THE CLOSE: FAREWELL WARNING. (1Jo. 5:1-21) Reason why our "brother" (1Jo 4:21) is entitled to such love, namely, because he is "born (begotten) of God": so that if we want to show our love to God, we must show it to God's visible representative.

TSK: 1 John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

1Jo 1:1, He describes the person of Christ, in whom we have eternal life, by a communion with God; 1Jo 1:5, to which we must adjoin holiness of life, to testify the truth of that our communion and profession of faith, as also to assure us of the forgiveness of our sins by Christ’s death.

Poole: 1 John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

ARGUMENT

Concerning the penman of the First Epistle, it doth not appear there hath been any doubt, the ancients generally ascribing it to the apostle St. John. The time of his writing it is uncertain, some assigning to it an earlier, others a later date. It is thought to have been written directly to the Christian Jews, not living in Judea, but remote in Parthia, (where it appears great numbers of them resided), being styled by a noted father, "The Epistle to the Parthians." The design of it is to confirm them in the great fundamental doctrine of Christianity: That our Lord Jesus was the Messiah, against the attempts of divers apostate or degenerate Christians, who (whether this Epistle were of the former or latter date) did in his time deny, or essentially deprave, that most important article. And not only to induce them all most stedfastly to believe it, but to impress it more deeply upon their souls, to reduce the more licentious, to raise and quicken the dead and carnal to a more strict, lively, vigorous Christianity; and (which is greatly inculcated) to excite and inflame mutual Christian love among them, as that which would more strongly fortify them against the endeavours of seducers, and render their communion more pleasant among themselves. The other two Epistles are very much of the same argument, (though the latter hath somewhat of a different and peculiar concernment), but doubted by some whether by the same penman, upon very insufficient grounds, the matter and style, plainly enough, showing them to be this apostle’ s.

1 JOHN CHAPTER 1

1Jo 1:1-4 The apostle professeth to declare what he had formerly

seen and known of the Word of life, to the end that

others might have fellowship with him.

1Jo 1:5-10 The substance of his doctrine is: That to have

fellowship with God, we must be holy as he is holy;

and that if we confess our sins, we shall be forgiven

through the blood of Christ.

The order of discourse requires we begin with the last

thing in this verse,

the Word of life This phrase, the Word,

is by this apostle (not here to inquire in what notion some,

both Jews and pagans, before took it) familiarly used, to signify the

eternal Son of God: and whereas this is his usual style in speaking of

this sacred Person, as in the entrance of his Gospel, (so very like

that of this Epistle), so often over in his Revelation, Rev 19:13 ,

and that afterwards in this Epistle itself, 1Jo 5:7 , he so

readily falls into the mention of him by this name, (as not doubting

to be understood), it is scarce to be supposed, that being so constant

to himself herein, he should use the same form of speech without any

such intendment in this place, where the circumstances do both allow

and invite us so to understand him. Nor doth the addition to it here,

the Word of life, render it the less fit to be applied to this

purpose, but rather the more; as serving to denote the peculiar

excellency of this Word, that he is the living and vivifying Word;

whereupon he also styles him in the following verse, simply, the

life, and, that eternal life, ( which is fit to be noted here, viz.

that these three expressions, the Word of life, the life, and

that eternal life, do, by the contexture of the discourse, plainly

mean the same thing, and seem in their principal intendment to be set

down as so many titles of the Son of God), designing to represent him

as the original and radical life, the root of the holy, divine life,

to all who partake thereof, agreeably to his own words concerning him

in the Gospel, Joh 1:4 , In him (viz. the Word) was life,

and the life was the light of men (i.e. the Word was a vital,

enlivening light); and 1Jo 5:20 , He (viz. the Son of God) is

eternal life: and to our Lord’ s words of himself, I am the life,

Joh 11:25 14:6 ; and that the Father had given him to

have life in himself, Joh 5:26 , and consequently, to be capable

of being to others an original or fountain of life. Yet whereas by

the Word, and the Word of life, is often signified the gospel,

1Jo 2:5 Phi 2:16 ; and elsewhereit seems not incongruous or

disagreeable to this context, to understand the apostle, as designing

to comprehend both the meanings together in one expression, apt enough

to include them both. See Dr. Hammond in loco. Nor are they of so

remote an import, considered in their relation to us, as not fitly to

admit of being both intended at once. The Son of God being his

internal Word, the Word of his mind, his Wisdom, (another appellation

of him, frequent in Scripture, Pro 8:1-36 and elsewhere),

comprehending all ideas of things to be created or done; to us, the

immediate original of light and life, and by whose vivifying beams we

are especially to be transformed into the Divine likeness: the gospel

being his external word, the word of his mouth, the radiation of those

beams themselves. As we do ourselves first conceive, and form in our

minds, what we afterwards utter and express: only whereas our thonght,

or the word of our mind, is fluid, and soon vanishes; God’ s (in whom

is no change) is permanent, consubstantial and coeternal with himself:

The Word was with God, and the Word was God, Joh 1:1 . Neither

are these two senses of the Word of life less fitly (or with more

impropriety) comprehended together under that one expression, than in

common discourse: speaking of the sun in reference to ourselves, we

often comprehend together in our meaning, both the body of the sun

itself and its beams; as when we say it enlightens us, revives us,

shines in at this window, or upon that dial, we do not intend (as

reasonably we cannot) to exclude either, but mean the sun doth it by

its beams. And now the notion being settled of the Word of life,

(which was necessary first to be done, and which required a larger

discourse), we may the more easily perceive, how what is here said of

it may, in the one sense or the other, be applied thereto.

That which was from the beginning so the living Word, in the

first sense, was, viz. when all things also began; which is not said

itself then to have begun, as Joh 1:1 : In the beginning was the

Word, and the Word was with God, and, at the next step, the Word

was God. And with what is said by this Word himself, (then taking

another, but an equivalent, name, the Wisdom of God), Pro 8:22-30 :

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works

of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever

the earth was. When, & c.— Then I was by him, as one brought up

with him, & c.: where from the beginning, and from everlasting,

we see is all one. See 1Jo 2:13,14 .

Which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled: these are all expressions indifferently applicable both:

1. To the person of the Son of God, primarily meant by the Word of life;

for that same glorious Person who was from the beginning with the

Father, viz. being now incarnate, became the object of these their

very senses, to this and the other apostles, who had so frequent

opportunity to hear, and see, and behold him, and even to handle

him with their hands, Luk 24:39 Joh 20:25 . And:

2. To the gospel revelation, a secondary (not unintended) notion of

the Word of life, and whereof these latter expressions seem

more especially meant; they denote the perfect certainty the

apostles had (the rest of whom his manner of speaking seems

purposely to comprehend with himself) of that truth, which, as he

after speaks, they testified; it being their office and business as

apostles so to do; see Joh 15:27 Act 1:21,22 4:20 ; and it was

necessary they should be able to do it with such assurance as these

expressions import.

Therefore having said,

which we have heard which imports a more

overly notice, it is added,

which we have seen a much more

certain way of knowing, as 2Pe 1:16,17 ; and

with our eyes a

more lively expression of that certainty, as Job expresses his

expected sight of his Redeemer, Job 19:27 : and to signify it was

not a casual, transient glance, it is further said, which we have

looked upon, eyeasameya , i.e. studiously, and of set purpose,

bent ourselves to contemplate. Unto all which it is moreover added,

and our hands have handledeqhlafhsan , which though literally

not otherwise applicable than to the person of our Lord incarnate, yet

is a most emphatical metaphor, elegantly representing their most

certain knowledge and lively sense of his excellent doctrine; as the

expression is usual of a palpable truth, to signify a most evident

one. So is that implied to be a truth that may be felt, that this

world hath a mighty and bountiful Sustainer and Lord, Act 17:27 ;

qhlafhseian .

MHCC: 1 John (Book Introduction)

This epistle is a discourse upon the principles of Christianity, in doctrine and practice. The design appears to be, to refute and guard against erroneous and unholy tenets, principles, and practices, especially such as would lower the Godhead of Christ, and the reality and power of his sufferings and death, as an atoning sacrifice; and against the assertion that believers being saved by grace, are not required to obey the commandments. This epistle also stirs up all who profess to know God, to have communion with him, and to believe in him, and that they walk in holiness, not in sin, showing that a mere outward profession is nothing, without the evidence of a holy life and conduct. It also helps forward and excites real Christians to communion with God and the Lord Jesus Christ, to constancy in the true faith, and to purity of life.

MHCC: 1 John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

(1Jo 1:1-4) The apostle prefaces his epistle to believers in general, with evident testimonies to Christ, for promoting their happiness and joy.

(1Jo 1:5-10) The necessity of a life of holiness, in order to communion with God, is shown.

Matthew Henry: 1 John (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The First Epistle General of John

Though the continued tradition of the church attests that this epistle came from John the apostle, yet we may observe some other evidence that will confirm (or with some perhaps even outweigh) the certainty of that tradition. It should seem that the penman was one of the apostolical college by the sensible palpable assurance he had of the truth of the Mediator's person in his human nature: That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life, 1Jo 1:1. Here he takes notice of the evidence the Lord gave to Thomas of his resurrection, by calling him to feel the prints of the nails and of the spear, which is recorded by John. And he must have been one of the disciples present when the Lord came on the same day in which he arose from the dead, and showed them his hands and his side, Joh 20:20. But, that we may be assured which apostle this was, there is scarcely a critic or competent judge of diction, or style of argument and spirit, but will adjudge this epistle to the writer of that gospel that bears the name of the apostle John. They wonderfully agree in the titles and characters of the Redeemer: The Word, the Life, the Light; his name was the Word of God. Compare 1Jo 1:1 and 1Jo 5:7 with Joh 1:1 and Rev 19:13. They agree in the commendation of God's love to us (1Jo 3:9; 1Jo 4:7; and 1Jo 5:1; Joh 3:5, Joh 3:6). Lastly (to add no more instances, which may be easily seen in comparing this epistle with that gospel), they agree in the allusion to, or application of, that passage in that gospel which relates (and which alone relates) the issuing of water and blood out of the Redeemer's opened side: This is he that came by water and blood, 1Jo 5:6. Thus the epistle plainly appears to flow from the same pen as that gospel did. Now I know not that the text, or the intrinsic history of any of the gospels, gives us such assurance of its writer or penman as that ascribed to John plainly does. There (viz. Joh 21:24) the sacred historian thus notifies himself: This is the disciple that testifieth of these things and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true. Now who is this disciple, but he concerning whom Peter asked, What shall this man do? And concerning whom the Lord answered, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? (Joh 21:22). And who (Joh 21:20) is described by these three characters: - 1. That he is the disciple whom Jesus loved, the Lord's peculiar friend. 2. That he also leaned on his breast at supper. 3. That he said unto him, Lord, who is he that betrayeth thee? As sure then as it is that that disciple was John, so sure may the church be that that gospel and this epistle came from the beloved John.

