Text -- 1 John 3:4 (NET)

3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; indeed, sin is lawlessness.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: 1Jo 3:4

Sin is lawlessness ( hē hamartia estin hē anomia ).

The article with both subject and predicate makes them coextensive and so interchangeable. Doing sin is the converse of doing righteousness (1Jo 2:29). The present active participle (poiōn ) means the habit of doing sin.

Vincent: 1Jo 3:4

Whosoever committeth sin ( πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν )

Rev., better, every one that doeth sin . See on 1Jo 3:3, every man that hath , and note the frequent repetition of this form of expression in the present chapter. Compare πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων whosoever sinneth (1Jo 3:6). The phrase to do sin regards sin as something actually realized in its completeness. He that does sin realizes in action the sin (note the article τὴν ) that which includes and represents the complete ideal of sin. Compare do righteousness , 1Jo 2:29.

Vincent: 1Jo 3:4

Transgresseth also the law ( καὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ )

Rev., more accurately, doeth also lawlessness . Compare Mat 13:41, and the phrase οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν ye that work iniquity (Mat 7:23).

Vincent: 1Jo 3:4

For ( καὶ )

Rev., correctly, and . This and the preceding clause are coordinated after John's manner.

Vincent: 1Jo 3:4

Is the transgression of the law ( ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία )

Rev., correctly, is lawlessness . Sin is the violation of the law of our being, the law which includes our threefold relation to God, to the men and things around us, and to ourselves. Compare Jam 1:14; Jam 4:17.

Wesley: 1Jo 3:4

Thereby transgresseth the holy, just, and good law of God, and so sets his authority at nought; for this is implied in the very nature of sin.

JFB: 1Jo 3:4

Sin is incompatible with birth from God (1Jo 3:1-3). John often sets forth the same truth negatively, which he had before set forth positively. He had shown, birth from God involves self-purification; he now shows where sin, that is, the want of self-purification, is, there is no birth from God.

JFB: 1Jo 3:4

Greek, "Every one who."

JFB: 1Jo 3:4

In contrast to 1Jo 3:3, "Every man that hath this hope in Him purifieth himself"; and 1Jo 3:7, "He that doeth righteousness."

JFB: 1Jo 3:4

Greek, "committeth transgression of law." God's law of purity; and so shows he has no such hope of being hereafter pure as God is pure, and, therefore, that he is not born of God.

JFB: 1Jo 3:4

Greek, "and."

JFB: 1Jo 3:4

Definition of sin in general. The Greek having the article to both, implies that they are convertible terms. The Greek "sin" (hamartia) is literally, "a missing of the mark." God's will being that mark to be ever aimed at. "By the law is the knowledge of sin." The crookedness of a line is shown by being brought into juxtaposition with a straight ruler.

Clarke: 1Jo 3:4

Sin is the transgression of the law - The spirit of the law as well as of the Gospel is, that "we should love God with all our powers, and our neighbor as ourselves."All disobedience is contrary to love; therefore sin is the transgression of the law, whether the act refers immediately to God or to our neighbor.

Calvin: 1Jo 3:4

4.Whosoever committeth, or doeth, sin. The Apostle has already shown how ungrateful we must be to God, if we make but little account of the honor of adoption, by which he of his own goodwill anticipates us, and if we do not, at least, render him mutual love. He, at the same time, introduced this admonition, that our love ought not to be diminished, because the promised happiness is deferred. But now, as men are wont to indulge themselves more than they ought, in evils, he reproves this perverse indulgence, declaring that all they who sin are wicked and transgressors of the law. For it is probable that there were then those who extenuated their vices by this kind of flattery, “It is no wonder if we sin, because we are men; but there is a great difference between sin and iniquity.”

This frivolous excuse the Apostle now dissipates, when he defines sin to be a transgression of the divine law; for his object was to produce hatred and horror as to sin. The word sin seems light to some; but iniquity or transgression of the law cannot appear to be so easily forgiven. But the Apostle does not make sins equal, by charging all with iniquity who sin; but he means simply to teach us, that sin arises from a contempt of God, and that by sinning, the law is violated. Hence this doctrine of John has nothing in common with the delirious paradoxes of the Stoics.

Besides, to sin here, does not mean to offend in some instances; nor is the word sin to be taken for every fault or wrong a man may commit.; but he calls that sin, when men with their whole heart run into evil, nor does he understand that men sin, except those who are given up to sin. For the faithful, who are as yet tempted by the lusts of the flesh, are not to be deemed guilty of iniquity, though they are not pure or free from sin, but as sin does not reign in them, John says that they do not sin, as I shall presently explain more fully.

The import of the passage is, that the perverse life of those who indulge themselves in the liberty of sinning, is hateful to God, and cannot be borne with by him, because it is contrary to his Law. It does not hence follow, nor can it be hence inferred, that the faithful are iniquitous; because they desire to obey God, and abhor their own vices, and that in every instance; and they also form their own life, as much as in them lieth, according to the law. But when there is a deliberate purpose to sin, or a continued course in sin, then the law is transgressed. ⁷⁷

TSK: 1Jo 3:4

committeth : 1Jo 3:8, 1Jo 3:9; 1Ki 8:47; 1Ch 10:13; 2Co 12:21; Jam 5:15

transgresseth : Num 15:31; 1Sa 15:24; 2Ch 24:20; Isa 53:8; Dan 9:11; Rom 3:20, Rom 4:15; Jam 2:9-11

for : 1Jo 5:17; Rom 7:7-13

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: 1Jo 3:4

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law - The law of God given to man as a rule of life. The object of the apostle here is to excite them to holiness, and to deter them from committing sin, perhaps in view of the fact stated in 1Jo 3:3, that everyone who has the hope of heaven will aim to be holy like the Saviour. To confirm this, he shows them that, as a matter of fact, those who are born of God do lead lives of obedience, 1Jo 3:5-10; and this he introduces by showing what is the nature of sin, in the verse before us. The considerations by which he would deter them from indulging in sin are the following:

(a)\caps1     a\caps0 ll sin is a violation of the law of God, 1Jo 3:4;

(b)\caps1     t\caps0 he very object of the coming of Christ was to deliver people from sin, 1Jo 3:5;

©\caps1     t\caps0 hose who are true Christians do not habitually sin, 1Jo 3:6;

(d)\caps1     t\caps0 hose who sin cannot be true Christians, but are of the devil, 1Jo 3:8; and,

(e)\caps1     h\caps0 e who is born of God has a germ or principle of true piety in him, and cannot sin, 1Jo 3:9.

It seems evident that the apostle is here combating an opinion which then existed that people might sin, and yet be true Christians, 1Jo 3:7; and he apprehended that there was danger that this opinion would become prevalent. On what ground this opinion was held is unknown. Perhaps it was held that all that was necessary to constitute religion was to embrace the doctrines of Christianity, or to be orthodox in the faith; perhaps that it was not expected that people would become holy in this life, and therefore they might indulge in acts of sin; perhaps that Christ came to modify and relax the law, and that the freedoM which he procured for them was freedom to indulge in whatever people chose; perhaps that, since Christians were heirs of all things, they had a right to enjoy all things; perhaps that the passions of people were so strong that they could not be restrained, and that therefore it was not wrong to give indulgence to the propensities with which our Creator has formed us. All these opinions have been held under various forms of Antinomianism, and it is not at all improbable that some or all of them prevailed in the time of John. The argument which he urges would be applicable to any of them. The consideration which he here states is, that all sin is a transgression of law, and that he who commits it, under whatever pretence, is to be held as a transgressor of the law. The literal rendering of this passage is, "He who doeth sin ( ἁμαρτίαν hamartian ) doeth also transgression"- ἀνομίαν anomian . Sin is the generic term embracing all that would be wrong. The word transgression ( ἀνομία anomia ) is a specific term, showing where the wrong lay, to wit, in violating the law.

For sin is the transgression of the law - That is, all sin involves this as a consequence that it is a violation of the law. The object of the apostle is not so much to define sin, as to deter from its commission by stating what is its essential nature - though he has in fact given the best definition of it that could be given. The essential idea is, that God has given a law to people to regulate their conduct, and that whatever is a departure from that law in any way is held to be sin. The law measures our duty, and measures therefore the degree of guilt when it is not obeyed. The law determines what is right in all cases, and, of course, what is wrong when it is not complied with. The law is the expression of what is the will of God as to what we shall do; and when that is not done, there is sin. The law determines what we shall love or not love; when our passions and appetites shall be bounded and restrained, and to what extent they may be indulged; what shall be our motives and aims in living; how we shall act toward God and toward people; and whenever, in any of these respects, its requirements are not complied with, there is sin.

This will include everything in relation to which the law is given, and will embrace what we "omit"to do when the law has commanded a thing to be done, as well as a "positive"act of transgression where the law has forbidden a thing. This idea is properly found in the original word rendered "transgression of the law"- ἀνομία anomia . This word occurs in the New Testament only in the following places: Mat 7:23; Mat 13:41; Mat 23:28; Mat 24:12; Rom 4:7; Rom 6:19; 2Th 2:7; Tit 2:14; Heb 1:9; Heb 8:12; Heb 10:17, in all which places it is rendered "iniquity"and "iniquities;"in 2Co 6:14, where it is rendered "unrighteousness;"and in the verse before us twice. It properly means lawlessness, in the sense that the requirements of the law are not conformed to, or complied with; that is, either by not obeying it, or by positively violating it. When a parent commands a child to do a thing, and he does not do it, he is as really guilty of violating the law as when he does a thing which is positively forbidden. This important verse, therefore, may be considered in two aspects - as a definition of the nature of sin, and as an argument against indulgence in it, or against committing it.

I. As a definition of the nature of sin. It teaches.

\tx720 \tx1080 (a)\caps1     t\caps0 hat there is a rule of law by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated and governed, and to which it is to be conformed.

(b)    That there is sin in all cases where that law is not complied with; and that all who do not comply with it are guilty before God.

©    That the particular thing which determines the guilt of sin, and which measures it, is that it is a departure from law, and consequently that there is no sin where there is no departure from law.

The essential thing is, that the law has not been respected and obeyed, and sin derives its character and aggravation from that fact. No one can reasonably doubt as to the accuracy of this definition of sin. It is founded on the fact:

\tx720 \tx1080 (a)\caps1     t\caps0 hat God has an absolute right to prescribe what we may and may not do;

(b)\caps1     t\caps0 hat it is to be presumed that what he prescribes will be in accordance with what is right; and,

©\caps1     t\caps0 hat nothing else in fact constitutes sin. Sin can consist in nothing else. It does not consist of a particular height of stature, or a particular complexion; of a feeble intellect, or an intellect made feeble, as the result of any former apostasy; of any constitutional propensity, or any disposition founded in our nature as creatures.

For none of these things do our consciences condemn us; and however we may lament them, we have no consciousness of wrong.

(In these remarks the author has in view the doctrine of original sin, or imputed sin, which he thinks as absurd as sin of stature or complexion. His views will be found at large in the notes at Rom. 5 throughout, and by comparing these with the supplementary notes on the same place, the reader will be able to form his own opinion. There does not seem to be anything affecting the point in this passage.)

II. As an argument against the commission of sin. This argument may be considered as consisting of two things - the wrong that is done by the violation of law, and the exposure to the penalty.

\tx720 \tx1080 (1)\caps1 t\caps0 he wrong itself. This wrong, as an argument to deter from sin, arises mainly from two things:

\tx720 \tx1080 \tx1440 (a)\caps1 b\caps0 ecause sin is a violation of the will of God, and it is in itself wrong to disregard that will; and,

(b)\caps1 b\caps0 ecause it is to be presumed that when God has given law there is a good reason why he has done it.

\tx720 \tx1080 (2)\caps1 t\caps0 he fact that the law has a penalty is an argument for not violating the law.

All law has a penalty; that is, there is some suffering, disadvantage, forfeit of privileges, etc., which the violation of law draws in its train, and which is to be regarded as an expression of the sense which the lawgiver entertains of the value of his law, and of the evil of disobeying it. Many of these penalties of the violation of the divine law are seen in this life, and all will be certain to occur sooner or later, in this world or in the world to come. With such views of the law and of sin - of his obligations, and of the evils of disobedience - a Christian should not, and will not, deliberately and habitually violate the law of God.

Poole: 1Jo 3:4

Which is added, to signify nothing can be more unreasonable, than the expectation of partaking with God in the glory and blessedness of the future state, if we now allow ourselves in a course of sin, or of transgressing his holy law, which is the very notion of sin; and is again further enforced from the design of our Redeemer.

Haydock: 1Jo 3:4

Committeth also iniquity. [1] By the Greek text, iniquity is here taken for a transgression or prevarication of the law, which makes the sense clearer. (Witham) ---

Iniquity; ( Greek: anomia ) transgression of the law. (Challoner)

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

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Et peccatum est iniquitas, Greek: kai e amartia estin e anomia, transgressio.

Gill: 1Jo 3:4

Whosoever committeth sin,.... This, in connection with what follows, is true of any sin, great or small, but here designs a course of sinning, a wilful, obstinate, persisting in sin:

transgresseth also the law; not of man, unless the law of men is founded on, and agrees with the law of God, for sometimes to transgress the laws of men is no sin, and to obey them would be criminal; but the law of God, and that not the ceremonial law, which was now abolished, and therefore to neglect it, or go contrary to it, was not sinful; but the moral law, and every precept of it, which regards love to God or to our neighbour, and which may be transgressed in thought, word, and deed; and he that committeth sin transgresses it in one or all of these ways, of which the law accuses and convicts, and for it pronounces guilty before God, and curses and condemns; and this therefore is an argument against sinning, because it is against the law of God, which is holy, just, and good, and contains the good and acceptable, and perfect will of God, which is agreeable to his nature and perfections; so that sin is ultimately against God himself:

for sin is a transgression of the law; and whatever is a transgression of the law is sin; the law requires a conformity of nature and actions to it, and where there is a want of either, it is a breach of it; it is concerned with the will and affections, the inclinations and desires of the mind, as well as the outward actions of life; concupiscence or lust is a violation of the law, as well as actual sin; and especially a course of sinning both in heart, lip, and life, is a continued transgression of it, and exposes to its curse and condemnation, and to the wrath of God; and is inconsistent with a true hope of being the sons and heirs of God: but then the transgression of what is not the law of God, whether the traditions of the elders among the Jews, or the ordinances of men among Papists, Pagans, and Turks, or any other, is no sin, nor should affect the consciences of men.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: 1Jo 3:4

¹ sn Everyone who practices sin. In contrast to the πᾶς ὁ (pas Jo) + participle construction in 3:3 (everyone who has, πᾶς ὁ ἔχων [pas Jo ecwn]) which referred to believers, the use of everyone who practices sin (πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν [pas Jo poiwn thn Jamartian]) here refers to the author’s opponents. A similar use, referring to the opponents’ denial of the Son, is found in 2:23.

² sn The Greek word ἀνομία (anomia) is often translated “iniquity” or “lawlessness” and in the LXX refers particularly to transgression of the law of Moses. In Jewish thought the ideas of sin (ἁμαρτία, Jamartia) and lawlessness or iniquity (ἀνομία) were often equated because sin involved a violation of the Mosaic law and hence lawlessness. For example, Ps 51:5 LXX sets the two in parallel, and Paul in Rom 4:7 (quoting Ps 32:1) does the same. For the author, it is not violation of the Mosaic law that results in lawlessness, since he is writing to Christians. The ‘law’ for the author is the law of love, as given by Jesus in the new commandment of John 13:34-35. This is the command to love one’s brother, a major theme of 1 John and the one specific sin in the entire letter which the opponents are charged with (3:17). Since the author has already labeled the opponents “antichrists” in 2:18, it may well be that he sees in their iniquitous behavior of withdrawing from the community and refusing to love the brethren a foreshadowing of the apocalyptic iniquity of the end times (cf. 2 Thess 2:3-8). In Matt 24:11-12 Jesus foretold that false prophets would arise in the end times (cf. 1 John 4:1), that lawlessness (anomia) would increase, and that “the love of many will grow cold” (which would certainly fit the author’s portrait of the opponents here).

³ tn Grk “and.”

Geneva Bible: 1Jo 3:4

^{( 5 )} Whosoever ^{( f )} committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for ^{( g )} sin is the transgression of the law.

^{( 5 )} The rule of this purity can from no where else be taken but from the law of God, the transgression of which is called sin.

^{( f )} Does not give himself to pureness.

^{( g )} A short definition of sin.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: 1Jo 3:1-24

1 He declares the singular love of God towards us, in making us his sons;

3 who therefore ought obediently to keep his commandments;

11 as also to love one another as brethren.

MHCC: 1Jo 3:3-10

The sons of God know that their Lord is of purer eyes than to allow any thing unholy and impure to dwell with him. It is the hope of hypocrites, not of the sons of God, that makes allowance for gratifying impure desires and lusts. May we be followers of him as his dear children, thus show our sense of his unspeakable mercy, and express that obedient, grateful, humble mind which becomes us. Sin is the rejecting the Divine law. In him, that is, in Christ, was no sin. All the sinless weaknesses that were consequences of the fall, he took; that is, all those infirmities of mind or body which subject man to suffering, and expose him to temptation. But our moral infirmities, our proneness to sin, he had not. He that abides in Christ, continues not in the practice of sin. Renouncing sin is the great proof of spiritual union with, continuance in, and saving knowledge of the Lord Christ. Beware of self-deceit. He that doeth righteousness is righteous, and to be a follower of Christ, shows an interest by faith in his obedience and sufferings. But a man cannot act like the devil, and at the same time be a disciple of Christ Jesus. Let us not serve or indulge what the Son of God came to destroy. To be born of God is to be inwardly renewed by the power of the Spirit of God. Renewing grace is an abiding principle. Religion is not an art, a matter of dexterity and skill, but a new nature. And the regenerate person cannot sin as he did before he was born of God, and as others do who are not born again. There is that light in his mind, which shows him the evil and malignity of sin. There is that bias upon his heart, which disposes him to loathe and hate sin. There is the spiritual principle that opposes sinful acts. And there is repentance for sin, if committed. It goes against him to sin with forethought. The children of God and the children of the devil have their distinct characters. The seed of the serpent are known by neglect of religion, and by their hating real Christians. He only is righteous before God, as a justified believer, who is taught and disposed to righteousness by the Holy Spirit. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil. May all professors of the gospel lay these truths to heart, and try themselves by them.

Matthew Henry: 1Jo 3:4-10

The apostle, having alleged the believer's obligation to purity from his hope of heaven, and of communion with Christ in glory at the day of his appearance, now proceeds to fill his own mouth and the believer's mind with multiplied arguments against sin, and all communion with the impure unfruitful works of darkness. And so he reasons and argues,

I. From the nature of sin and the intrinsic evil of it. It is a contrariety to the divine law: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also ( or even ) the law (or, whosoever committeth sin even committeth enormity, or aberration from law, or from the law); for sin is the transgression of the law, or is lawlessness, 1Jo 3:4. Sin is the destitution or privation of correspondence and agreement with the divine law, that law which is the transcript of the divine nature and purity, which contains his will for the government of the world, which is suitable to the rational nature, and enacted for the good of the world, which shows man the way of felicity and peace, and conducts him to the author of his nature and of the law. The current commission of sin now is the rejection of the divine law, and this is the rejection of the divine authority, and consequently of God himself.

II. From the design and errand of the Lord Jesus in and to this world, which was to remove sin: And you know that he was manifested to take away our sins, and in him is no sin, 1Jo 3:5. The Son of God appeared, and was known, in our nature; and he came to vindicate and exalt the divine law, and that by obedience to the precept, and by subjection and suffering under the penal sanction, under the curse of it. He came therefore to take away our sins, to take away the guilt of them by the sacrifice of himself, to take away the commission of them by implanting a new nature in us (for we are sanctifies by virtue of his death), and to dissuade and save from it by his own example, and (or for ) in him was no sin; or, he takes sin away, that he may conform us to himself, and in him is no sin. Those that expect communion with Christ above should study communion with him here in the utmost purity. And the Christian world should know and consider the great end of the Son of God's coming hither: it was to take away our sin: And you know (and this knowledge should be deep and effectual) that he was manifested to take away our sins.

III. From the opposition between sin and a real union with or adhesion to the Lord Christ: Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not, 1Jo 3:6. To sin here is the same as to commit sin (1Jo 3:8, 1Jo 3:9), and to commit sin is to practise sin. He that abideth in Christ continues not in the practice of sin. As vital union with the Lord Jesus broke the power of sin in the heart and nature, so continuance therein prevents the regency and prevalence thereof in the life and conduct. Or the negative expression here is put for the positive: He sinneth not, that is, he is obedient, he keeps the commandments (in sincerity, and in the ordinary course of life) and does those things that are pleasing in his sight, as is said 1Jo 3:22. Those that abide in Christ abide in their covenant with him, and consequently watch against the sin that is contrary thereto. They abide in the potent light and knowledge of him; and therefore it may be concluded that he that sinneth (abideth in the predominant practice of sin) hath not seen him (hath not his mind impressed with a sound evangelical discerning of him), neither known him, hath no experimental acquaintance with him. Practical renunciation of sin is the great evidence of spiritual union with, continuance in, and saving knowledge of, the Lord Christ.