The epistle is styled general, as being not inscribed to any particular church; it is, as a circular letter (or visitation charge), sent to divers churches (some say of Parthia), in order to confirm them in their stedfast adherence to the Lord Christ, and the sacred doctrines concerning his person and office, against seducers; and to instigate them to adorn that doctrine by love to God and man, and particularly to each other, as being descended from God, united by the same head, and travelling towards the same eternal life.

Matthew Henry: 1 John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

Evidence given concerning Christ's person and excellency (1Jo 1:1, 1Jo 1:2). The knowledge thereof gives us communion with God and Christ (1Jo 1:3), and joy (1Jo 1:4). A description of God (1Jo 1:5). How we are thereupon to walk (1Jo 1:6). The benefit of such walking (1Jo 1:7). The way to forgiveness (1Jo 1:9). The evil of denying our sin (1Jo 1:8-10).

Barclay: 1 John (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST LETTER OF JOHN

A Personal Letter And Its Background

First John is entitled a letter but it has no opening address nor closing greetings such as the letters of Paul have. And yet no one can read it without feeling its intensely personal character. Beyond all doubt the man who wrote it had in his mindeye a definite situation and a definite group of people. Both the form and the personal character of First John will be explained if we think of it as what someone has called "a loving and anxious sermon" written by a pastor who loved his people and sent out to the various churches over which he had charge.

Any such letter is produced by an actual situation apart from which it cannot be fully understood. If, then, we wish to understand First John we have first of all to try to reconstruct the situation which produced it, remembering that it was written in Ephesus a little after A.D. 100.

The Falling Away

By A.D. 100 certain things had almost inevitably happened within the Church, especially in a place like Ephesus.

(i) Many were now second or even third generation Christians. The thrill of the first days had, to some extent at least, passed away. Wordsworth said of one of the great moments of modern history:

"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive."

In the first days of Christianity there was a glory and a splendour, but now Christianity had become a thing of habit, "traditional, half-hearted, nominal." Men had grown used to it and something of the wonder was lost. Jesus knew men and he had said: "Most menlove will grow cold" (Mat_24:12 ). John was writing at a time when, for some at least, the first thrill was gone and the flame of devotion had died to a flicker.

(ii) One result was that there were members of the Church who found the standards which Christianity demanded a burden and a weariness. They did not want to be saints in the New Testament sense of the term. The New Testament word for saint is hagios (G40), which is also commonly translated holy. Its basic meaning is different. The Temple was hagios (G39) because it was different from other buildings; the Sabbath was hagios (G40) because it was different from other days; the Jewish nation was hagios (G40) because it was different from other peoples; and the Christian was called to be hagios (G40) because he was called to be different from other men. There was always a distinct cleavage between the Christian and the world. In the Fourth Gospel Jesus says, "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you" (Joh_15:19 ). "I have given them thy word," said Jesus in his prayer to God, "and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world" (Joh_17:14 ).

All this involved an ethical demand. It demanded a new standard of moral purity, a new kindness, a new service, a new forgiveness--and it was difficult. And once the first thrill and enthusiasm were gone it became harder and harder to stand out against the world and to refuse to conform to the generally accepted standards and practices of the age.

(iii) It is to be noted that First John shows no signs that the Church to which it was written was being persecuted. The peril, as it has been put, was not persecution but seduction; it came from within. That, too, Jesus had foreseen. "Many false prophets," he said, "will arise, and lead many astray" (Mat_24:11 ). This was a danger of which Paul had warned the leaders of this very Church of Ephesus when he made his farewell address to them. "I know," he said, "that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. And from among your own selves will arise men, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them" (Act_20:29-30 ).

The trouble which First John seeks to combat did not come from men out to destroy the Christian faith but from men who thought they were improving it. It came from men whose aim was to make Christianity intellectually respectable. They knew the intellectual tendencies and currents of the day and felt that the time had come for Christianity to come to terms with secular philosophy and contemporary thought.

The Contemporary Philosophy

What, then, was this contemporary thought and philosophy with which the false prophets and mistaken teachers wished to align the Christian faith? Throughout the Greek world there was a tendency of thought to which the general name of Gnosticism is given. The basic belief of all Gnostic thought was that only spirit was good and matter was essentially evil. The Gnostic, therefore, inevitably despised the world since it was matter. In particular he despised the body which, being matter, was necessarily evil. Imprisoned within this body was the spirit of man. That spirit was a seed of God, who was altogether good. So, then, the aim of life must be to release this heavenly seed imprisoned in the evil of the body. That could be done only by a secret knowledge and elaborate ritual which only the true Gnostic could supply. Here was a tendency of thought which was written deep into Greek thinking--and which has not even vet ceased to exist. Its basis is the conviction that all matter is evil and spirit alone is good, and that the one real aim in life is to liberate manspirit from the vile prison-house of the body.

The False Teachers

With that in our minds let us turn to First John and gather the evidence as to who these false teachers were and what they taught. They had been within the Church but they had seceded from it. "They went out from us, but they were not of us" (1Jo_2:19 ). They were men of influence for they claimed to be prophets. "Many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1Jo_4:1 ). Although they had left the Church, they still tried to disseminate their teaching within it and to seduce its members from the true faith (1Jo_2:26 ).

The Denial Of Jesusessiahship

At least some of these false teachers denied that Jesus was the Messiah. "Who is a liar," demands John, "but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?" (1Jo_2:22 ). It is most likely that these false teachers were not Gnostics proper, but Jews. Things had always been difficult for Jewish Christians, but the events of history made them doubly so. It was very difficult for a Jew to come to believe in a crucified Messiah. But suppose he had begun so to believe, his difficulties were by no means finished. The Christians believed that Jesus would return quickly to vindicate his people. Clearly that would be a hope that would be specially dear to the heart of the Jews. Then in A.D. 70 Jerusalem was captured by the Romans, who were so infuriated with the long intransigence and the suicidal resistance of the Jews that they tore the Holy City stone from stone and drew a plough across the midst of it. In view of that, how could any Jew easily accept the hope that Jesus would come and save his people? The Holy City was desolate; the Jews were dispersed throughout the world. In face of that how could it be true that the Messiah had come?

The Denial Of The Incarnation

There was something even more serious than that. There was false teaching which came directly from an attempt from within the Church to bring Christianity into line with Gnosticism. We must remember the Gnostic point of view that spirit alone was good and matter utterly evil. Given that point of view any real incarnation is impossible. That is exactly what centuries later Augustine was to point out. Before he became a Christian, he was skilled in the philosophies of the various schools. In the Confessions (1Jo_6:9 ) he tells us that somewhere in the heathen writers he had read in one form or another nearly all the things which Christianity says; but there was one great Christian saying which he had never found in any pagan author and which no one would ever find, and that saying was: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (Joh_1:14 ). Since the heathen thinkers believed in the essential evil of matter and therefore the essential evil of the body, that was one thing they could never say.

It is clear that the false teachers against whom John was writing in this First Letter denied the reality of the incarnation and of Jesushysical body. "Every spirit," writes John, "which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God" (1Jo_4:2-3 ).

In the early Church this refusal to admit the reality of the incarnation took, broadly speaking, two forms.

(i) In its most radical and wholesale form it was called Docetism, which Goodspeed suggests might be translated Seemism. The Greek verb dokein (G1380) means to seem; and the Docetists taught that Jesus only seemed to have a body. They insisted that he was a purely spiritual being who had nothing but the appearance of having a body. One of the apocryphal books written from this point of view is the Acts of John, which dates from about A.D. 160. In it John is made to say that sometimes when he touched Jesus he seemed to meet with a material body but at other times "the substance was immaterial, as if it did not exist at all," and also that when Jesus walked he never left any footprint upon the ground. The simplest form of Docetism is the complete denial that Jesus ever had a physical body.

(ii) There was a more subtle, and perhaps more dangerous, variant of this theory connected with the name of Cerinthus. In tradition John and Cerinthus were sworn enemies. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 4: 14.6) hands down a story which tells how John went to the public bathhouse in Ephesus to bathe. He saw Cerinthus inside and refused even to enter the building. "Let us flee," he said, "lest even the bathhouse fall, because Cerinthus the enemy of truth is within." Cerinthus drew a definite distinction between the human Jesus and the divine Christ. He said that Jesus was a man, born in a perfectly natural way. He lived in special obedience to God, and after his baptism the Christ in the shape of a dove descended upon him, from that power which is above all powers, and then he brought to men news of the Father who had been as yet unknown. Cerinthus did not stop there. He said that at the end of Jesusife, the Christ again withdrew from him so that the Christ never suffered at all. It was the human Jesus who suffered, died and rose again.

This again comes out in the stories of the apocryphal gospels written under the influence of this point of view. In the Gospel of Peter, written about A.D. 130, it is said that Jesus showed no pain upon the Cross and that his cry was: "My power! My power! Why hast thou forsaken me?" It was at that moment that the divine Christ left the human Jesus. The Acts of John go further. They tell how, when the human Jesus was being crucified on Calvary, John was actually talking to the divine Christ in a cave in the hillside and that the Christ said to him, "John, to the multitude down below in Jerusalem I am being crucified, and pierced with lances and with reeds, and gall and vinegar are given me to drink. But I am speaking to you, and listen to what I say.... Nothing, therefore, of the things they will say of me have I suffered" (Acts of John 97).

We may see how widespread this way of thinking was from the Letters of Ignatius. He was writing to a group of Churches in Asia Minor which must have been much the same as that to which First John was written. When Ignatius wrote he was a prisoner and was being conveyed to Rome to be martyred by being flung to the beasts in the arena. He wrote to the Trallians: "Be deaf, therefore. when anyone speaks to you apart from Jesus Christ, who was of the family of David and Mary, who was truly born, both ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died . . . who also was truly raised from the dead.... But if, as some affirm, who are without God that is, who are unbelievers--his suffering was only a semblance ... why am I a prisoner?" (Ignatius: To the Trallians 9 and 10). To the Christians at Smyrna he wrote: "For he suffered all these things for us that we might attain salvation, and he truly suffered even as he also truly raised himself, not as some unbelievers say that his passion was merely in semblance" (To the Smyrnaeans 2). Polycarp writing to the Philippians used Johnvery words: "For everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an anti-Christ" (To the Philippians chapter 7: 1).

This teaching of Cerinthus is also rebuked in First John. John writes of Jesus: "This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and the blood" (1Jo_5:6 ). The point of that verse is that the Gnostic teachers would have agreed that the divine Christ came by water, that is, at the baptism of Jesus; but they would have denied that he came by blood, that is, by the Cross, for they insisted that the divine Christ left the human Jesus before his crucifixion.

The great danger of this heresy is that it comes from what can only be called a mistaken reverence. It is afraid to ascribe to Jesus full humanity. It regards it as irreverent to think that he had a truly physical body. It is a heresy which is by no means dead but is held to this day, usually quite unconsciously, by not a few devout Christians. But it must be remembered, as John so clearly saw, that mansalvation was dependent on the full identification of Jesus Christ with him. As one of the great early fathers unforgettably put it: "He became what we are to make us what he is."

(iii) This Gnostic belief had certain practical consequences in the lives of those who held it.

(a) The Gnostic attitude to matter and to all created things produced a certain attitude to the body and the things of the body. That attitude might take any one of three different forms.

(1) It might take the form of asceticism, with fasting and celibacy and rigid control, even deliberate ill-treatment, of the body. The view that celibacy is better than marriage and that sex is sin go back to Gnostic influence and belief--and this is a view which still lingers on in certain quarters. There is no trace of that view in this letter.

(2) It might take the form of a contention that the body did not matter and that, therefore, its appetites might be gratified without limit. Since the body was in any event evil, it made no difference what a man did with it. There are echoes of this in this letter. John condemns as a liar the man who says that he knows God and vet does not keep Godcommandments; the man who says that he abides in Christ ought to walk as Christ walked (1Jo_1:6 ; 1Jo_2:4-6 ). There were clearly Gnostics in these communities who claimed special knowledge of God but whose conduct was far removed from the demand of the Christian ethic.

In certain quarters this Gnostic belief went even further. The Gnostic was the man who had gnosis (G1108), knowledge. Some held that the real Gnostic must, therefore, know the best as well as the worst and must enter into every experience of life at its highest or at its deepest level, as the case may be. It might almost be said that such men held that it was an obligation to sin. There is a reference to this kind of belief in the letter to Thyatira in the Revelation, where the Risen Christ refers to those who have known "the deep things of Satan" (Rev_2:24 ). And it may well be that John is referring to these people when he insists that "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1Jo_1:5 ). These particular Gnostics would have held that there was in God not only blazing light but deep darkness and that a man must penetrate both. It is easy to see the disastrous consequences of such a belief.

(3) There was a third kind of Gnostic belief. The true Gnostic regarded himself as an altogether spiritual man, as having shed all the material things of life and released his spirit from the bondage of matter. Such Gnostics held that they were so spiritual that they were above and beyond sin and had reached spiritual perfection. It is to them that John refers when he speaks of those who deceive themselves by saying that they have no sin (1Jo_1:8-10 ).

Whichever of these three ways Gnostic belief took, its ethical consequences were perilous in the extreme; and it is clear that its last two were to be found in the society to which John wrote.

(b) Further, this Gnosticism issued in an attitude to men which was the necessary destruction of Christian fellowship. We have seen that the Gnostic aimed at the release of the spirit from the prison house of the evil body by means of an elaborate and esoteric knowledge. Clearly such a knowledge was not for every man. Ordinary people were too involved in the everyday life and work of the world ever to have time for the study and discipline necessary; and, even if they had had such time, many were intellectually incapable of grasping the involved speculations of Gnostic theosophy and philosophy so-called.

This produced an inevitable result. It divided men into two classes those who were capable of a really spiritual life and those who were not. The Gnostics had names for these two classes of men. The ancients commonly divided the being of man into three parts. There was the soma (G4983), the body, the physical part of man. There was the psuche (G5590), which we generally translate soul, but we must have a care for it does not mean what we mean by soul. To the Greeks the psuche (G5590) was the principle of physical life. Everything which had physical life had psuche (G5590). Psuche was that life principle which a man shared with all living creatures. There was the pneuma (G4151), the spirit; and it was the spirit which was possessed only by man and made him kin to God.

The aim of Gnosticism was the release of the pneuma (G4151) from the soma (G4983); but that release could be won only by long and arduous study which only the leisured intellectual could ever undertake. The Gnostics, therefore, divided men into two classes the psuchikoi (G5591), who could never advance beyond the principle of physical life and never attain to anything else than what was to all intents and purposes animal living; and the pneumatikoi (G4152), who were truly spiritual and truly akin to God.

The result was clear. The Gnostics produced a spiritual aristocracy who looked with contempt and even hatred on lesser men. The pneumatikoi (G4152) regarded the psuchikoi (G5591) as contemptible, earthbound creatures who could never know what real religion was. The consequence was obviously the annihilation of Christian fellowship. That is why John insists all over his letter that the true test of Christianity is love for the brethren. If we really are walking in the light we have fellowship with one another (1Jo_1:7 ). He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in fact in darkness (1Jo_2:9-11 ). The proof that we have passed from dark to light is that we love the brethren (1Jo_3:14-17 ). The marks of Christianity are belief in Christ and love for the brethren (1Jo_3:23 ). God is love and he who does not love does not know God at all (1Jo_4:7-8 ). Because God loved us, we ought to love each other; it is when we love each other that God dwells in us (1Jo_4:10-12 ). The commandment is that he who loves God must love his brother also, and he who says he loves God and at the same time hates his brother is branded as a liar (1Jo_4:20-21 ). The Gnostic, to put it bluntly, would have said that the mark of true religion is contempt for ordinary men; John insists in every chapter that the mark of true religion is love for every man.

Here, then, is a picture of these Gnostic heretics. They talked of being born of God, of walking in the light, of having no sin, of dwelling in God, of knowing God. These were their catch phrases. They had no idea of destroying the Church and the faith; by their way of it they were going to cleanse the Church of dead wood and make Christianity an intellectually respectable philosophy, fit to stand beside the great systems of the day. But the effect of their teaching was to deny the incarnation, to eliminate the Christian ethic and to make fellowship within the Church impossible. It is little wonder that John seeks, with such fervent pastoral devotion, to defend the churches he loved from such an insidious attack from within. This was a threat far more perilous than any heathen persecution; the very existence of the Christian faith was at stake.

The Message Of John

First John is a short letter and we cannot look within it for a systematic exposition of the Christian faith. None the less it will be of the greatest interest to examine the basic underlying beliefs with which John confronts those threatening to be the wreckers of the Christian faith.

The Object Of Writing

Johnobject in writing is two-fold yet one. He writes that the joy of his people may be complete (1Jo_1:4 ), and that they may not sin (1Jo_2:1 ). He sees clearly that, however attractive the wrong way may be, it is not in its nature to bring happiness. To bring them joy and to preserve them from sin is one and the same thing.

The Idea Of God

John has two great things to say about God. God is light and in him there is no darkness at all (1Jo_1:5 ). God is love and that made him love us before we loved him and made him send his son as a remedy for our sins (1Jo_4:7-10 , 1Jo_4:16 ). Johnconviction is that God is self-revealing and self-giving. He is light, and not darkness; he is love, and not hate.

The Idea Of Jesus

Because the main attack of the false teachers was on the person of Christ, this letter, which is concerned to answer them, is specially rich and helpful in what it has to say about him.

(i) Jesus is he who was from the beginning (1Jo_1:1 ; 1Jo_2:14 ). When a man is confronted with Jesus, he is confronted with the eternal.

(ii) Another way of putting this is to say that Jesus is the Son of God and for John it is essential to be convinced of that (1Jo_4:15 ; 1Jo_5:5 ). The relationship of Jesus to God is unique and in him is seen Godever-seeking and ever-forgiving heart.

(iii) Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah (1Jo_2:22 ; 1Jo_5:1 ). That again for him is an essential article of belief. It may seem that here we come into a region of ideas which is much narrower and, in fact, specifically Jewish. But there is something essential here. To say that Jesus is from the beginning and that he is the Son of God is to conserve his connection with eternity; to say that he is the Messiah, is to conserve his connection with history. It is to see his coming as the event towards which Godplan, working itself out in his chosen people, was moving.

(iv) Jesus was most truly and fully man. To deny that Jesus came in the flesh is to be moved by the spirit of Antichrist (1Jo_4:2-3 ). It is Johnwitness that Jesus was so truly man that he himself had known and touched and handled him (1Jo_1:1 , 1Jo_1:3 ). No writer in the New Testament holds with greater intensity the full reality of the incarnation. Not only did he become man, he also suffered for men. It was by water and blood that he came (1Jo_5:6 ); and he laid down his life for men (1Jo_3:16 ).

(v) The coming of Jesus, his incarnation, his life, his death, his resurrection and his ascension all combine to deal with the sin of man. Jesus was without sin (1Jo_3:5 ); and man is essentially a sinner, even though in his arrogance he may claim to be without sin (1Jo_1:8-10 ); and yet the sinless one came to take away the sin of sinning men (1Jo_3:5 ). In regard to mansin Jesus is two things.

(a) He is our advocate with the Father (1Jo_2:1 ). The word is parakletos (G3875). A parakletos is someone who is called in to help. The word could be used of a doctor; it was often used of a witness called in to give evidence in favour of someone on trial or of a defending lawyer called in to defend someone under accusation. Jesus pleads our case with God; he, the sinless one, is the defender of sinning men.

(b) But Jesus is more than that. Twice John calls him the expiation for our sins (1Jo_2:2 ; 1Jo_4:10 ). When a man sins, the relationship which should exist between him and God is broken. An expiatory sacrifice is one which restores that relationship or, rather, a sacrifice in virtue of which that relationship is restored. It is an atoning sacrifice, a sacrifice which once again makes man and God at one. So, then, through what Jesus was and did the relationship between God and man, broken by sin, is restored. Jesus does not only plead the case of the sinner; he sets him at one, with God. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin (1Jo_1:7 ).

(vi) In consequence of all this, through Jesus Christ men who believe have life (1Jo_4:9 ; 1Jo_5:11-12 ). This is true in a double sense. They have life in the sense that they are saved from death; and they have life in the sense that living has ceased to be mere existence and has become life indeed.

(vii) All this may be summed up by saying that Jesus is the Saviour of the world (1Jo_4:14 ). Here we have something which has to be set out in full. "The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world" (1Jo_4:14 ). We have already talked of Jesus as pleading mencase before God. If we were to leave that without addition, it might be argued that God wished to condemn men and was deflected from his dire purpose by the self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But that is not so because for John, as for every writer in the New Testament, the whole initiative was with God. It was he who sent his son to be the Saviour of men.

Within the short compass of this letter the wonder and the glory and the grace of Christ are most fully set out.

The Spirit

In this letter John has less to say about the Spirit; for his highest teaching about him we must turn back to the Fourth Gospel. It may be said that in First John the function of the Spirit is in some sense to be the liaison between God and man. It is he who makes us conscious that there is within us the abiding presence of God through Jesus Christ (1Jo_3:24 ; 1Jo_4:13 ). We may say that it is the Spirit who enables us to grasp the precious fellowship with God which is being offered to us.

The World

The world within which the Christian lives is hostile; it is a world without God. It does not know the Christian, because it did not know Christ (1Jo_3:1 ). It hates the Christian, just as it hated Christ (1Jo_3:13 ). The false teachers are of the world and not of God, and it is because they speak its language that the world is ready to hear them and accept them (1Jo_4:4-5 ). The whole world, says John sweepingly, is in the power of the evil one (1Jo_5:19 ). It is for that reason that the Christian has to overcome it, and his weapon in his struggle with the world is faith (1Jo_5:4 ).