IV. From the connection between the practice of righteousness and a state of righteousness, intimating withal that the practice of sin and a justified state are inconsistent; and this is introduced with a supposition that a surmise to the contrary is a gross deceit: " Little children, dear children, and as much children as you are, herein let no man deceive you. There will be those who will magnify your new light and entertainment of Christianity, who will make you believe that your knowledge, profession, and baptism, will excuse you from the care and accuracy of the Christian life. But beware of such self-deceit. He that doeth righteousness in righteous. "It may appear that righteousness may in several places of scripture be justly rendered religion, as Mat 5:10, Blessed are those that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, that is, for religion's sake; 1Pe 3:14, But if you suffer for righteousness' sake (religion's sake) happy are you; and 2Ti 3:16, All scripture, or the whole scripture, is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine - and for instruction in righteousness, that is, in the nature and branches of religion. To do righteousness then, especially being set in opposition to the doing, committing, or practising, of sin, is to practise religion. Now he who practiseth religion is righteous; he is the righteous person on all accounts; he is sincere and upright before God. The practice of religion cannot subsist without a principle of integrity and conscience. He has that righteousness which consists in pardon of sin and right to life, founded upon the imputation of the Mediator's righteousness. He has a title to the crown of righteousness, which the righteous Judge will give, according to his covenant and promise, to those that love his appearing, 2Ti 4:8. He has communion with Christ, in conformity to the divine law, being in some measure practically righteous as he; and he has communion with him in the justified state, being now relatively righteous together with him.

V. From the relation between the sinner and the devil, and thereupon from the design and office of the Lord Christ against the devil. 1. From the relation between the sinner and the devil. As elsewhere sinners and saints are distinguished (though even saints are sinners largely so called), so to commit sin is here so to practise it as sinners do, that are distinguished from saints, to live under the power and dominion of it; and he who does so is of the devil; his sinful nature is inspired by, and agreeable and pleasing to, the devil; and he belongs to the party, and interest, and kingdom of the devil. It is he that is the author and patron of sin, and has been a practitioner of it, a tempter and instigator to it, even from the beginning of the world. And thereupon we must see how he argues. 2. From the design and office of the Lord Christ against the devil: For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil, 1Jo 3:8. The devil has designed and endeavoured to ruin the work of God in this world. The Son of God has undertaken the holy war against him. He came into our world, and was manifested in our flesh, that he might conquer him and dissolve his works. Sin will he loosen and dissolve more and more, till he has quite destroyed it. Let not us serve or indulge what the Son of God came to destroy.

VI. From the connection between regeneration and the relinquishment of sin: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin. To be born of God is to be inwardly renewed, and restored to a holy integrity or rectitude of nature by the power of the Spirit of God. Such a one committeth not sin, does not work iniquity nor practise disobedience, which is contrary to his new nature and the regenerate complexion of his spirit; for, as the apostle adds, his seed remaineth in him, either the word of God in its light and power remaineth in him (as 1Pe 1:23, Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever ), or, that which is born of the Spirit is spirit; the spiritual seminal principle of holiness remaineth in him. Renewing grace is an abiding principle. Religion, in the spring of it, is not an art, an acquired dexterity and skill, but a new nature. And thereupon the consequence is the regenerate person cannot sin. That he cannot commit an act of sin, I suppose no judicious interpreter understands. This would be contrary to 1Jo 1:9, where it is made our duty to confess our sins, and supposed that our privilege thereupon is to have our sins forgiven. He therefore cannot sin, in the sense in which the apostle says, he cannot commit sin. He cannot continue in the course and practice of sin. He cannot so sin as to denominate him a sinner in opposition to a saint or servant of God. Again, he cannot sin comparatively, as he did before he was born of God, and as others do that are not so. And the reason is because he is born of God, which will amount to all this inhibition and impediment. 1. There is a light in his mind which shows him the evil and malignity of sin. 2. There is that bias upon his heart which disposes him to loathe and hate sin. 3. There is the spiritual seminal principle or disposition, that breaks the force and fulness of the sinful acts. They proceed not from such plenary power of corruption as they do in others, nor obtain that plenitude of heart, spirit, and consent, which they do in others. The spirit lusteth against the flesh. And therefore in respect to such sin it may be said, It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. It is not reckoned the person's sin, in the gospel account, where the bent and frame of the mind and spirit are against it. Then, 4. There is a disposition for humiliation and repentance for sin, when it has been committed. He that is born of God cannot sin. Here we may call to mind the usual distinction of natural and moral impotency. The unregenerate person is morally unable for what is religiously good. The regenerate person is happily disabled for sin. There is a restraint, an embargo (as we may say), laid upon his sinning powers. It goes against him sedately and deliberately to sin. We usually say of a person of known integrity, "He cannot lie, he cannot cheat, and commit other enormities." How can I commit this great wickedness, and sin against God! Gen 39:9. And so those who persist in a sinful life sufficiently demonstrate that they are not born of God.

VII. From the discrimination between the children of God and the children of the devil. They have their distinct characters. In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil, 1Jo 3:10. In the world (according to the old distinction) there are the seed of God and the seed of the serpent. Now the seed of the serpent is known by these two signatures: - 1. By neglect of religion: Whosoever doeth not righteously (omits and disregards the rights and dues of God; for religion is but our righteousness towards God, or giving him his due, and whosoever does not conscientiously do this) is not of God, but, on the contrary, of the devil. The devil is the father of unrighteous or irreligious souls. And, 2. By hatred of fellow-christians: Neither he that loveth not his brother, 1Jo 3:10. True Christians are to be loved for God's and Christ's sake. Those who so love them not, but despise, and hate, and persecute them, have the serpentine nature still abiding in them.

Barclay: 1Jo 3:3-8

John has just said that the Christian is on the way to seeing God and being like him. There is nothing like a great aim for helping a man to resist temptation. A novelist draws the picture of a young man who always refused to share in the lower pleasures to which his comrades often invited and even urged him. His explanation was that some day something fine was going to come to him, and he must keep himself ready for it. The man who knows that God is at the end of the road will make all life a preparation to meet him.

This passage is directed against the Gnostic false teachers. As we have seen they produced more than one reason to justify sin. They said that the body was evil and that, therefore, there was no harm in sating its lusts, because what happened to it was of no importance. They said that the truly spiritual man was so armoured with the Spirit that he could sin to his heart's content and take no harm from it. They even said that the true Gnostic was under obligation both to scale the heights and to plumb the depths so that he might be truly said to know all things. Behind John's answer there is a kind of analysis of sin.

He begins by insisting that no one is superior to the moral law. No one can say that it is quite safe for him to allow himself certain things, although they may be dangerous for others. As A. E. Brooke puts it: "The test of progress is obedience." Progress does not confer the privilege to sin; the further on a man is the more disciplined a character he will be. John goes on to imply certain basic truths about sin.

(i) He tells us what sin is. It is the deliberate breaking of a law which a man well knows. Sin is to obey oneself rather than to obey God.

(ii) He tells us what sin does. It undoes the work of Christ. Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (Joh 1:29). To sin is to bring back what he came into the world to abolish.

(iii) He tells us why sin is. It comes from the failure to abide in Christ. We need not think that this is a truth only for advanced mystics. It simply means this--so long as we remember the continual presence of Jesus, we will not sin; it is when we forget that presence that we sin.

(iv) He tells us whence sin comes. It comes from the devil; and the devil is he who sins, as it were, on principle. That probably is the meaning of the phrase from the beginning (1Jo 3:8). We sin for the pleasure that we think it will bring to us; the devil sins as a matter of principle. The New Testament does not try to explain the devil and his origin; but it is quite convinced--and it is a fact of universal experience that in the world there is a power hostile to God; and to sin is to obey that power instead of God.

(v) He tells us how sin is conquered. It is conquered because Jesus Christ destroyed the works of the devil. The New Testament often dwells on the Christ who faced and conquered the powers of evil (Mat 12:25-29; Luk 10:18; Col 2:15; 1Pe 3:22; Joh 12:31). He has broken the power of evil, and by his help that same victory can be ours.

Constable: 1Jo 3:1--5:14

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

"In the second division of this document (3:1-5:13) John concentrates on the developing spiritual life of his followers, rather than sustaining his attack on the heretics, some of whom have already seceded from his church (2:19). The latter, however, are still in view (cf. 3:4, 7; 4:1-6).

"John's teaching in this new section follows the same literary pattern as before. After an initial statement about the character of God as Father (3:1-3 [cf. 1:5-7]), a number of conditions are set out for living as God's children. These balance almost exactly the conditions for living in the light announced in the earlier chapters. . . . The following table makes the parallels clear:

"Live in the light (1:5-2:29)	Live as children of God (3:1-5:13)
(a) God is light	(a) God is Father
(b) 1st condition: renounce sin	(b) 1st condition: renounce sin
(c) 2nd condition: be obedient	(c) 2nd condition: be obedient
(d) 3rd condition: reject worldliness	(d) 3rd condition: reject worldliness
	(e) 4th condition: be loving
(f) 4th condition: keep the faith	(f) 5th condition: keep the faith."103

Constable: 1Jo 3:4--5:14

B. Conditions for Living as God's Children 3:4-5:13

Having stated the theme of this section of the epistle in 3:1-3 (cf. 1:5-7) John proceeded to develop his assertion that believers are the children of God through Jesus Christ.

"In the preceding section John has been stressing the importance of continuing in Christ, doing what is right, and purifying oneself in anticipation of his coming. Now he deals more closely with the negative side of all this, the need for believers to abstain from sin and the possibility of their doing so."¹¹¹

Constable: 1Jo 3:4-9

1. Renouncing sin reaffirmed 3:4-9

"The present vv, 3:4-9, form six strophes, each of which divides . . . roughly into half. The two halves of the strophes balance one another; for the second part of the v provides a development of the first part (vv 4, 5, 7), or a parallel (vv 6, 9) or a contrast (v 8) to it."¹¹²

3:4 Sin stands in opposition to purity. Furthermore sin is very serious. The use of the Greek word translated "lawlessness" (anosmia) carries a connotation of wickedness (cf. Matt. 7:23; 13:41; 24:2; 2 Thess. 2:7). It means rejection of law, flagrant opposition to God, rather than just breaking God's law. Evidently the false teachers had a soft view of sin (cf. vv. 7-8).

3:5 Two more facts believers know highlight the seriousness of sin. Jesus Christ became incarnate to remove sin, and there was no sin in Him. This is a strong assertion of Jesus' sinlessness (cf. 2:1; John 8:31-59; 10:30; 17:22; 1 Pet. 2:22)

"Because Jesus was holy, and without sin, this can become the character of those who abide in him (cf. Heb 2:10-4:16; 5:9)."¹¹³

"The dominant thought here is not that of the self-sacrifice of Christ, but of His utter hostility to sin in every shape."¹¹⁴

3:6 If abiding in God equals being a Christian, this verse appears to contradict what John wrote in 1:8 and 10. There he said that Christians sin (cf. 2a:1; 15, 29; 3:12, 18; 5:16, 21). It also seems to contradict personal experience since genuine Christians do indeed sin.

The key to understanding this statement, I believe, lies in the other terms that John used in the verse: "has seen" and "knows." John used these words throughout this epistle to refer to a believer who is walking in intimate fellowship with God (1:7; 2:3, 10). Still does this view not contradict what John said about the depravity of sinners, even Christian sinners (1:8)? I believe John was claiming that when a Christian walks in close fellowship with God he does not sin. The abiding believer never repudiates God's authority over him by doing anything that resists God's law or will while he is abiding in Christ. If he does, his fellowship with God suffers. He no longer "knows" God in that intimate sense. He no longer "sees" God because he has moved out of the light into darkness.