Hostile as the world is, it is doomed. The world and all its desires are passing away (1Jo_2:17 ). That, indeed, is why it is folly to give oneheart to the world; it is on the way to dissolution. Although the Christian lives in a hostile world which is passing away, there is no need for despair and fear. The darkness is past, the true light now shines (1Jo_2:8 ). God in Christ has broken into time; the new age has come. It is not yet fully realized but the consummation is sure.

The Christian lives in an evil and a hostile world, but he possesses that by which he can overcome it and, when the destined end of the world comes, he is safe, because he already possesses that which makes him a member of the new community in the new age.

The Fellowship Of The Church

John does more than move in the high realms of theology; he has certain most practical things to say about the Christian Church and the Christian life. No New Testament writer stresses more consistently or more strenuously the necessity of Christian fellowship. Christians, John was convinced, are not only bound to God, they are also bound to each other. When we walk in the light, we have fellowship with each other (1Jo_1:7 ). The man who claims to walk in the light but hates his brother, is in reality walking in darkness; it is the man who loves his brother who is in the light (1Jo_2:9-11 ). The proof that a man has passed from darkness to light is the fact that he loves his brother. To hate onebrother man is in essence to be a murderer, as Cain was. If any man is able out of his fullness to help his brotherpoverty and does not do so, it is ridiculous for him to claim that the love of God dwells in him. The essence of religion is to believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and to love one another (1Jo_3:11-17 , 1Jo_3:23 ). God is love; and, therefore, the man who loves is kin to God. God has loved us, and that is the best reason for loving each other (1Jo_4:7-12 ). If a man says that he loves God and at the same time hates his brother, he is a liar. The command is that he who loves God must love his brother also (1Jo_4:20-21 ).

It was Johnconviction that the only way in which a man can prove that he loves God is by loving his fellow-men; and that that love must be not only a sentimental emotion but a dynamic towards practical help.

The Righteousness Of The Christian

No New Testament writer makes a stronger ethical demand than John, or more strongly condemns a so-called religion which fails to issue in ethical action. God is righteous and the life of every one who knows him must reflect his righteousness (1Jo_2:29 ). Whoever abides in Christ and is born of God, does not sin; whoever does not do right is not of God (1Jo_3:3-10 ); and the characteristic of this righteousness is that it issues in love for the brethren (1Jo_3:10-11 ). We show our love to God and to men by keeping Godcommandments (1Jo_5:2 ). Whoever is born of God does not sin (1Jo_5:18 ).

For John, knowledge of God and obedience to him must ever go hand in hand. It is by keeping his commandments that we prove that we really do know God. The man who says that he knows him and who does not keep his commandments is a liar (1Jo_2:3-5 ).

It is, in fact, this obedience which is the basis of effective prayer. We receive what we ask of God because we keep his commandments and do what is pleasing in his sight (1Jo_3:22 ).

The two marks which characterize genuine Christianity are love of the brethren and obedience to the revealed commandments of God.

The Destination Of The Letter

There are certain baffling problems in regard to the letterdestination. The letter itself gives us no clue as to where it was sent. Tradition strongly connects it with Asia Minor, and especially with Ephesus, where, according to tradition, John lived for many years. But there are certain other odd facts which somehow have to be explained.

Cassiodorus says that the First Letter of John was written Ad Parthos, To the Parthians (compare G3934); and Augustine has a series of ten tractates written on The Epistle of John ad Parthos. One Geneva manuscript still further complicates the matter by entitling the letter Ad Sparthos. There is no such word as Sparthos. There are two possible explanations of this impossible title: (i) Just possibly it is meant for Ad Sparsos, which would mean To the Christians scattered abroad; (ii) In Greek Ad Parthos would be Pros Parthous. Now in the early manuscripts there was no space between the words and they were all written in capital letters so that the title would run PROSPARTHOUS. A scribe writing to dictation could quite easily put that down as PROSSPARTHOUS, especially if he did not know what the title meant. Ad Sparthos can be eliminated as a mere mistake.

But where did To the Parthians come from? There is one possible explanation. Second John does tell us of its destination; it is written to The elect lady,, and her children (2Jo_1:1 ). Let us turn to the end of First Peter. The King James Version has: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you" (1Pe_5:13 ). The phrase: "the church that is" is printed in the King James Version in italics which of course, means that it has no equivalent in the Greek which has, in fact, no actual mention of a church at all. This the Revised Standard Version accurately indicates: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen (elect), sends you greetings." As far as the Greek goes it would be perfectly possible, and indeed natural, to take that as referring not to a Church but to a lad . That is precisely what certain of the scholars in the very early Church did. Now we get the elect lady again in Second John. It was easy to identify the two elect ladies and to assume that Second John was also written to Babylon. The natural title for the inhabitants of Babylon was Parthians and hence we have the explanation of the title.

The process went even further. The Greek for the elect lady is he (G3588) elekte (G1588). We have already seen that the early manuscripts were written all in capital letters; and it would be just possible to take Elekte (G1588) not as an adjective meaning elect but as a proper name, Elekta. This is, in fact, what Clement of Alexandria may have done, for we have information that he said that the Johannine letters were written to a certain Babylonian lady, Elekta by name, and to her children.

It may well be then, that the title Ad Parthos arose from a series of misunderstandings. The elect one in First Peter is quite certainly the church, as the King James Version rightly saw. Moffatt translates: "Your sister church in Babylon, elect like yourselves, salutes you." Further, it is almost certain that in any event Babylon there stands for Rome which the early writers identified with Babylon, the great harlot, drunk with the blood of the saints (compare Rev_17:5 ). The title Ad Parthos has a most interesting history but clearly it arose from an ingenious misunderstanding.

There is one further complication. Clement of Alexandria referred to Johnletters as "written to virgins." On the face of it that is improbable, for it would not be a specially relevant title for them. How, then, could it come about? The Greek would be Pros Parthenous (compare G3933) which closely resembles Pros Parthous (G3934); and, it so happens, John was regularly called Ho Parthenos (G3933), the Virgin, because he never married and because of the purity of his life. This further title must have come from a confusion between Ad Parthos (G3934) and Ho Parthenos (G3933).

This is a case where we may take it that tradition is right and all the ingenious theories mistaken. We may take it that these letters were written in Ephesus and to the surrounding Churches in Asia Minor. When John wrote, it would certainly be to the district where his writ ran, and that was Ephesus and the surrounding territory. He is never mentioned in connection with Babylon.

In Defence Of The Faith

John wrote his great letter to meet a threatening situation and in defence of the faith. The heresies which he attacked are by no means altogether echoes of "old unhappy far off things and battles long ago." They are still beneath the surface and sometimes they even still raise their heads. To study his letter will confirm us in the true faith and enable us to have a defence against that which would seduce us from it.

FURTHER READING

John

J. N. S. Alexander, The Epistles of John (Tch; E)

A. E. Brooke, The Johannine Epistles (ICC; G)

C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles (MC; E)

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: 1 John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

The Pastor's Aim (2Jo_1:1-4)

The Pastor's Right To Speak (2Jo_1:1-4 Continued)

The Pastor's Message (2Jo_1:1-4 Continued)

God Is Light (2Jo_1:5)

The Hostile Dark (2Jo_1:5 Continued)

The Necessity Of Walking In The Light (2Jo_1:6-7)

The Tests Of Truth (2Jo_1:6-7 Continued)

The Threefold Lie (2Jo_1:6-7 Continued)

The Sinner's Self-Deception (2Jo_1:8-10)

Constable: 1 John (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical Background

This epistle does not contain the name of its writer, but from its very early history the church believed the Apostle John wrote it. Several ancient writers referred to this book as John's writing.¹ Though modern critics have challenged this view they have not destroyed it.

Neither is there any reference to who the first recipients of this epistle were or where they lived other than that they were Christians (2:12-14, 21; 5:13). They may have been the leaders of churches (2:20, 27). According to early church tradition John ministered in Ephesus, the capital of the Roman province of Asia, for many years after he left Palestine. We know that he knew the churches and Christians in that Roman province well from Revelation 2 and 3. Perhaps his readers lived in that province.

The false teachers and teachings to which he alluded suggest that John wrote about conditions that existed in Asia: Judaism, Gnosticism, Docetism, the teachings of Cerinthus (a prominent Gnostic), and others.² These philosophies extended beyond Asia, but they were present there during John's lifetime.

This is one of the most difficult of all the New Testament books to date. One of the few references in the book that may help us date it is 2:19. If John meant that the false teachers had departed from among the apostles, a date in the 60s seems possible. This would place it about A.D. 60-65, before the Jewish revolts of A.D. 66-70 scattered the Jews from Judea. In this case John may have written from Jerusalem.³ However many conservative scholars believe John wrote this epistle much later. They suggest between about A.D. 85 and 97, when he evidently wrote the Gospel of John (ca. A.D. 85-95) and the Book of Revelation (ca. A.D. 95-96).⁴ I prefer a date in the 90s following the writing of John's Gospel that 1 John seems to assume.⁵ In view of the nature and the conclusion of the Book of Revelation, which seems to be God's final word to humankind, I think John probably composed his Epistles before that book. So a date for 1 John in the early 90s, A.D. 90-95, seems most probable to me.⁶

Since John ministered in and around Ephesus later in his life, that seems to be the most probable place from which he wrote this epistle.⁷

"The writer of 1 John was thus addressing a community, made up of a number of house-churches in and around Ephesus . . ., which was split in three ways. It consisted of the following: (a) Johannine Christians who were committed to the apostolic gospel of Jesus as they had received it; (b) heretically inclined members from a Jewish background; (c) heterodox followers from a Hellenistic (and/or pagan) background. The problems relating to the two heretical' groups, (b) and (c), were primarily theological and (by extension) ethical; although related difficulties concerning eschatology and pneumatology may have been present also (see on 2:18 and 4:1 . . .). . . .

"To complete the picture, it should be noted that the life of the Johannine community was marked by the presence of a fourth group of people: the secessionists. Whereas the members of the first three groups could be found within John's circle, the anti-Christian secessionists had begun to break away from it. These were heretically inclined adherents of the Johannine community. In some cases they may have been genuine, if uninformed, believers. But in other instances they perhaps never properly belonged to John's church (although they thought they did), because they never really belonged to God (see on 1 John 2:18-19; cf. also 2:22-23)."⁸

Message⁹

If I were to boil down the message of this epistle into one sentence it would be this. Fellowship with God is the essence of eternal life.

Both the Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John deal with eternal life. John wrote his Gospel so his readers might believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that believing they might have life through His name (John 20:31). John wrote this epistle to Christians so we might enter into the fullness of the eternal life that we possess (1 John 1:3; John 10:10). However the subject of this letter is not eternal life but fellowship with God. Fellowship with God is the essence of eternal life (1:3-4; John 17:3).

John evidently wrote this epistle about 90-95 A.D. from Ephesus.

This epistle grew out of Jesus' Upper Room Discourse (John 14-17). Similarly James' epistle grew out of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, and the Book of Revelation grew out of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25). In the Upper Room Discourse, Jesus explained to the apostles their relationship to God as it would exist after He sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in them (John 14:16-17). John expounded that revelation in this letter.

There are several terms in this epistle that John used as synonyms: fellowship with God, knowing God, and abiding in God. These terms all describe the experience of Christians. They all describe our relationship with God as more or less intimate.

Our relationships with people vary. They are more or less intimate.

Fellowship with God is also a matter of greater or lesser intimacy. When we speak of being "in fellowship" or "out of fellowship," we are oversimplifying our relationship to God.

John's purpose in writing was to motivate his readers to cultivate greater intimacy with God. The greater the intimacy, the greater our "fellowship," the better we "know" God experientially, and the closer we "abide" in Him (cf. John 14:21-24). The greater our intimacy with God the more we will experience the life that is eternal. All Christians possess eternal life, but all do not experience that life as God intended us to enjoy it (John 10:10). Similarly all living human beings have life, but not all live an abundant life.

This letter reveals two things about the life of fellowship.

First, it reveals the resources of this life. There are two resources.

The first is objective. God has provided a pattern for the life of fellowship. The pattern is Jesus Christ. In Christ we have personified two qualities that are characteristics of God that should also characterize us as the children of God.

The first of these is light. Jesus Christ constantly walked in the light of God's holiness (1:5-6; 2:6). He never hid from God. He also conformed to the light of God's will perfectly. He was submissive, sinless, clean, and consecrated.

The second of these resources is love. Jesus also constantly manifested the love of God (4:10). In His attitudes and activities He always demonstrated perfect love. His words and His deeds were a revelation of God's love. Jesus put others before Himself. He was selfless as well as holy.

The second resource of the life of fellowship is subjective. God has not only provided a pattern for the life of fellowship, He has also provided the power. Jesus Christ is not only an external pattern for us to imitate. More helpfully He is an internal power whom God has placed within us who is at work in our lives. With eternal life we get Jesus (5:11-12). With Him come two things.

First, we get light. We see spiritual things that we never saw before (2:20). We see how we ought to walk (2:27). We become sensitive to sin.

Second, we get love. We see the need of other people who are groping in darkness, and we desire to reach out to them in service and to bring them into the light (4:7). As soon as we share God's life we begin to love with God's love. We can quench love, but every person who has eternal life has love in him or her.

To review, this letter reveals two things about the life of fellowship: first the resources of this life, which are an external pattern and internal power. Both of these come from Jesus Christ.

Second, this letter reveals the values of the realization of this life. These are two also.

First, there is value for us. This value is that we realize life as God intended people to live it. We can experience life as God meant it to be when He first made man. We achieve our potential as human beings to the degree to which we walk in fellowship with God (i.e., abide in Him). Our intimacy with God perfects our personalities.

Second, there is also value for God. God enjoys fellowship with man. God's purpose in creation and redemption was to have fellowship with man. God finds in every person who walks with Him in fellowship a person through whom He can manifest Himself, an instrument through whom He can accomplish His purposes. The abiding believer reveals God to those around him or her.

John also called his readers to fulfill our responsibilities in the life of fellowship.

Regarding the light we have two responsibilities.

First, we must obey the light (1:7). That means responding positively to the knowledge of God's will that we gain. We can become callused to the truth. This is a special danger in seminary. Cultivate your relationship with God daily. We all need to keep weeding the gardens of our spiritual lives.

Second, we must seek the light (1:9). We need to forsake the darkness of sin and keep walking in the light. The circle of God's light may move. We may gain new understanding of His will. When that happens, we need to move into that light in obedience.

Regarding love we also have two responsibilities.

First, we must yield to its impulse. We can destroy our capacity to love by not expressing love when God moves us to do so. We can lose our passion for the lost by resisting the Holy Spirit's promptings to reach out in love. We need to be ready to sacrifice rather than to put self first. However if we yield ourselves to the impulse of love to serve others, our love will deepen and intensify. Do not quench the Spirit if He is prompting you to reach out in love.

Second, we must also guard love's purity. We need to watch out for false charity. True love never sacrifices principle. God never loved at the expense of light. Love never justifies sin.

In conclusion, notice two applications of the message of this epistle, one to the individual and one to the church.

First, let me make one application to the individual. We can test whether we are living in fellowship with God easily. Check the light and the love in our lives. Is the light of holiness shining clearly, or are we walking in darkness? Is our love still burning brightly, or has our life deteriorated to the level of only learning? Learning is only one means to the end of living, living in intimate fellowship with God. What do you want people to remember you for, your knowledge or your love?

Second, let me make one application to the church. We need to keep our priorities in line with God's. Intimacy is His goal for us. God desires a few committed disciples rather than a multitude of compromising disciples. A pure church is more important than a large church. Do not draw back from urging people to walk in the light and to walk in love to increase the size of your congregation. Make as broad an appeal as possible without pulling your punches in ministry. I'm referring here to the church's ministry of equipping the saints. In presenting the gospel, we should make as broad an appeal as possible.

Constable: 1 John (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction: the purpose of the epistle 1:1-4

II. Living in the light 1:5-2:29

A. God as light 1:5-7

B. Conditions for living in the light 1:8-2:29

1. Renouncing sin 1:8-2:2

2. Obeying God 2:3-11

3. Rejecting worldliness 2:12-17

4. Keeping the faith 2:18-29

III. Living as children of God 3:1-5:13

A. God as Father 3:1-3

B. Conditions for living as God's children 3:4-5:13

1. Renouncing sin reaffirmed 3:4-9

2. Obeying God reaffirmed 3:10-24

3. Rejecting worldliness reaffirmed 4:1-6

4. Practicing love 4:7-5:4

5. Keeping the faith reaffirmed 5:5-13

IV. Conclusion: Christian confidence 5:14-21

A. Confidence in action: prayer 5:14-17

B. Certainty of knowledge: assurance 5:18-20

C. A final warning: idolatry 5:21

Another outline that captures the cyclical pattern of John's thought is the following.¹⁰

I. Prologue 1:1-4

II. First cycle 1:5-2:28

A. Righteousness 1:5-2:6

B. Love 2:7-17

C. Belief 2:18-28

III. Second cycle 2:29-4:6

A. Righteousness 2:29-3:10a

B. Love 3:10b-24a

C. Belief 3:24b-4:6

IV. Third cycle 4:7-5:12

A. Love 4:7-21

B. Righteousness 5:1-5

C. Belief 5:6-21

Scholars have struggled to determine the structure of this epistle and have suggested many diverse outlines of the book.¹¹

Constable: 1 John

1 John

Bibliography

Bailey, Mark L., and Thomas L. Constable. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing Co., 1999.

Baker's Dictionary of Theology, 1960. S.v. "Theophany," by Wick Broomall.

Barclay, William. The Letters of John and Jude. Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1960.

Barker, Glenn W. "1 John." In Hebrews-Revelation. Vol. 12 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Baylis, Charles P. "The Meaning of Walking in the Darkness' (1 John 1:6)." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:594 (April-June 1992):214-22.

Blair, J. Allen. The Epistles of John. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1982.

Boice, James Montgomery. The Epistles of John. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979.

Brindle, Wayne A. "Biblical Evidence for the Imminence of the Rapture." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:630 (April-June 2001):138-51.

Brooke, A. E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.

Brown, Raymond. The Epistles of John. Anchor Bible series. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1982.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles of John. London: Pickering & Inglis Ltd., 1970; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986.

Calvin, John. The First Epistle of John. Calvin's New Testament Commentaries series. Translated by T. H. L. Parker. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959-61.

Candlish, Robert S. The First Epistle of John. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

_____. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

_____. "What Prayer Will and Will Not Change." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 99-113. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Cook, W. Robert. "Harmartiological Problems in First John." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:491 (July-September 1966):249-60.

Crain, C. Readings on the First Epistle of John. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n. d.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Derickson, Gary W. "What Is the Message of 1 John?" Bibliotheca Sacra 150:597 (January-March 1993):89-105.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S.v. "John, Epistles of," by A. E. Brooke.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. S.v. "John, Epistles of," by S. D. F. Salmond.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dodd, C. H. The Johanine Epistles. The Moffatt New Testament Commentary series. New York: Harper and Row, 1946.

Findlay, George G. Fellowship in the Life Eternal. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1909.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1970.

Gaster, Theodor H. The Dead Sea Scriptures. Revised and enlarged edition; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., Anchor Books, 1964.

Gillquist, Peter E. Love Is Now. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Goodman, G. The Epistle of Eternal Life. London: Pickering & Inglis, 1936.

Graystone, Kenneth. The Johanine Epistles. New Century Bible Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1984.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Harris, W. Hall. "A Theology of John's Writings." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 167-242. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. "An Expositional Study of 1 John." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:578 (April-June 1988):197-210; 579 (July-September 1988):329-42; 580 (October-December 1988):420-35; 146:581 (January-March 1989):76-93; 582 (April-June 1989):198-216; 583 (July-September 1989):310-19; 584 (October-December 1989):420-36; 147:585 (January-March 1990):69-88; 586 (April-June 1990):216-30; 587 (July-September 1990):309-28.

_____. An Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. 3: The Non-Pauline Epistles and Revelation. Chicago: Moody Press, 1977.

Hodges, Zane C. "1 John." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 881-904. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

_____. The Epistles of John: Walking in the Light of God's Love. Irving, Tex.: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999.

_____. "Fellowship and Confession in 1 John 1:5-10." Bibliotheca Sacra129:513 (January-March 1972):48-60.

_____. The Gospel Under Siege. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.

_____. "Is God's Truth in You? 1 John 2:4b." Grace Evangelical Society News 5:7 (July 1990):2-3.

Houlden, J. L. A Commentary on the Johanine Epistles. Harper's New Testament Commentaries series. New York: Harper and Row, 1973.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S.v. "Gnosticism," by John Rutherford.

_____. S.v. "John, The Epistles of," by R. Law.

King, Guy H. The Fellowship. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1954.

Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the Epistle of James and the Epistles of John. New Testament Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scripture. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol 12: James-Revelation, by J. P. Lange, J. J. Van Osterzee, G. T. C. Fronmuller, and Karl Braune. Enlarged and edited by E. R. Craven. Translated by J. Isidor Mombert and Evelina Moore.

Law, Robert. The Tests of Life: A Study of the First Epistle of St. John. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1909.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Lloyd-Jones, Martyn. Fellowship With God: Studies in 1 John. Vol. 1 of Life in Christ series. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

_____. The Gospel according to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.

Malatesta, E. Interiority and Covenant. A Study of einai en and menein en in the First Letter of Saint John. Anchor Bible 69. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Epistles of John. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Revised by C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Mitchell, John G. An Everlasting Love. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1982.

_____. Fellowship. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1974.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Joy of Fellowship. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Plummer, Alfred. The Epistles of S. John. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges series. 1883. Reprint ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938.

Roberts, J. W. The Letters of John. Living Word Commentary series. Austin, Tex.: R. B. Sweet, 1968.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testatment. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Ross, A. The Epistles of James and John. New International Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954.

Ryrie, Charles C. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1959.

_____. "The First Epistle of John." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1463-78. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1984.