"John is thus saying that (translating the Gr. literally) everyone who lives in him (Jesus) does not sin'; and by this he means that an intimate and ongoing relationship with Christ (ho en auto menon, the one who lives in him,' using the present tense) precludes the practice of sin . . ."¹¹⁵

There was no sin whatsoever in Jesus Christ (v. 5). He consistently abode in the Father (cf. John 14:9). The Christian who consistently "abides" in a sinless Person does not sin (v. 6). If we could abide in Christ without interruption, we would be sinless. Unfortunately we cannot do that.

Some Christians have used this verse to support the theory that Christians are sinless and perfect. Scripture and experience contradict this position (e.g., 1:8-9). Others have used it to teach that a Christian does not habitually sin, but this too is contrary to experience and the same Scripture. Advocates of this second view usually support it with the present tense of the Greek verb (harmartanei) that they take to mean "keeps on sinning."

"In modern times a popular expedient for dealing with the difficulties perceived in 1 John 3:6, 9 is to appeal to the use of the Greek present tense. It is then asserted that this tense necessitates a translation like, Whoever has been born of God does not go on sinning,' or, does not continually sin.' The inference to be drawn from such renderings is that, though the Christian may sin somewhat (how much is never specified!), he may not sin regularly or persistently. But on all grounds, whether linguistic or exegetical, the approach is indefensible.

"As has been pointed out by more than one competent Greek scholar, the appeal to the present tense invites intense suspicion. No other text can be cited where the Greek present tense, unaided by qualifying words, can carry this kind of significance. Indeed, when the Greek writer or speaker wished to indicate that an action was, or was not, continual, there were special words to express this."¹¹⁶

If we were to translate 1:8 and 5:16, where the present tense also occurs, "do not continually have sin" and "continually sinning a sin" respectively, these verses would contradict 3:6. It would involve no self-deception to say that we do not continually have sin (1:8) since whoever is born of God does not continually sin (3:6). Furthermore if one born of God does not continually sin (3:1), how could a Christian see his brother continually sinning (5:16)? Suppose we translated the present tense in John 14:6 the same way: "No one continually comes to the Father except through Me." This would imply that occasionally someone might come to God in another way. No orthodox translator would offer that as an acceptable translation of John 14:6, and it is not acceptable in 1 John 3:6 either.

". . . it is not surprising that commentators have attempted to water down John's teaching to refer merely to the believer's freedom from habitual sin. But we must not misinterpret the text for pastoral reasons. Properly interpreted, the text remains a source of comfort."¹¹⁷

Another view takes John to mean that no one who abides in Christ has the power to sin, or, to put it positively, Christians who abide in Him have the power not to sin.¹¹⁸ Yet this is an idea that the reader must import into the verse. While it is true that Christians who abide in Christ have the power not to sin, this does not seem to be what John meant here. He seemed to link abiding and not sinning in a more direct cause and effect relationship.

Verse 4 sets forth the essential character of sin, verse 5 relates it to the person and work of Christ, and verse 6 relates it to the whole human race.

3:7-8 Evidently the false teachers were in danger of deceiving John's readers by telling them the opposite of what the apostles said here. John's point was two-fold: conduct manifests spiritual relationship (cf. 2:29), and God hates sin (cf. v. 5).

"By saying that the person who is a determined sinner (in the sense suggested by v 6) belongs to the devil,' John is in the first place drawing on the background of Gen 3 (1-15), where the power of evil is represented as a serpent who tempts the woman (and, through her, the man) to disobey God (the reference to Cain and Abel in v 12 confirms the suggestion that this section of the OT is in mind here)."¹¹⁹

3:9 Many English translations interpret the Greek present tense as saying no Christian habitually sins.¹²⁰ However the Greek present tense does not always indicate habitual action.¹²¹ Frequently it describes absolute action.¹²² Since earlier John wrote that the Christian does sin habitually (1:6-10; cf. 2:1) the idea that the Christian does not sin habitually seems inconsistent.¹²³

The reason one born of God does not sin is he has been born of God. John could say the Christian is sinless because a sinless Parent has begotten the Christian. The Christian becomes a partaker of God's divine sinless nature when he or she experiences the new birth. The Christian sins because he also has a sinful human nature. However in this verse John was looking only at the sinless nature of the indwelling Christ that we possess.¹²⁴

Again, if we were able to abide in Christ without interruption, we would never sin. The sinless nature of Christ controls the abiding Christian whereas the sinful human nature controls the non-abiding Christian.

"That is, sin is never the product of our abiding experience. It is never the act of the regenerate self per se. On the contrary, sin is the product of ignorance and blindness toward God [cf. 3:6b].

"To view sin as intrinsically foreign to what we are as regenerate people in Christ is to take the first step toward spiritual victory over it."¹²⁵

John was saying that when a Christian abides in God he will behave as his heavenly Father, and others will recognize that he is a child of God.¹²⁶

"If someone says, A priest cannot commit fornication,' one cannot deny that as a man he can commit it; but priests, functioning as priests, do not do those things. The Bible uses language in a similar way, A good tree cannot produce bad fruit' (Mt. 7:18). Of course a good tree can produce bad fruit, but not as a result of what it really is, a good tree. Also Jesus said, men cannot' fast while the bride groom is with them (Mk. 2:19). They can fast, but to do so is incongruous and unnatural.

"Similar notions are found in Pauline thought. Paul says, I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and delivered Himself up for me' (Gal. 2:20). If a Christian sins, his sin cannot be expression [sic] of who he really is, because his true life is that of Christ in him [cf. Rom. 7:20-25].

". . . when a Christian sins (and John believes he can and will, 1 Jn. 2:1), in that act he is behaving like a child of Satan. Who he really is is not being made evident. To use Paul's phrase, he is walking like a mere man' (1 Cor. 3:3)."¹²⁷

Note the chiastic structure of verse 9.

Verses 6 and 9 also form an inclusio.¹²⁸

A No one who abides in Him sins (6a)

B Everyone who sins . . . (v. 6b)

A The one who acts righteously (v. 7)

B The one who commits sin (v. 8)

A No one who is born of God sins (v. 9).

College: 1Jo 3:1-24

1 JOHN 3

B. GOD'S LOVE FOR HIS CHILDREN (3:1-3)

¹ How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. ² Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears ^a , we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. ³ Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure"

^a 2 Or when it is made known

3:1 How great is the love the Father has lavished on us,

The word translated "lavished" is from divdwmi (didômi, "to give"). However when we think of the awesomeness of having God give to us, it does become lavish. God has granted to us physical being, everyday blessings, health, the ability to be happy, and on top of all of this, a spiritual fellowship with him and his Son Jesus Christ. When God, "who owns all the cattle on a thousand hills" (Ps 50:10) gives to us, then we should be deeply humbled! We sustain a very special relation with God. The world does not have that kind of a relationship. And the world does not realize how greatly blessed we are because "it did not know him." There is a cause-relation kinship between the world knowing us and the world knowing God. They did not know God, so they could not know us. The greatest wonder of all is that we are children of God! None of us has had anything to do with who our natural parents are. But in the case of our Heavenly Father, we make a determined choice. God does not force us to become his children. We obey his commands, and he makes us his children. There is a parallel between this verse and Jesus' teaching to Nicodemus about the new birth (John 3:1-3). It is not because of our own righteousness that we are children of God. It is brought about because of God's great love for us.

that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.

John makes a strong exclamation: we are to be called children of God . And then to emphasize his thought he adds, And that is what we are! Again, he stresses that the world does not know us. The reason? Because it did not know him. These Gnostics, the false teachers, do not know us because they do not know God! Earlier, John stated that they are not of us. "If they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us" (see 1 John 2:19).

3:2 Dear friends, now we are children of God,

Some emphasis seems to be given to the word "now." We know what we are now : we are children of God . John makes three statements which represent the sequence of some events to follow: first, when he shall appear (v. 1); second, we shall be like him, (v. 2); and , third, we shall see him as he is. Of this we can be assured. All of this is because we are children of God. No one has ever seen God (John 6:46). The nearest anyone has come was to see Jesus, for he said "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).

We know what we are now; we are children of the Father in heaven. We know some things about our earthly existence as part of the fellowship of God. We know that angels and the prophets longed to see and experience what we enjoy. "Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things" (1 Pet 1:10-12).

and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

One of the reasons that we cannot know what he is now is because we do not have the ability to peer into the spiritual realm. Our language and our understanding is not sufficient to look into the spiritual and eternal realm. This is one reason why what we will be has not yet been made known. God has not revealed to us the manner of transformation we will experience when we meet our Savior. But we are assured that we will experience a transformation. Paul told the Corinthian Christians that "we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit" (2 Cor 3:18). The Gnostics would not have understood what John is saying. How can one who was human (as Jesus was) also be a spiritual, eternal being; and how can he at his coming make us to be like he is? Undoubtedly, John is establishing a very important concept for those who did not follow the heretics who had left them. Why would they want to follow them when the privileges of following Christ were so magnificent and awe-inspiring? What John is saying is that "this transformation will take place because we shall see him as he is."

3:3 Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure.

This hope is obviously referring to the hope that we will be changed and will be like him. It is a hope that is in him (that is, in Jesus). It is not surprising that John would connect our being like him to the concept of purity. Jesus was pure and he stressed purity. This would be in contradistinction to the Gnostics' denial of sin (see 1:8-2:2) and to the impurity of the lives of some of the Gnostics we read about in ancient literature. Some of them taught and practiced "free love," and if there is no sin, they undoubtedly practiced other activities that would tend to be impure.

Purity does not come to the Christian through anything the Christian is or has done . Purity comes about through the shedding of Jesus' blood on the cross. The docetic Gnostics denied that Jesus died on the cross. He only seemed to die. John has emphasized before that since Christ is righteous, we need to practice righteousness (through obedience to his commands) if we expect to be righteous. Nothing but the blood of Christ can remove the guilt and stain of sin on our lives (see 1:7; 1 Pet 1:22; 2 Cor 7:1).

C. WARNINGS AGAINST SIN (3:4-10)

⁴ Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. ⁵ But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. ⁶ No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

⁷ Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. ⁸ He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. ⁹ 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. ¹⁰ This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

Again, John makes a sudden change in the thought. It is all connected to his central theme, which is to discredit those "who went out from them." The gnostic philosophy did not have any place in it for a doctrine of sin. If one had the "special" gift of knowledge that they claimed to have, he was above sin. In the first part of this section of Scripture, John begins first by telling us about the nature of sin and the sinner.

3:4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

Paul pointed out this same truth to the Romans. It was through the law that Paul learned about sin. The law itself is not sin, but disobeying what the law said was sin (see Rom 7:7-12). It does not appear here that the "law" is referring to the Law of Moses. Rather, sin appears to be just the opposite of righteousness. Righteousness has already been described as obedience of the commands, or commandments, given to us through the Son. So, as Jesus is righteous, so we also should be righteous when we obey the commands. This in no way is giving us the ability to be righteous on our own. It is through the shedding of Jesus' blood that we are made righteous. Living a lawless life is living as if there were no law. There were two major approaches to the definition of sin in John's day. Lawlessness (ajnomivan, anomian , "no law") was one form. To the Jewish population, this would be very clear, for they were bound by the law. The other meaning of sin was the Greek concept of sin, "missing the mark," from the Greek word aJmartiva ( hamartia , literally, "missing the mark" or "sin"). John uses the word hamartia here when he says "sin is lawlessness." He covers both of these meanings here in his text.