Spurgeon, Charles H. 12 Sermons on the Second Coming of Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Storms, C. Samuel. Reaching God's Ear. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1988.

Stott, John R. W. The Epistles of John. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistles of St. John. 1883. Reprint ed. England: Marcham Manor Press, 1966.

Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Real. BE Books series. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1978.

Wilkin, Robert N. "Assurance: That You May Know' (1 John 5:11-13a)." Grace Evangelical Society News 5:12 (December 1990):2, 4.

_____. "Do Born Again People Sin? 1 John 3:9." Grace Evangelical Society News 5:3 (March 1990):2-3.

_____. "Knowing God By Our Works?" Grace Evangelical Society News 3:10 (October-November 1988):3-4.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: 1 John (Book Introduction)

THE

FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN,

THE APOSTLE.

INTRODUCTION.

This epistle was always acknowledged for canonical, and written by St. John, the apostle and evangelist. At what time and place, is uncertain. It is sometimes called the Epistle to the Parthians, or Persians. The chief design is to set forth the mystery of Christ's incarnation against Cerinthus, who denied Christ's divinity, and against Basilides, who denied that Christ had a true body; with zealous exhortations to love God and our neighbour. (Witham) --- The vein of divine love and charity towards our neighbour which runs throughout the gospel written by the beloved disciple and evangelist, St. John, is found also in his epistles. He confirms the two principal mysteries of our faith: the mystery of the Trinity, the mystery of the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The sublimity and excellence of the evangelical doctrine he declares: "And this commandment we have from God, that he who loveth God love also his brother;" (Chap. iv. 21.) and again, "For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not heavy." (Chap. v. 3.) He shews how to distinguish the children of God from those of the devil; marks out those who should be called antichrists; describes the turpitude and gravity of sin. Finally, he shews how the sinner may hope for pardon. It was written, according to Baronius's account, sixty-six years after our Lord's ascension. (Challoner) --- The effect of all is to prove the certainty of the Catholic faith, and to renounce all heretics and schismatics, who entice persons from the true saving faith.

====================

Gill: 1 John (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 1 JOHN

The author of this epistle was John, the son of Zebedee, the disciple whom Jesus loved: he was the youngest of the apostles, and survived them all. He does not indeed put his name to this epistle, as the Apostles Paul, Peter, James, and Jude do to theirs; and it is easy to observe, that when this disciple, in his writings, had any occasion to speak of himself, it was usually by such a circumlocution, as the disciple whom Jesus loved, or the other disciple, studiously concealing his name: so that his not putting his name to this epistle need not create any scruple about his being the author of it, which everywhere breathes the temper and spirit of this great apostle; and whoever compares this epistle, and the Gospel written by him, together, will easily conclude it to be his, both from the style and subject matter of it: besides, as Eusebius asserts ^a, this epistle was generally received without scruple, both by ancient and modern writers. It is called "general", because it was not written and sent to any particular church, or person, and not because it was for the general use of the churches, for so are all the particular epistles but because it was written to the Christians in general, or to the believing Jews in general wherever they were; for that it was written to the Jews seems evident from 1Jo 2:2. It was called, by some of the ancients, the epistle of John to the Parthians ^b; by whom must be meant not the natives of Parthia but the Jews professing to believe in Christ, who dwelt in that empire. We read of Parthian Jews a the feast of Pentecost, Act 2:9, who at that time might be converted, and, upon their return to their own country, lay the foundation of a Gospel church state there Dr. Lightfoot ^c conjectures from a passage in 3Jo 1:9 that this epistle was written to the Corinthians; but there does not seem to be any sufficient reason for it. As for the time when, and place where, this epistle was written, it is not easy to say: some think it was written at Patmos, whither the apostle was banished in the reign of Domitian, and where he wrote the book of the Revelations; see Rev 1:9; and here some say he wrote his Gospel, and this epistle, and that a little before the destruction of Jerusalem, and which he calls the last time or hour; and that his design in writing it was to exhort the believing Jews, either in Parthia, or scattered about in other countries, to brotherly love, and to warn them against false Christs and false prophets, which were now gone forth into the world to deceive men; see 1Jo 2:18. Others think that it was written by him, when a very old man, after his return from his exile to Ephesus, where he resided during his life, and where he died, and was buried. It is called his "first" epistle general, not that it is the first general epistle, for the other two are written to particular persons, but is the first he wrote, and which is general: the occasion, and manifest design of it, is to promote brotherly love, which he enforces upon the best principles, and with the strongest arguments, taken from the love of God and Christ, from the commandment of Christ, and its being an evidence of regeneration, and the truth and glory of a profession of religion: and also to oppose and stop the growth of licentious principles, and practices, and heretical doctrines. The licentious principles and practices he condemns are these, that believers had no sin in them, or need not be concerned about it, nor about their outward conversation, so be they had but knowledge; and these men boasted of their communion with God, notwithstanding their impieties; and which were the sentiments and practices of the Nicolaitans, Gnostics, and Carpocratians. The heresies he sets himself against, and refutes, are such as regard the doctrine of the Trinity, and the person and office of Christ. There were some who denied a distinction, of persons in the Trinity, and asserted there was but one person; that the Father was not distinct from the Son, nor the Son from the Father; and, by confounding both, tacitly denied there was either, as Simon Magus, and his followers; regard is had to these in 1Jo 2:22 and others, as the unbelieving Jews, denied that Jesus was the Messiah, or that Christ was come in the flesh; these are taken notice of in 1Jo 2:22. Others, that professed to believe in Jesus Christ, denied his proper deity, and asserted he was a mere man, and did not exist before he took flesh, of the virgin, as Ebion and Cerinthus; these are opposed in 1Jo 1:1. And others denied his real humanity, and affirmed that he was a mere phantom; that he only had the appearance of a man, and assumed human nature, and suffered, and died, and rose again in show only, and not in reality; of which sort were the followers of Saturninus and Basilides, and which are confuted in 1Jo 1:1. This epistle is, by Clemens Alexandrinus ^d, called his "greater" or "larger epistle", it being so in comparison of the other two that follow.

Gill: 1 John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 1 JOHN 1

In this chapter the apostle gives a summary of the Gospel, and the evidence of it, and from thence presses to a holy life and conversation, The sum of the Gospel is Jesus Christ, who is described both as God and man; his deity is expressed by being that which was from the beginning, the Word of life, life, and eternal life; his humanity by being the life manifested in the flesh, of which the apostles had full evidence by the several senses of seeing, hearing, and handling, and so were capable of bearing witness to the truth thereof, 1Jo 1:1. And the ends had in view in giving this summary, evidence, and testimony, were, that the saints wrote unto might have fellowship with the apostles, whose fellowship was with the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, and that their joy on hearing these things might be full, 1Jo 1:3. And the amount of the message declared by them was, that God is light, or a pure and holy Being, and that there is no darkness of sin, or unholiness in him; wherefore all such that pretend to communion with him, and live a sinful course of life, are liars; only such have fellowship with him, and with his Son, whose blood cleanses them from all sin, who live holy lives and conversations, 1Jo 1:5, not, that it is to be expected that men should be clear of the being of sin in this life, only that they should, as often as they sin, be humbled for it, and confess it before God, who will forgive them, and cleanse them from all unrighteousness; but as for those who affirm they have no sin in them, or any done by them, they are self-deceivers, the truth of grace is not in them, nor the word of God, and they make him a liar, 1Jo 1:8.

College: 1 John (Book Introduction)

FOREWORD

It has been my pleasure to have been associated with Professor Morris Womack since the middle 1960s when we both accepted positions in the Los Angeles area with what was then Pepperdine College (now University). I have observed his growth as he developed into a distinguished and popular teacher, an accomplished author, diligent scholar, successful minister, and respected bishop of the church. He did these things while he maintained close, loving and productive ties with his family, friendship with his students, and exemplified a servant's attitude to those with whom he came in contact. Having demonstrated himself to be a man whose life in many ways illustrates that love which Christ said would identify his followers, I find it fitting that he should add this commentary on the three epistles of the "Apostle of Love" to his accomplishments.

As one peruses the pages of this work, it will be evident that the author has been able to balance his extensive theological training with his determination that this be a useful and practical work. While he shows mastery of the original language, the historical-cultural setting, the mechanics of biblical interpretation, and a profound acquaintance with the biblical text; he does so with an eye to clear exposition and insightful application of the basic issues portrayed by the Apostle John.

In his commentary on the biblical text, Professor Womack gives special attention to the developing problem of the gnostic heresy. The representatives of this aberrant religious group were dedicated to a view of Christ which in a very real sense robbed him of both his humanity and his divinity. In much the spirit of Athens, their prideful intellect displaced God and relegated to the trash heap of foolishness and naivete those who sought to follow his word. Considering themselves to be above sin, they heralded the virtues of thought and intellectual enterprise while belittling the ignorant folk who believed that following Christ meant obeying his teachings.

Dr. Womack points out that although John said these false teachers were no longer to be considered part of the fellowship (2:19), they considered the church to be their mission field (2:26, 3:7). It therefore is incumbent on church leaders to "mark heresy promoters and not allow them to bring division in the body." It was obviously not the position of the Apostle John that "I'm O.K. and you're O.K." regardless of religious belief. Eusebius claimed that Polycarp, a disciple of John, reported to Irenaeus that on one occasion when the apostle entered the baths at Ephesus and saw the gnostic leader, Cerinthus inside, he immediately left the baths saying, "Let us flee, lest also the baths fall in, since Cerinthus is inside, the enemy of the truth." It is those who obey Christ that by so doing prove that they know him, while those who claim to know him without submitting to his will only prove themselves to be liars (2:3-6).

However, it is especially in this emphasis upon John's insistence that Christians who claim to love God must also love one another that Professor Womack challenges the hypocrisy of a self-centered and legalistic spirit. The refinement of this "son of thunder" into the "Apostle of Love" is presented as both a challenge and a hope for all of us. Jerome reports that when in old age John had to be carried to the place of assembly, he always greeted the church with the words, "little children, love one another." When, perhaps somewhat impatiently, he was asked why he always said the same thing, he responded, "Because this is the Lord's command, and enough is done when this is done."

I am honored to have the opportunity of recommending to you this faithful, and objective aid to your study and understanding of the words of the Holy Spirit as they were revealed through the Apostle John.

Carl Mitchell, Ph.D.

Professor of Bible & Religion

College of Bible & Religion

Harding University

Searcy, Arkansas

I would like to thank John Hunter, Dan Rees, and Saundra Tippett for their creative help. In the writing of 2 and 3 John, C. Michael Moss of Lipscomb University was gracious in allowing the editorial team to use material from a forthcoming book on John's epistles. A special thanks to Steve Cable and Chris DeWelt who have been a source of encouragement in the project.

I appreciate very much the kind words of Dr. Carl Mitchell of Harding University and for his support for the commentary that I have written. He is a friend and loyal brother.

Morris M. Womack

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

INTRODUCTION

John's writings have been my favorite books of the Bible. This does not mean that they are more important than any others, but I like the spirit and tone as well as the content of his writings. They show how one can develop from a "son of thunder," as John was called by Jesus (Mark 3:17) to become the great apostle of love. His teachings on love are the deepest and most precious in the Bible. It was said early in church history (Jerome) that when John would come to the assembly of Christians, he would be carried to the door of the place of meeting where he would pat the Christians on the head, saying, "my little children, love one another."

The greatest memory I have about John comes from my freshman year in college when I began studying Greek. First John was the first place we began reading and translating. I remember it as a simple, clear, and challenging book. It was written in simple, unencumbered Greek, and this impression has stayed with me.

AUTHORSHIP

These three epistles we are studying are referred to as "general epistles." They were not written to specific churches, as were the letters by the apostle Paul. While Jesus was on earth, he selected three of his twelve disciples to be a sort of "inner circle." In his treatise on the life of Jesus, John referred to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 21:7). There are several indications of John's special relation to Jesus. He was one of the select three (Peter, James, and John) with Jesus at the transfiguration. He shared a lonely night in the Garden of Gethsemane prior to Jesus' trial and crucifixion, and he leaned on Jesus' breast and enjoyed a close encounter with Jesus at the last supper.

Some commentators prefer to separate the introductions to 1 John from one for 2 and 3 John. Given their differences, it is understandable to treat them accordingly. We will consider an overview of the three epistles together for this commentary. Traditionally, John the apostle has been accepted as the author of all three books but not without controversy over the centuries. First John is not structured like the typical first century letters and has not been called an epistle in the same light as both 2 and 3 John, which are very typical of early letter form and style. One of the greatest evidences for the books is that all three are found in the earliest Greek manuscripts. Irenaeus attributed authorship to John ( Against Heresies III, 16, 5, and 8).

Internal evidence for the three letters point to the same author as that of the Gospel of John most credibly because of the claim of being an eye witness (1 John 1:1-3). Language, key words, thought, scope and style are similar. A.E. Brooke in his commentary used the comparative work of John's first epistle with his Gospel by Holtzmann who wrote in 1882. The comparison of phrases and terminology provide sufficient evidence to convince the honest seeker of John's authorship of the first epistle. If the commonality of the first epistle with the other two can be shown, the authorship problem is settled on John the apostle. (For example, 1 John 2:7 compares with 2 John 5 and John 13:34-35. Second John 12 compares with 1 John 1:4 and John 15:11; 16:24. The use of "my children" in 3 John compares with 1 John 2:1, etc.)

DATE AND OCCASION

All three letters can be safely dated at the end of the Apostle John's life. If this is accurate, it explains the brevity of 2 and 3 John especially since they would have been written by an old man. We are at a loss to discover from the letters themselves when and from where they were written. John had been exiled to the Isle of Patmos, as is stated in the book of Revelation. Whether John wrote these while he was on the Isle of Patmos, we do now know. It is most commonly thought that John wrote from Ephesus in the last decade (the middle of the 90s) of the first century where John spent his last days.

One reason to handle all three books in one introduction is the fact that they share a common occasion with similar circumstances. Three major problems existed during this time: the spread of persecution by the Roman Empire, the development of false teachings of various kinds in the Christian community, and the rise and growth of Gnosticism. False prophets or false teachers were attacking the church and that prompted the need for an authoritative response (see the section below, Gnosticism, Docetism ). John, as perhaps the last living apostle at the time of writing, could speak with apostolic authority from the Lord. Deceivers and antichrists were calling to the sheep and the Lord sent John to shepherd God's flock. All three situations were faced with the need to strengthen fellowship among the true believers in order to recognize the counterfeit gospel being preached. The heretics were unsettling the firm moorings of the gospel causing some to doubt the first commands of Christ. Were they still loved by God? What is truth? Who are the children of God? Can I have one foot in heaven and also have one on earth? Did Jesus become a man? How could he be divine too? Who is my neighbor and how do I treat him? What if I do not feel saved? What if you have a problem with a "ruling elder?" Diotrephes in 3 John was wanting more authority. It is my view that this could well be the beginning of a striving for power. Ignatius, in the early second century, tells us of a bishop, elders, and deacons in some early churches. The bishop seems to begin to take power within the local church with the elders and deacons working "under" him. These questions challenge the letter writer for solid, inspired answers. John delivers!

Some commentators, such as Lenski and Marshall, have suggested that 2 and 3 John may have been written first and then 1 John. I simply mention this possibility and direct you to these commentators for further discussion.

Why did John write these short letters? First John 1John 5:13 specifically states the author's purpose in writing, "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." The theme of 2 John may be expressed in verse 9, "Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son." John summarizes the content of 3 John in verse 11, "Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God." Commentators vary in their opinions as to the epistles' key words and verses, but these will serve as one-verse representatives of their respective themes.

RECIPIENTS

It has been suggested that 1 John was a circular or an encyclical letter much like Paul's letter to the Ephesians. This is partially reasoned from the lack of an addressee. If both of these books were connected to Ephesus, they may have shared a similar tradition. If 2 and 3 John were also encyclical, they were intended to be passed around to various churches and individuals for all to read. All three of John's letters are sent to Christians. Other than that we do not know who they were or where they lived. Area churches in Asia Minor (now Turkey) have been the most commonly proposed recipients. This opinion is based on the place of composition being Ephesus and that strikingly similar heresies are addressed, albeit incipient, in the earlier writings of the apostle Paul. John must have given much tender care and love to many of these churches in his last years around Ephesus. Based on Jesus' charging John to care for Mary at the time of the crucifixion, it is believed that Mary went home with John and spent her life at Ephesus. There is a traditional tomb of Mary in the ancient ruins of Ephesus today. John may have played an actual role in the founding and fostering of the church there.

GNOSTICISM, DOCETISM

What we face today in humanistic and New Age teachings we can identify as merely a refashioning of the old gnostic falsehoods. There is indeed nothing new under the sun! To understand the noxious weeds we fight today, we must turn back the pages of time to expose their beginning roots.

Whatever part John played in the birth and development of the Ephesian congregation, he was certainly involved in protecting them from the encroaching dangers of Gnosticism in the final years of the first century and following. As a witness to all of Jesus' personal ministry, John was quite capable of bearing witness to the historical Jesus and could certainly testify of the dual human/divine nature of Jesus Christ.

The rise and development of Gnosticism had a tremendous impact on the Christian movement. Around the middle of the first century, a monster in the form of Gnosticism arose that threatened the very roots of the Christian religion. The apostle Paul used the term (pseudônymou gnôseôs, "falsely-named knowledge") to identify this threat, Gnosticism (1 Tim 6:20). It presented a new worldview on the relationship between God and humanity which threatened Christianity at the time of its burgeoning growth.

Gnosticism, in my view, was a combination of three major strains of thought: Zoroastrianism, Platonism, and Christianity. Zoroastrianism, the religion of Persia, contributed at least two major elements: dualism (the worship of two gods) and the light-darkness views of Gnosticism (referred to in both John's Gospel and the Epistles of John). The dualism - the presence of two gods (a god of the Old Testament who created all things including evil and materialism and a god of the New Testament for the Gnostics whom they believed was the God of Jesus Christ) was expressed by Zoroastrianism by their two gods - Ahura Mazda (god of light) and Ahura Mainyu (god of darkness). The Jewish nation, having been exposed to the Persian religion during the Babylonian Captivity, were certainly influenced by this ideology.

Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophy contributed to the Gnostic theories through the concept of Plato's "world of ideas," which suggested that nothing exists except in an unseen world of ideas. The gods could not be approached or seen, said the Gnostic. God was at a distance from humankind, the Gnostics argued. In gnostic thought, humans could approach God through a series of "aeons" or "angelic" types of beings.

Some of the elements of Christianity found a welcome home among the Gnostics. The goodness of the God of the New Testament and the importance of knowing about God were some of these elements. The followers of the gnostic religion created a higher level of Christians, the gnostic Christians whom they regarded as the ultimate essence of their spiritual life.

John was not called one of the "sons of thunder" for nothing! Over the course of his lifetime he learned to direct his anger, or euphemistically called "righteous indignation," toward heretical causes aimed at the Christ. One of John's crucial reasons for writing was to answer the attacks by the false teachers faced by the recipients of all three letters.

Christians saw Gnosticism as a threat to the church as early as the last half of the first century. We can find some elements in some of Paul's writings and certainly in John's first epistle. When many biblical critics, especially the critics of the Tübingen school and others in America, began their critical analyses of the New Testament, they generally agreed that many of the New Testament books could not have been written in the first century because they reflected and even opposed the Gnostics, which they argued did not exist until the second century. At that time, many scholars argued that Gnosticism was a second-century phenomenon. I argued in the late 1950s that it originated much earlier. In fact, I wrote that "Until fairly recent times, scholars did not realize the vast span of history that Gnosticsim had. Though it was not called such, it can be traced to pre-Christian times." This claim was questioned by some, but later research by more eminent scholars than I have supported this theory. William F. Albright, eminent paleontologist, had espoused the late authorship of several canonical books of the New Testament. However, near the end of his life he wrote, "all the New Testament books were probably written during the late forties and the early eighties of the first century A.D., possibly even between A.D. 50 and A.D. 75."

The gnostic movement was a prominent influence on first century thought, very strong by the end of the century. That Gnosticism was prominent by the middle of the first century is further evidenced by the presence of the Nag Hammadi Manuscripts, gnostic documents discovered in the late 1940s. They are believed by some to have been nearly as old as the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are gnostic in character and must have been known by many of the period. Gnosticism was a dualistic religion (arguing for the existence of two opposing gods) and taught that Jesus was not really human but that Jesus was probably adopted by God at the time of his baptism (often referred to as the "Adoptionist Theory"). It was a divisive religion and was causing many problems in the early church.

Incipient Gnosticism had been introduced in Colossians and somewhat in Corinthians. John in his letters continues the battle he addressed in his Gospel, the battle most likely directed against "archheretic Cerinthus" and his docetic followers. One of the major concepts of the Christian gnostic movement was that Jesus was not born of human flesh, but that he only seemed to be human, hence the docetic philosophy. John had answered the docetic teaching that Jesus only "seemed" to be in the flesh with his poetic Gospel opening. Later in 19:16-37, he explicitly describes the reality of Jesus' crucifixion.

The opening verses of 1 John clearly answered some of the heresy by giving an eyewitness account of knowing Jesus. As the popular saying goes, "been there, done that." John could say, "I have been there and seen Jesus do that." John also addressed the false belief "we have no sin" because they treated sin with indifference. And, there was no "special knowledge" or "special illumination" to be obtained by a few! Contrary to the false teachings, Jesus did come in the flesh and suffered and rose from the dead to give us life. John and those with him knew Jesus intimately. Jesus, Son of God, Creator of life, appointed John as an apostle with all the rights and authority given by God. Any commands are to come from God and not from man.