3:5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.

This was the redeeming work of Jesus. The verb used here is not the one used for "to atone for" but rather "to take away, to bear away." Jesus was a "ransom" price for all men (1 Tim 2:6). He was an ajntivlutron ( antilytron , "ransom price"). Satan had all of humankind in his clutches. He could rightly say that all men had disobeyed God's laws and that they had to pay the penalty. But then Jesus stepped in to pay the penalty for us and to set us free. We now belong to God! We could have only been redeemed by one who was not vulnerable to Satan's accusations himself. Jesus had no sin or else he could not have ransomed us.

3:6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

John is not claiming that Christians do not sin, for he has already said (1:8-10) that if we claim to be without sin, we are liars. The expression "who lives in him," literally means "abides, or remains" in him. This statement was not intended to mean that we do not sin; it means we do not live a life of sin. See notes on verses 8-9 later. John wants to make it perfectly clear that the gnostic idea of sin was not in keeping with what had been revealed from the Savior. No one who continues to live a life of sin has either seen him or known him .

3:7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray.

In this very grave warning, John uses the word "little children." Perhaps he wants them to realize that he both loves them (for this is a very endearing word) and that he wants to impress upon them their fallibility in the face of serious temptation to follow new and fanciful doctrines. Even in our own day, there must be constant vigilance for those who would teach error. As we have tried to impress, many of the teachings of the Gnostics have arisen in different situations throughout the ages, and we have many of them in such new heresies as the New Age movement. The apostle Paul gave serious warnings not unlike those of John. To the elders (the leaders and shepherds of the flock of Christians) Paul warned, "I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number [emphasis mine] men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears" (Acts 20:29-31). None of us is totally out of the devil's reach. Without constant protection from our Father and Jesus his Son, we could all fall into the hands of Satan.

He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.

Living right, or righteously, is living according to law or not missing the mark. John's first statement here is really self-explanatory. It seems, however, that John is emphasizing this great truth because some were in danger of being led astray by the gnostic teachings that sin was not a reality. They needed to be told that forgiveness and cleansing from sin are vitally important to all of them. Paul faced this same problem, and he deals with it in Romans 6:1ff. He asked them "Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?" to which he answered, "By no means!" Whether he was dealing here with gnostic teachers or someone else who was trying to minimize the terribleness of sin, we do not know. Both John and Paul deal very forthrightly about the terrible consequences of sin and how we must avoid sin. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. Jesus is undoubtedly the one who is righteous. John uses the same emphatic word as he did in verse 3 to refer to Jesus. Associating (or, fellowshiping) with Jesus will assure us the right example and the appropriate standard by which to build our lives.

3:8 He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning.

We have seen that sin is incompatible with Christ, and Christians should therefore avoid it. A second reason why we should avoid sin is because of its origin. It is not merely "missing the mark." It puts us into the "family of Satan." The devil is the originator of sin; he is the father of sin. He evidently was disobedient to God from the very beginning. There are a number of statements in the Scripture that indicate that Satan was a rebellious, fallen angel. John pushes the time of his rebellious fall to an early point: from the beginning. The devil has been sinning from the beginning; and ever since that time it has been the very nature of the devil to be a sinner.

The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.

The mission of Jesus in his first coming was to destroy sin and the devil. Paul says that Christ "must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death" (1 Cor 15:25-26). Even though death is still present among us, Paul assures us that Jesus has actually destroyed death through his resurrection. We indicated earlier that Jesus' first coming was as a savior and his second coming will be as a judge. This is certainly true so far as the devil is concerned.

3:9 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.

Born of God is from the word gegennhmevno" (gegennçmenos, a perfect passive participle, meaning "has already been born of God"). Being a perfect tense, it signifies that the Christian has already been born of God and remains in that condition. And the expression will continue to sin is a continuous present tense, indicating that one born of God will not continue living a life of sin. Again, it is not intended to suggest that the one born of God will never sin or make a mistake; it means that he will not live a life that is characterized by sin.

3:10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

How do we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are? Very simply: by their fruits. Those who continue living a life of sin cannot be children of God. And those who do not love their brothers are not children of God. There is an interesting inference that we might draw from John's discussion. One would assume, from the number of times John discusses it, that the Gnostics may not have believed in or practiced love for their brothers. We read that they were a very self-centered people who believed that they were better than others. After all, they divided people into three categories: sinners, ordinary Christians (who had not received the special gift of spiritual knowledge), and the gnostic Christians (who had this special knowledge which separated them from all others). Is it possible that this also included not loving their brothers?

D. LOVE ONE ANOTHER (3:11-24)

¹¹ This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. ¹² Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous. ¹³ Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you. ¹⁴ We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. ¹⁵ Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.

¹⁶ This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. ¹⁷ If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? ¹⁸ Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. ¹⁹ This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence ²⁰ whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.

²¹ Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God ²² and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. ²³ And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. ²⁴ Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

These next fourteen verses give us one of the most powerful expressions of love that you will find. John returns to the role of love as proof that we are walking in the light. He reminds them that this is a central part of the message they had received in the beginning.

3:11 This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another.

This part of his message to them is connected with the previous statements about who is a son of righteousness and who is a son of the devil. He begins verse 11 with the words, o{ti au{th (hoti hautç, "because this" is the message from the beginning), indicating the direct relation of the two thoughts. In other words, it is because it is connected to the message from the beginning, then we should love one another.

3:12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous.

When we fulfill this commandment to love one another, we must be careful that our lives are not like that of Cain (see Gen 4:2-16) who committed the first murder by killing his own brother. John is showing that Cain did not love his brother, as evidenced by his cold-blooded murder of Abel. The situation between them arose because the two brothers had offered sacrifices to God; God accepted Abel's offering but rejected Cain's offering. We are not certain why Abel's was acceptable but Cain's wasn't. John said the reason he murdered Abel was because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous. What he did that his actions were evil, we do not know. Was it because Cain offered from the produce of the field while Abel offered a blood sacrifice from his flocks? Was it because only Abel offered his sacrifice "by faith" (Heb 11:4)? We are not told, but for some reason Cain was rejected because he did not properly obey God. John used the illustration of Cain to show the depth of love that we should have for our brothers. Cain's hatred for his brother illustrates a life without righteousness.

3:13 Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you.

It is likely that the Christians of this time were enduring hatred and mistreatment by those "on the cutting edge," as it were, of Christian thinking. These Gnostics were probably making fun of the other Christians for not going along with their false teaching. Certainly the "world" was rejecting this new belief called the "Way," and John is warning them not to be discouraged. Even in our day, we should not "be surprised if the world hates" us; neither should those of John's day have been surprised if they hated the Christians. The same situation exists in our world (and in their world) as existed with Cain and Abel. If the world is evil and God's children are righteous, why should it be surprising that the world hated them?

3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.

John is showing in these verses that love is the evidence of righteousness, not the basis of spiritual living. Earlier John stated that to be righteous, one must obey the commandments (commands) of God. Now, he equates righteousness with loving one's brother. In verse 14, hating one's brother is identified as murder. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says the same thing: "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment," and ultimately this can lead to hell (Matt 5:21-22).

3:15 Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.

Hatred of our brother is identified as murder, and murderers have no place in heaven. This is altogether reasonable, because the one who destroys life has set himself against eternal life.

3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

This verse is obviously a comparison, in John's mind, of Cain and Christ. Cain showed his feelings by murdering his brother. Jesus shows his love to us by laying down his life for us. Here John gives us a definition of "love." He defines it by giving an example of what it does. We know love, he says, because Jesus . . . laid down his life for us. Love takes place when we become "other-centered" rather than "self-centered." In his Gospel, John quotes Jesus as saying, "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). The extent of Jesus' love is also seen in John 15:12-13, "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." And Jesus demonstrated the power of his love in laying down his life for all of his friends (or, disciples). Marshall has this comment, "It [this passage in 1 John 3:16] indicates that one is prepared to give up one's own life in order that others may live. Love means saying 'No' to one's own life so that somebody else may live. Finally, it should be noted that the laying down of life is done for the benefit of the other person." John then makes this action of Jesus even more personal to his readers by saying that we too should lay down our lives for each other.

3:17 If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?

John now illustrates the extent to which our love should reach. It is a demanding requirement! In our day (especially in highly developed nations like America) most of us have far more than we actually need to sustain ourselves. John demands that we lay down part of that which we have to give to a needy brother. This is how koinwniva (koinônia, "fellowship, oneness") should work in our lives. The early church "shared everything they had" (Acts 4:32) with each other. We certainly realize that this was a special situation when people had come from throughout the world, were converted to Jesus Christ, and stayed on in Jerusalem to learn more about this new "Way" they had just found. Certainly there is a kind of spiritual practicality that we must be able to use in applying this to our lives. May God forbid that we use this "spiritual practicality" inappropriately for our own selfish gain, but each person should examine his/her life to decide how we apply this "definition" of love to our own spiritual lives.

3:18 Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

This brief section shows how we can have assurance that we are acceptable to our Lord. Our love must not be merely for show. We must do more than just "talk a good love." I knew a farmer many years ago who could "talk a good crop" for the next year during the winter months. But when it came time to carry out his plans, they were not very successful. Many are this way with their love. They talk about and tell how great their love is. But it is only love with words or tongue , as John charges. We must put our love into action. Only then will it be love in truth .

3:19 This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence 3:20 whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.

Our love helps us to know whether we belong to the truth. John tells us that when we know that our hearts condemn us, our love is insufficient. Since God is greater than our hearts, then he can know who we are and what we are. Let us not try to deceive God by having only a "love with words or tongue." God knows our hearts. We can set our hearts at rest in his presence if we are obedient to his command. We know that we "belong to the truth" when our consciences are at ease in his presence.

3:21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God

J.W Roberts gives a very good overview of verses 21-23. He writes, "As a conclusion to his second major part of the epistle, John mentions three things which seem unrelated to each other but which tie to the major themes of the epistle. First he expands the mention of the believer's confidence before God to include the answer to prayer (vss. 21, 22). Next, he combines the two themes of believing in Jesus as the Son of God and loving one another as the commandment of Christ (vs. 23). Lastly he confirms the fellowship of those who do the commandments by their having the Holy Spirit (vs. 24)." In verse 19, John discusses "hearts at rest" and hearts that "condemn." If our hearts are in tune with God's heart, then our consciences are at rest. This is what John is saying here. If our hearts do not condemn us, then we are "in tune" with God and we have confidence before God. How can one have confidence before God when that heart is impure?

3:22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him.

Although the impure, or pure, heart is a very important element of Christian living, this was not the major reason John mentions it here. He mentions it here to show the relationship we have with God. We will receive from him anything we ask . Why can we be confident that we will receive what we ask? Because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. God will be responsive to his children, and his true children will be obedient to him and will make him proud because we seek to please him. This is the essence of how we keep a clean conscience - to remain in his fellowship.

3:23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

As if his readers have forgotten what his commands are, John tells them. God's command is singular: to believe Jesus Christ and to love one another. It would appear from John's statement that you can't have one without the other. Many in our world would have us believe that all that is necessary to be a good Christian is to just be filled with love for one another, but this is not what John is saying here or elsewhere. The love must be coupled with faith in Jesus Christ. It is not true that anyone who shows love for others is a Christian. Again, it should be emphasized that an idle, inactive faith can be a damnable thing to have. Faith, to be acceptable to God, has to be accompanied with works of obedience (see the first and last sentences of the book of Romans. James warns that even the "demons believe . . . and shudder" (James 2:19). So it is not enough to believe and do nothing about it. Nor can we have love without doing something. Love is one of the greatest motivators we have. You cannot truly love without demonstrating it. So, when John summarizes the meaning of the commands of Jesus, he is stressing the deepest involvement with the Lord that we can have.

3:24 Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them.

One of John's favorite phrases (and certainly, one of Paul's) is "in him." Both of these apostles use this to describe the relationship that we have with Jesus. We are "in him" and he is "in us," as we can see from the first part of this verse. It sounds like this is not possible, for how can I be "in him" and he be "in me" at the same time? This is another way of saying that if we have the proper relationship with Jesus, then we have a common identity. This language reminds us of John's use of such terms as "abide in him," the union and fellowship (koinônia) that we share with Jesus. We are told in John's Gospel that "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me" (John 14:23-24). John insists that obedience to the commandments of God is the condition for having communion with him. This relationship was undoubtedly pointed to the Gnostics who said that it is impossible for man to come into a communion or direct fellowship with God. This was because God is spiritual and mankind is material.

And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

How do we know that we have fellowship and communion with God? We know it by the Spirit he gave us. This is the same Spirit that Jesus promised he would send after he left his disciples. "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you" (John 14:26). God did not leave us alone when Jesus returned to heaven; we have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: 1Jo 3:1-24

CHAPTER 3

Ver. 1 . — Behold what great love the Father hath bestowed on us (unworthy, enemies and sinners as we are), that we should be called, and be the sons of God. Love, actively, His wondrous love to us, and passively, as communicated and infused into us. "How much He loved us," says Vatablus, "in giving us that love whereby we are called the sons of God. For our created love flows out of His uncreated love, as a ray from the sun," &c. For those whom God loves with His uncreated love, He makes to love Him in return with that created love which He infuses. For love is friendship or mutual affection between God and a righteous man. And just as we His creatures owe Him, as our Creator, all honour, worship, and service, so do we as His servants owe Him, as our Lord, fear, reverence, and obedience, and as the Father of all do we owe Him our highest love, our whole, heart, our whole will and affections.

S. John had before stated that he that doeth righteousness is born of God. He here teaches the excellence of that Divine sonship, its fruit and its reward, in order to excite the faithful to those works of righteousness, which show that they are His thankful and worthy children, and to lead them to preserve this their sonship, till it attain the reward of eternal life. Each of S. John's words has great weight, and inspires fresh inducements to love. By the Father we understand the whole Trinity, but especially the Person of the Father, because it is the Father's work to beget children like to His Only Begotten Son, and because our calling, our election, our predestination are the proper work of the Father, and the effect of all these is our justification and adoption as sons. As S. Augustine says ( de Nat. grat. cap. ult.), "Inchoate love is inchoate righteousness, advanced love is advanced righteousness, perfect love is perfect righteousness." And S. Dion ( Eccl. Hier. 1. 2) says, "The first motion of the mind to heavenly things, and its aiming after God, is love. And the first step of holy love towards fulfilling the commands of God, is an unspeakable operation, because we have it from above. For if this heavenly state has a divine origin and birth, he who hath not received it will neither know nor do those things which are taught by God." And hence S. Cyril ( Is. xliv. and Tesaur. xii. 3) calls love the stamp of the Divine Essence, the sanctification, refashioning, the beauty and splendour of the soul.

That we should be called the sons of God (by adoption, as Christ is by nature) and be such. Many are named that which they are not. But we are so named, in order that we may be such. For as S. Augustine says ( in loc.), "If any are called sons and are not, what doth the name profit, where the thing is not? How many are called physicians, who know not how to heal, or watchers, who sleep all the night through? And in like manner many are called Christians, and are not found to be really such, because they are not that which they are called, in life, in faith, in hope, in charity." But what are the words here? " That ye should be called and should be the sons of God." As S. Paul says, Gal. iv. 6. Let the innovators note this who say that we are called righteous only by Christ's imputed righteousness, that the words ' and be such ' are wanting in many MSS. But then the meaning is included in the words 'are called.' For those who are called anything by God are made to be that which they are called. As a king by calling any one by a title, confers that title upon him, much more does God do so, by infusing real gifts of grace in those whom He calls His sons, thus making them worthy of the name, which a king cannot do. For as God in begetting His Son communicated to Him His very nature and divinity, so does He by regenerating us make us partakers of His Godhead, as S. Peter says and the Psalmist also (Psa 82:6). As God is holy in His essence, so does the righteous man who is born of God partake of His sanctity, and all His other attributes, being Almighty, unchangeable, heavenly, impeccable, full of goodness. He is omniscient, as being taught of God; imperturbable, as living above the world; liberal, and envying no man, but promoting every one's interest, as though it were his own. He glows with charity, rendering his enemies good for evil, and thus making them his friends. He is upright, patient, constant, even-minded, prudent, bold, sincere. See Jam 1:18; Hos 1:10.

Hence it follows that we are by justification the sons of God in a threefold respect—(1.) In the past by our spiritual generation. See 2Pe 1:4;  Joh 1:12;  and above, 1Jo 4:4 and 1Jo 4:6, and 1Jo 5:18. (2.) By His fatherly care over us. (See Psa 55:23; above Psa 5:18; Luk 12:7.) "Why fearest thou," says S. Augustine, "since thou art in the bosom of God, who is both thy father and thy mother?" (3.) He is our Father, by the heavenly inheritance which He will give us, making us heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. See Ps. xvi. 6. The Gentiles used falsely to boast of their descent from the gods. But the Christian's boast is a true one. And the truer it is, the more should it stimulate us to godlike deeds. As S. Cyprian says ( de Spetaculis ): "No one will admire the works of men, who knows that he is the son of God. He, who can admire anything after God, casts himself down from his high estate. When the flesh solicits thee, say, 'I am a son of God, I am born to greater things than to be the slave of appetite;' when the world tempts, reply, 'I am a son of God, and destined for heavenly treasures, and it is beneath me to seek for a morsel of white or red earth.' And when Satan offers me honour and pomps, I say, 'Get thee behind me, for as being a son and heir of God, and born for a heavenly kingdom, I trample all worldly honours under my feet.' Devote then the rest of thy life (it may be short indeed) to such noble, arduous, and divine works as Christ and the Saints have performed. Art thou called to a state of perfection, to devote thy life to the salvation of souls?—art thou called to heathen lands, to the cross and martyrdom?—surrender thyself to the call, as becomes the son of so great a father." Alvarez (as De Ponte relates in his life) used to apply this stimulus to himself. "Do not fall away from the lofty purposes of God's children."

Therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knoweth Him not. It knows Him not practically, because worldly men do not love or worship Him. "They know not that we are citizens of heaven (says S. Chrysostom), and associates of the Cherubim. But they shall know in the day of judgment." (See Wisdom 5:3 seq.)

Ver. 2.— Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him. Not in nature but in quality, in happiness, in eternal glory. The world—which knows us not now, because it beholds not our inward beauty—will then know us as like Christ, perfectly holy, just, pure, loving God. And as God enjoys the vision of Himself, so will our mind behold Him as He is, will be blessed in the sight, and our sonship and adoption be thus perfected, when we attain as the sons of God our glorious and happy inheritance.

Observe. We are in three ways like God.—1. As having a rational and intelligent nature. 2. By grace, as S. Bernard says, "consisting in virtues, and the soul strives by the greatness of its virtues to imitate the greatness of the supreme God, and by its constant perseverance in good to imitate His unchangeableness and eternity." 3. The highest and most perfect resemblance to God will be by the beatific glory in heaven, when, as S. Bernard says, "man becomes one spirit with God, not merely by unity of will, but more expressly by not being able to will anything beside, through union with His power." This third resemblance then consists in the Vision of the Triune God. As S. John says, "We shall see Him as He is." Accordingly, Œcumenius places this resemblance in the love and glory of adoption. See Psa 16:11, Psa 47:9, Psa 26:4, Psa 35:10;  1Co 13:12. The Schoolmen thence teach that the Blessed see the very Essence of God, Its three Persons and all Its attributes. For they behold Him in a vision, and draw Him as it were into themselves, and thus derive every good. Accordingly [Pseudo]-S. Augustine says ( de cognit veræ vitæ ad fin.), "This vision and this glory is called the kingdom of heaven because it is only the heavens, that is the just, who enjoy this vision, for theirs is the highest and chiefest Good in whom they have the fulness of joy from the fulness of all goods."

Again, in seeing God they form his image in their minds, which thus represents Him to them. As S. Augustine says ( Euchind. cap. iii.), "When the mind is imbued with the beginning of faith which worketh by love, it strives by holy living to reach that sight wherein is that ineffable beauty, which holy souls know, and in the full vision of which is supreme happiness." And again, they will be like Him, as partaking of His everlasting blessedness. See S. Gregory, Hom. ii. in Ezek.

Then follows on this another resemblance, viz., in will, in the perfect love of God beheld and possessed. As S. Fulgentius says, "We shall be like Him, in imitating His righteousness." And this love will make a man love God with all his heart and soul, so as to have no wish or desire to love anything else than God. As S. Augustine says ( Confessions ), "When I cleave to Thee with my whole heart, I shall have no pain or labour. My life will be full of Thee, but now, when I am not full of Thee, I am a burden to myself."

Moreover, this love will last for ever, and will ever enkindle the blessed to praise God. (See S. Augustine, Serm. cxviii . de Divers. cap. 5.) "When we are like to Him, never shall we fall away, or turn aside. Let us be sure then, the praise of God will never cloy. If thou failest in love, thou wilt cease to praise, but if thy love be never-ending, never be afraid of being unable to praise Him, whom thou wilt ever be able to love." And from this glorious vision there will follow all the endowments of the glorified soul and body of Christ, for there will be entire peace, concord, and harmony in all our powers of action. Our bodies will be impassible, bright, subtle. See 1Co 15:42. Just as the sun shining through a cloud makes mock suns one or more, so will it be with the Godhead as it shines through the bodies and souls of the blessed. And what a happy and glorious sight will this be! See Col 3:3;  1Co 15:45;  Phi 3:21;  2Co 3:18;  Rom 6:5, Rom 8:29.

For we shall see Him as He is. God in His own essence, as the Schoolmen teach.

Again, we shall see Christ as man, clothed as man with a glorious Body (see Bellarmine, de Beat. Sanct. i. 3; Gregory, de Valent., &c.)

And this too, not in a glass and in a figure, but face to face. For in this life we do not see God as He is, but as He became clothed with flesh for our sakes. (See S. Augustine ( in loc.); Origen, Hom. vi . in Gen., and S. Gregory, Hom. ii . in Ezek.)