STRUCTURE AND STYLE

Alexander Ross organizes the main part of 1 John, apart from the preface and conclusion, under two main points: I. God Is Light (1 John 1:5-2:29), and II. God Is Love (1 John 3:1-5:12). Robert Law outlined 1 John according to cycles of tests for truth and righteous living. Regarding 2 and 3 John, virtually all commentators provide a simple outline for their brief contents.

J.W. Roberts offers a unique analysis of John's letters in relationship to his peculiar style. Among the ones Roberts describes are John's use of "Antithetic Parallelism" (Hebrew device of contrasting two thoughts), "Genuine Antithesis" (or reverse of the same statement, as in 1 John 3:7-10), "Recapitulation" (as in 1 John 3:4a, repeating a word like "sin," "love," or "truth" and discussing it), "Word Parenthesis" ("inclusion of a thought unit between the first and last use of the same word" as in 1 John 5:16), and "Anaphora" (beginning with the same phrase like "If we say").

John's three letters have endeared themselves to the church since they were written in the first century. The original writer and the original audience have a much clearer view of things than we do. Were John's words heeded by his recipients? Obviously some did because the gospel message has continued through the preservation of the letters. As long as they are taught and preached, they will continue to instruct, warn, and encourage their readers. God bless you as you nobly search the Scriptures with the Lord Jesus.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Barclay, William. The Letters of John . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.

Barker, Kenneth, Ed. The NIV Study Bible . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Brooke, A.E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles . The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1971.

Bruce, F.F. The Epistles of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.

Burdick, Donald W. The Epistles of John . Chicago: Moody, 1970.

Burge, G.M. "John, Letters of." Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Development , pp. 587-599 . Edited by Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997.

Dodd, C.H. The Johannine Epistles . New York: Harper & Brothers, 1946.

Fiensy, David. New Testament Introduction . The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994. Revised 1997.

Harrison, Everett F. Introduction to the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

Law, Robert. The Tests of Life: A Study of the First Epistle of St. John . 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968.

Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude . Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1996.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Epistles of John . The New International Commentary of the New Testament. Edited by Ned B. Stonehouse, F.F. Bruce and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

McDowell, Edward A. Hebrews-Revelation . The Broadman Bible Commentary. Vol. 12. Nashville: Broadman, 1972.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament . 3rd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Roberts, J.W. The Letters of John. The Living Word Commentary. Edited by Everett Ferguson. Vol. 18. 2nd printing. Austin, TX: Sweet, 1969.

Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.

Ross, Alexander. Commentary on the Epistles of James and John . The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.

Schaff, Phillip. History of the Christian Church . 8 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950.

Smith, David. The Expositor's Greek Testament . Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. 5 vols. New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1922.

Smith, J.B. Greek-English Concordance to the New Testament . Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1955.

Staton, Knofel. Thirteen Lessons on First, Second, and Third John . Joplin: College Press, 1980.

Stott, John R.W. The Letters of John: Introduction and Commentary . Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. 1988. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Trench, Richard. Synonyms of the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953.

Watson, D.F. "Rhetoric, Rhetorical Criticism," Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Development , pp. 1041-1051. Edited by Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistles of St. John: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays . London: Macmillan, 1883.

Wilkins, M.J. "Pastoral Theology," Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Development , pp. 876-882. Edited by Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997.

Wright, D.F. "Docetism," Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Development , pp. 306-309. Edited by Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

DLNT Dictionary of the Later New Testament

KJV King James Version

NEB New English Bible

NIV New International Version

RSV Revised Standard Version

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: 1 John (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. THE WORD OF LIFE - 1:1-4

II. LIFE WITH GOD AND THE WORLD - 1:5-2:27

A. The Way of Light and Darkness - 1:5-7

B. Admitting Our Sin - 1:8-10

C. The Atoning Sacrifice - 2:1-2

D. Keeping God's Commandments - 2:3-6

E. A New Commandment - 2:7-8

F. In the Light or in the Darkness - 2:9-11

G. John's Reasons for Writing - 2:12-14

H. Christians and the World - 2:15-17

I. Warnings against Antichrists - 2:18-27

III. GOD'S LOVE FOR US/OUR LOVE FOR ONE ANOTHER - 2:28-3:24

A. Children of God - 2:28-29

B. God's Love for His Children - 3:1-3

C. Warnings against Sin - 3:4-10

D. Love One Another - 3:11-24

IV. TESTING THE SPIRITS/TRUSTING GOD - 4:1-5:12

A. Testing the Spirits - 4:1-6

B. God's Love and Our Love - 4:7-21

C. Faith in the Son of God - 5:1-5

D. The Three Witnesses - 5:6-12

V. CONCLUDING REMARKS - 5:13-21

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: 1 John (Book Introduction)

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EPISTLE

OF S. JOHN.

——o——

I mention three things by way of preface. First, concerning the authority of the Epistle. Second,  concerning the author. Third, concerning the argument.

1. It is of faith that this Epistle is canonical Scripture. This is the general belief of the whole Church, expressed both elsewhere and in the Council of Trent ( sess. 4). Here observe that the canonical books of Holy Scripture are of two kinds. The first are called proto-canonical , because they have been accounted canonical in all ages by all Christians, so that of their authority none of the orthodox have ever been in doubt.

The second kind are called deutero-canonical , because at one time the Church or the Fathers doubted of their authority, but they were subsequently received into the canon by all men. Such are the books of Esther, Baruch, part of Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, two books of the Maccabees, certain portions of the Gospels of S. Mark, S. Luke, or S. John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse. All the rest are proto-canonical. Among them, therefore, is this Epistle of S. John, with the exception of one verse, concerning which in its place. This is what Eusebius says of this Epistle ( H. E. 3. 24), "Among those things which John wrote after his Gospel, his first Epistle is also received both by the ancients and the moderns without any hesitation." Moreover, it is equally received by ancient and modern heretics. And S. Augustine says ( Tract . 7, in Epis. 1 Joan .), "That Epistle is canonical which is read by all nations, is accepted by the authority of the whole world, which itself has edified the whole world." And Dionysius of Alexandria, says, "The Gospel and the first Epistle of John are not only without fault, but are written with the utmost elegancy of style, the greatest weight of their sentiments and with perfect diction."

2. The orthodox are all agreed that the author of this Epistle is S. John the Apostle, as the inscription gives it. The same is indicated by the style of the Epistle in all things agreeable to S. John's Gospel, so beautiful, and flowing with the honey of charity, plainly indicating its source, the fair and loving breast of S. John. Add to this that he inculcates the same things in this Epistle which he does in his Gospel, as Eusebius well observes ( H. E. 7. 25), "He who reads carefully will find frequently in both, the words 'life,' 'light,' 'departure from darkness,' 'the truth,' 'grace,' 'joy,' 'the flesh and blood of the Lord,' 'judgment,' 'the remission of sins,' 'the love of God towards us,' 'the command to love one another,' 'the rebuke of the world, the devil, and antichrist,' 'the promise of the Holy Ghost;' he will find everywhere 'the Father and the Son.' And if the character of both writings be observed in all things, there will be found altogether the same sense and form of expression in both the Gospel and the Epistle."

3. The object of the Epistle is, first, to teach the true faith, hope, and charity: the faith both concerning the Holy Trinity and the Incarnate Word, of which assuredly no one has treated more fruitfully than S. John both in his Gospel and in this Epistle. And for this reason he is called by S. Dionysius, Athanasius, Cyril, Chrysostom, Epiphanius and others generally, John the Theologian.

Moreover, this is a Catholic Epistle, that is circular and general, written to all Christians throughout the world, like the Epistles of S. Peter, S. James, and S. Jude. Some, however, of the ancients say that this Epistle of John was written expressly to the Parthians. So Pope Hyginus ( Epist. 1), Pope John II. ( Epist. ad Valer .), S . Augustine ( Lib . 2 quæst. Evang. c. 39), Idacius ( Lib. de Trin .) and others. Our Serarius suspects that Patmos ought here to be read instead of Parthos. For John being banished by Domitian to the Isle of Patmos, converted its inhabitants to Christ. Junius, a Calvinist, against Bellarmine ( Lib. 2 de Verbo Dei, cap. 15 num. 22), understands by Parthians, not the inhabitants of Parthia, but pious exiles distant from their native land. For in the Scythian language exiles were formerly called Parthi , from the Hebrew word pur , i.e., to divide. To the Parthians , then, would mean the same thing as to the tribes which are in the dispersion, as S. James says in his Epistle, and "to the elect strangers of the dispersion," as S. Peter says, in the beginning of his Epistle. But exiles, impious as well as pious, were called Parthi by the Scythians, not by the Greeks or Hebrews, such as was St. John. For otherwise S. Peter and S. James, who write to the dispersed, would have written to the Parthians. Properly, therefore, I understand Parthians here to mean those whose name and empire were at that time widely extended, and embraced several nations, the Persians among them. Now there are in Parthia many Jews as well as Christians, both of Jewish and Gentile extraction, to all of whom S. John here writes.

S. John then wrote to the Parthians, either because he had formerly been amongst them and taught them the faith of Christ, as Baronius and others think, or else because many of the Ephesians and other natives of Asia Minor, to whom S. John had preached, and who had been converted to Christ, had migrated into the nearer regions of Parthia and Persia.

All writers agree that this Epistle was written in Greek. There is no reason for wonder that S. John does not give his name at the beginning of the Epistle. Neither did S. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The same is the case with many modern writers who do not prefix their names to the beginning of their letters, but subscribe them at the end. Besides, the Holy Spirit was the Author of this Epistle rather than S. John. As S. Gregory says ( Præfat. in Job c. i.), "It is altogether vain to ask for the Author of this Epistle, since it is faithfully believed to have been the Holy Ghost. He then wrote these words who commanded them to be written. If we should receive a letter from any great man, we should look upon it as a ridiculous question to ask with what pen it had been written."

S. John appears to have been an old man, and altogether forgetful of earthly things, and panting after Christ, both when he wrote this Epistle and also his Gospel. He was so absorbed in the greatness of the mystery that he omitted both his name and the salutation, and by so doing carries the reader with him in such a manner as to intimate that he was the writer of the Epistle as well as the Gospel. So Thomas Anglicus. The same thing is sufficiently indicated by the words of the first Epistle, by which one is made wonderfully full of sweetness and delight with Christ Incarnate. Lastly, it is plain that S. John wrote these words in extreme old age, from the words themselves in which he calls himself the Elder, and the faithful his little children. The precise date when he wrote is uncertain: but it seems to have been about the same time that he wrote the Gospel, for there is a great agreement between the Epistles and the Gospel. This has led Baronius to assign the same date to both, namely, A.D. 99, which was the seventh year of Pope S. Clement, and the first of the Emperor Nerva.

S. Gregory concludes with the following golden words ( Hom. 15 in Ezech .): "Do we seek to have our hearts inflamed with the fire of love? Then let us ponder over the words of S. John, for everything that he says is filled with the fire of love." He breathes, repeats and enforces nothing else but the love of God, of Christ, and of our neighbour. He is like old men and lovers, who think and speak of nothing else but what they love and have loved all their lives.