Ver. 3.— And every one that hath this hope in Him, purifieth himself even as He is pure. The Apostle next shows us the way to attain this likeness to Christ. We must put our whole trust in Him. To be like Him in glory, we must strive to be like Him in holiness, in suffering, and in passion. For no one will be like Christ in heaven, who is unlike Him on earth. For it is His to give us grace to lead us to accomplish so arduous a work. "The mercy of God is the ground for hoping" to strive after sanctity. It is not enough to place our hope in God unless we put our hand to the work, and labour together with Him. See Rom. viii. 17; Heb. xii. 14; Matt. v. 8. [Pseudo]-Augustine admirably says ( de cognit veræ vitæ, in fin.): "To this highest good the righteous are drawn by one link after another. First faith, then hope, then love, perfected in action, action led on by its intention to the highest good, this again issues in perseverance, which will bring us even to God Himself, the fountain of all good."

Purifieth himself, sanctifieth himself, for sanctity "is freedom from every kind of pollution, the most uncontaminated and most perfect purity." (Dionysius, de div. nom. cap. xii.)

The true sanctity of men consists in purification from sins, and rooting out of vices, as S. Paul says, 2Ti 2:21.

Moreover, this cleansing from vices is effected by the implanting and exercise of the contrary virtues, as the rooting out of pride by humility, &c. Sanctity then includes all the virtues with which the soul is sanctified and devoted to God. For that is the meaning of 'sanctus.' Some then explain the word in this sense. Just as Priests and 'Religious' dedicate themselves. And indeed all the faithful in a more imperfect way who are by baptism consecrated to God. See 1Pe 2:9. And Christ said (Joh 17:19), " I sanctify Myself (I offer myself as a holy victim), that the also may be sanctified in the truth."

S. Gregory Nazianzen says, "What is sanctity? To hold converse with God." And S. Bernard ( de Consid. v. 14) says, "Holy affection, which is of two kinds, the fear of God, and holy love, makes a man holy. For a soul which is completely affected by these motives, embraces Him with both its arms, and says, I hold Him and will not let Him go." And he says also ( Serm. xxv . inter parvos ), "There are three things which make a man holy,—simple living, holy deeds, a pious intention," &c. (this is pursued at great length).

As He is holy. See Lev. 26. and Lev 27:28. St. John enforces great sanctity, like the sanctity of God Himself, and continued and daily progress therein, that we may be more and more like Him. See Mat 5:48.

If thou wishest to be holy, set before thee the pattern of sanctity, the life and passion of the Lord. As St. Ambrose says ( de Isaac ), "Let every one strip off the filthy wrappings of His soul, and prove it, when cleansed from its filth, as gold in the fire. But the beauty of a soul, when thus cleansed, consists in a truer knowledge of heavenly things, and the sight of that supreme Good from which all things depend, being Itself from nothing." And S. Gregory Nazianzen, "Let us restore to His image its beauty, let us recognise our dignity, follow our pattern, learn the power of the mystery, and for what purpose Christ died. Let us be as Christ, since He became as one of us. Let us be gods for His sake, as He became man for ours." And speaking of God he says, "He holds nothing so precious as purity or cleansing." ( Orat. vi . )

Ver 4.— Whosoever committeth sin, also doeth iniquity, for sin is iniquity. "For whosoever sins," says Bede, "acts contrary to the equity of the Divine Law." The faithful ought to sanctify themselves in order to be like Christ, and on the contrary sin is α̉νομία, a breaking of the Divine Law, and makes us utterly unlike God, and hateful to Him. He means "deadly sin."  S. Augustine ( contr. Faust. xxii. 7) says, that "sin is anything we say, do, or desire, against the Divine Law." And S. Ambrose ( de.Parad. cap. 8), "Sin is disobedience to the Divine commands." In like manner iniquity is a departure from the equity which the law prescribes, and injustice is contrary to justice, and α̉νομία is what is contrary to law. Sin and iniquity mean, in S. John, the same thing, though in popular speech iniquity has a worse meaning than sin. See S. Gregory, Mor. xi. 21.  S. Ambrose ( Apol. Dav. cap. 13) says the exact contrary, regarding sin as the worse of the two.

But every sin, even against human or ecclesiastical law, is contrary to God, as being contrary to His eternal law, which is the source of all law. As S. Thomas says (1. 2, quæst. 91), "Law is the highest reason existing in the Divine mind, according to which He directs the actions of all creatures to their own proper ends. For as there is in God the reason for His creating things, so also is the law by which they are to be governed. And as the one is the conception in the Divine mind, which decided how they were to be made, so is the other that eternal law, by which every creature should discharge its own functions, together with the will which obliges them, or at least impresses on them an inclination, to follow it.

Ver. 5.— And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins. That is Christ. "And He takes away our sins," says Bede, "by forgiving the sins which have been done, by keeping us from doing, and by leading us to that life where they cannot be committed." The word αίζνιν and the Syriac nasa, both of them signify to bear, and take away. Both meanings are suitable here. See Isa 53:4-6, and Isa 53:11;  Joh 1:9;  1Pe 2:24;  Rom 3:25.

Morally. Here learn what a grave evil sin is, for Christ to come down from heaven, to suffer and be crucified in order to take it away. And to teach us that we should endure every kind of suffering to take away sin and to convert sinners. "No room," says Œcumenius, "is left for sin, for since Christ came to destroy it, being Himself entirely free from sin, you who have been born again, and confirmed in the faith, have no right to sin." Each one of the faithful should then make it his work to crush sin in himself and others, just as they would destroy serpents' eggs or young wolves.

And in Him is no sin. For He was all-powerful to destroy sin, being in His own nature sinless by reason of the hypostatical union. For by this union the Divine Person of the Word so guided His manhood in all its actions, that it could not sin even in the slightest degree, for otherwise the sin and offence would have affected the Person of the Word, which is an impossible thing, for its actions would have been the actions of that very Person who was bound to keep from sinning that nature which It had assumed.

Lastly, "the will of Christ was so deified, as undoubtedly not to oppose the will of God," as S. Gregory Nazianzen says ( Orat. xxxvi.) And S. Cyril ( de recta fide ) says, "That the Word had as thoroughly imbued the soul of Christ with His own holiness, as a fleece takes in the colour in which it has been dipped."  S. John here quotes Isa. liii 9. See also Heb. vii. 26.  S. Augustine here says, "Because there was no sin in Him, He came to take away sin. For had there been sin in Him, it would have had to be taken from Him, and He would not have taken it away."

Whosoever abideth in Him, sinneth not. As long as He abides in Christ. For grace and sin are as contrary to each other, as heat and cold, black and white, and because the grace of Christ strengthens a man to overcome all sin. "And he," says Œcumenius, "abides in Christ who constantly exercises his powers, and never ceases from exercising them."

Whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him neither knoweth Him. "Hath not seen Him in His manhood: not known Him in His Godhead by faith," says the Gloss. But this is too subtle a distinction. The two words mean the same thing. For he who sins knows not Christ, because he considers not His boundless love, our Redemption by Him, and the reward promised to the righteous, and the punishments prepared for sinners. For did he carefully consider them, he would assuredly not sin. Whence S. Basil says ( Reg. lxxx . in fin.), "What is the characteristic of a Christian? To set God always before him."

Again, he who sins knows not Christ, with that savour of knowledge and affection which is conjoined with love and charity. He knows not that loves not Christ, does not strive to please, or be acceptable to Him. For did he truly love Christ, he would, under any temptation, say with Paul, "Who shall separate us," &c., Rom 8:35; or with the Bride, Son 8:7, "Many waters shall not quench love," &c. S. John everywhere in this epistle speaks of 'knowing' in the sense of loving or esteeming.

Bede says, "Every one that sinneth hath not seen Him or known Him, for had he tasted and seen how sweet the Lord is, he would not by sin have cut himself off from seeing His glory," &c. And Didymus, "Every one who sins is estranged from Christ: has no part in Him, or knowledge of Him," &c.

Ver. 7. — Little children, let no man deceive you. Neither Simon nor the Gnostics, who teach that a man is justified by faith only, and that good works are not required in order to his justification, and that if a man retains faith he can love as he pleases.  S. Peter, James, and John, all of them opposed this heresy.

He that doeth righteousness is righteous. Not merely some works of righteousness, but perfect and entire righteousness. For no one can completely fulfil the law of God, unless by grace and love, which the righteous alone has. See Jam 2:10.

(2.) S. John here contrasts the children of God, and the children of the devil. See above ii. 29. He here speaks of righteousness, in a general sense, as the aggregate of all virtues.

(3.) He who doeth righteousness is righteous, because his acts, which flow from a habit of righteousness, prove him to be righteous; and they also gain for him an increase of righteousness. And also because he should ever exercise himself in works of righteousness, if he wishes to preserve it. The Apostle speaks not of the infusion, but of the exercise of righteousness, says Thomas Anglicus.

Morally. S. John teaches us that the righteous man should ever be advancing in righteousness, like the Bride in Son 6:10, and Pro 4:15.  S. Augustine says, "That the whole life of a good Christian is a holy longing." See Phi 3:14;  Eze 1:12, of the four living creatures; S. Gregory, Hom. iii.;  S. Bernard, Ep. ccliv.;  S. Basil, Hexaem. Hom. xi . ; and S. Jerome, ad Celantium.

Even as He is righteous. See Psa 15:10, Psa 111:7, Psa 145:13.

The word 'as' does not signify equality, but resemblance. No creature can equal the righteousness and holiness of the Creator, but he can imitate it. Just "as a mirror represents the image of a man, not the man himself," says Bede. Hear S. Augustine. "He is pure from eternity, we from faith. We are righteous, even as He is righteous. But He is so in His perpetual unchangeableness, we are righteous by believing in Him we see not, in order that we may see Him hereafter. But not even when our righteousness is perfected, and when we become equal to the angels, shall we become equal to Him. How far then is our righteousness from His now, when even then it will not be equal to His?"

Ver. 8. — He who committeth sin is of the devil, because he follows his practices and suggestions. To be of the devil is to imitate the devil. For, as S. Augustine says, "The devil made no man, begat no man, but whoever imitates the devil, is born of him, by imitating him, and not actually by being born of him." He then who sinneth is of the devil as his follower and imitator, and not, as the Manichees dreamed, as being descended from him. There is a similar phrase, Ezek. xvi. 3, respecting wicked Jews.

For the devil sinneth from the beginning, not from the first moment of his creation, but shortly after it. And this was the beginning of sin. As S. Augustine says ( in loc.) and S. Cyril ( Catech. ii.), the devil is the beginning of sin, and the father of the wicked. To which Didymus adds, "He infuses the first suggestions of sin, and lastly he perseveres in his sin," as the Ps. [lxxiv. ult.] says, "The price of them that hate Thee ever rises up."

S. John alludes to his own Gospel, Joh 8:44; on which Isidorus ( De Summo. Bono, i. 3) remarks, "He abode not in the truth, because he fell as soon as he was made. He was created in the truth, but by not standing therein he fell from the truth." To which Bede adds, "He never ceased to sin, unrestrained either by his enormous sufferings, nor by the dread of sufferings to come. And he, therefore, who neglects to keep himself from sin is rightly said to be from him." He explains further that his sin was pride, and rebellion against God.

For this Purpose was the Son of God manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. To loose, that is, for sins are the cords which the devil twines, to entangle and ensnare the sinner. See Pro 5:22; Isa 5:10. And Christ gave His Apostles power to burst those bonds asunder.

It is clear from this that Christ would not have been incarnate if Adam had not sinned, though some of the Schoolmen think otherwise. But both Scripture and the Fathers give no other reason for His Incarnation than our redemption from sin. See Nicene Creed. And the Church sings at the blessing of the Paschal candle (using the words of S. Gregory), 0 most necessary sin of Adam, which was blotted out by the death of Christ. 0 blessed sin which required so great a Redeemer. So S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Leo, and others.

Ver. 9.— And he cannot sin, because he is born of God. Hence Jovinian, Luther, and Calvin taught that a man could not fall away, but was sure of his salvation. But S. John says, " My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not." Consequently they could sin, faithful though they were. And it is contrary to daily experience, for we find daily the faithful becoming heretics and falling into sin. And the Council of Trent (vi. 23) rules otherwise. What then is S. John's meaning that he who is born of God cannot sin, that is mortally and gravely?  1. We must take the word collectively—and then it will mean, So long as he preserves the seed of grace, he cannot sin. So Œcumenius, Thomas Anglicus, Cajetan, and S. Hierom, lib. 11 extra Jovin. And accordingly theologians say that he who has effectual grace cannot sin, because effectual grace in its very conception includes its result. For that grace is called 'effectual' which (as is foreseen) will produce its effect, which is to lead our free will to co-operate in a good work. But, speaking abstractedly, he who has effectual grace can resist it, and commit sin. (See Conc. Trid. sess. vi . can. 4.)

2. He who is born of God cannot (in a formal sense) commit sin, that is as far as relates to his heavenly new birth. For if this be allowed to act, and is not withstood by our free will, it is fully able to keep out all sin. (See S. Augustine, de grat. Christi, cap. xxi.) Thus Adam is said in his state of innocence to have been immortal, because he could not die, as long as he remained therein. But as he could fall, so also could he die. Thus we say that this medicine, e.g., is so powerful that any one who takes it could not die of the plague. But a man refuses to take the medicine and then dies; so can he who has the grace of God refuse to use it, and thus fall into sin.  S. John here distinguishes between the supernatural action of Divine grace, and the exercise of moral virtues, the first of these preventing every sin, while the others do not. But the habit of temperance is not lost by one act of intemperance, even as temperance is not acquired by a single act of temperance. Again, the grace of Christ is distinguished from the grace given to Adam, which gave the power but not the will, whereas the grace of Christ gives both the will and the power. See S. Augustine ( de corrupt. et gratia ), "It is so provided (to meet the weakness of the human will), that Divine grace never fails, is never overpowered by any difficulty, so as ever to resolutely will that which is good, and obstinately refuse to abandon it." And it is thus that he explains the words of S. John, "Every one that is born of God sinneth not."

3. He cannot sin. He sins with difficulty. He has no wish to sin, says Œcumenius. Others explain the words, He has power not to sin, this power being given him by God.

4. Rightfully and properly he cannot sin, though he may in fact sin against all that is right and proper.

5. Gagneius says, "He cannot sin, i.e., by unbelief, which S. John calls a sin unto death."

6. Some take these words as referring to those who are predestinated and absolutely elected to eternal life. But this must be understood, not of antecedent, but consequent impossibility, which consists with our liberty of will, as including and presupposing it.

The first and second of these explanations seem to be the best.

Anagogically. S. Augustine ( de peccat. et merit. ii. 7) says that the righteous man cannot sin, by reason of his hope of eternal life.

In like manner he says ( de nupt, et concup. i. 23, and de Spirit. et lit. cap. ult.), "We cannot observe perfectly in this life the two commandments, 'Thou shalt not covet,' and 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,' &c. But we are exhorted to attain to that place where we shall perfectly fulfil them. It is impossible not to feel concupiscence in this world, but we are directed not to yield to it. And the same with the other commandment, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.' See Rom. vii. 7."

Morally. S. John here teaches us an easy and certain way of avoiding sin, namely, by carefully attending to those holy inspirations which God suggests, and thus shut out from our minds all the evil suggestions of the devil. For he who sins must needs give way to evil thoughts, for we cannot desire or wish anything unless the mind suggests it to us as a good to be desired. And accordingly the Blessed cannot sin, because they behold God as their chief and boundless good, and are swallowed up in Him as the very abyss of all good.  S. Francis Xavier used for this very reason to occupy himself in good thoughts, in ruminating on some holy sentence of Scripture, or the doings or virtues of some saint. For the mind in this way drives out all other thoughts which lead to sin. And so with regard to our will. For he who fixes his mind on holy affections and desires cannot give his mind to evil lusts, and consequently cannot sin. He says with Joseph, "How can I do this wickedness and sin against God?" See Gen 39:9. As S. Leo says ( Serm. viii de Epiphany ), "He who wishes to learn whether God dwells within him, should honestly examine the secrets of his heart, and carefully ascertain with what humility he resists pride, with what good will he strive against envy, how he is not charmed with flattering tongues, and how pleased he is at another's happiness. Whether he does not render evil for evil, and would rather pass over injuries than mar in himself the image of Him who sends His rain upon the just and unjust, and makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good. And not to enter on a more minute enquiry, let him see whether he find within him such love of God and his neighbour, as to wish to render even to his enemies that which he desires to be rendered to himself."

For His seed remaineth in him. Œcumenius by the 'seed' understands Christ. See Gal 3:29.   (2.) S. Augustine and others understand by it the word of God. See Luk 8:11;  Jam 1:18;  1Pe 1:23.  (3.) Lyra, Hugo, Cajetan, and Thomas Anglicus most fitly understand by it the grace of God. For, 1. All other virtues spring from it. 2. Because it is the seed of glory. (See D. Thorn. par. i . quæst. 62, art. 3.) 3. Because as a seed must die in order to bear fruit, so does grace suffer death and martyrdom, from whence all good, both public and private, proceeds. See Joh 12:24.

Ver. 10.— In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil. The two tests are, the doing righteousness, and loving his brother. Righteousness and charity are of God, unrighteousness and hatred are of the devil. Righteousness is here taken in its widest sense, as including all virtues. But St. John here states that among all kinds of righteousness none shows more that we are the sons of God, than charity and the love of our neighbour, as the contrary vices show us to be the children of the devil. And hence S. John, the beloved disciple, breathes forth love only. Hear S. Augustine ( in loc.): "Love alone distinguishes between the children of God and the children of the devil. Let all sign themselves with the sign of the cross, let all answer Amen, let all sing Alleluia, let all be baptized, let all go to church, let all build churches. Yet the sons of God are distinguished from the children of the devil only by charity. They who have charity are born of God, they who have it not are not born of God. Have what thou wilt; if this alone thou have not, it profiteth thee nothing. If thou hast not anything else, have this: thou hast fulfilled the law." But by charity God is loved for His own sake, and our neighbour for the sake of God. Whence charity is "the fulfilling of the law." Rom 13:10. And S. Augustine ( de Nat. et. Grat. cap. xlii.). "Charity is the most true, complete, and perfect righteousness." S. Clement Alex. calls it "The highest duty of a Christian man." S. Cyprian ( de Bono Patient.) terms it "The foundation of peace, the firm bond of unity, surpassing even the deeds of martyrdom."  S.Basil, "The root of the commandments."  S. Gregory Nazianzen ( Epist. xx . ), "The head of all our teaching."  S. Jerome ( Epist. ad Theophylact ), "The parent of all virtues."  S. Ephraim ( de Humil.), "The support of all virtues."  S. Augustine, "The stronghold of all virtues." ( Serm. liii . de temp.). Prosper ( de Vita Contempl. iii. 13), "The most powerful of all our affections, the sum of good works, the protector of virtue, the end of heavenly precepts, the death of sins, the life of virtues." "Firmness in every virtue" (S. Cyril). "The mother and guardian of all good" (S. Gregory). "The mother of men and angels, bringing peace, not only to all things in earth, but even in heaven" (S. Bernard, Epist. ii.).

Lastly, S. Basil says, "Where charity fails, hatred comes in its room. But if God (as S. John says) is love, the devil must undoubtedly be hatred. And as he who has love has God, so he who has hatred, fosters a devil within him."

Ver. 11. — For this is the message, ever to be announced by us the Apostles of Christ. It is the message of good tidings, which Christ brought from heaven. He might have exacted from us many hard and painful sufferings. But He is satisfied if we love each other. And what is more joyous, pleasant, and easy than this? For as God ordered us to love our brethren, He orders our brethren to love us in return—love in this way eliciting and demanding love. See John xv. 12. On which S. Augustine remarks that charity is here distinguished from mere human love. We should love men, not merely as men, but as we love ourselves as the children of the Most Highest.

Ver. 12.— Not as Cain. For he loved himself only, and hated his brother because he saw that his offering was acceptable to God. As God says to Cain (according to LXX), "Hast thou not sinned, if thou offerest rightly, but dividest not rightly?" "For Cain did this," says S. Augustine ( de Civ. xv. 7), "giving to God something which was His, but gratifying himself. Which," says he, "all who do not follow the will of God, but their own will, and in their perversity of heart make Him an offering with which they think He can be bought off, and this too even to gratify their depraved desires." And accordingly Eusebius ( de Præp. xi. 4) says that he was appositely called Cain from the Hebrew word kana to envy. See S. Gregory, Mor. x. 6;  S. Chrysostom, in Matt. 18., where he speaks of nine degrees of love; and S. Augustine ( de Doct. Christ, i. 22), who says, "The rule of love is laid down by God. And in saying 'the whole heart,' &c., He left no portion of our life unemployed, and left no room for the enjoyment of ought beside. So that whatever else comes into our minds as an object of love, it should be swept away into the full current of our complete love for Him. He then who loves his neighbours aright, should at the same time love God with all his heart and mind. And thus loving his neighbour as himself, he should refer all his love of himself and his neighbour to that love of God, who suffers not a single drop to be withdrawn from Him, so as to diminish our love for Him."

Who was of that wicked one. Cain was not of God, but of the devil, by imitating him, and listening to his suggestions. For when the devil could not injure God Himself, he sought to injure man who was His image; the malignity of Cain, and of the devil also, consists in hatred and envy. Such too is the life of tyrants, who like fishes prey upon those who are weaker than themselves. A fish was a type of envy. (See S. Clement, Strom. lib, v.)

And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil. Because he took little account of God, and offered Him the poorer victims, reserving the better ones for himself, and, moreover, envied Abel, who by the more excellent offerings he made was the more acceptable to God. From this envy sprang hatred and ultimately murder. S. Cyprian dwells on this at great length in his treatise " de zelo et livore."

But his brother's righteous. Innocent, righteous, and holy. For he esteemed God above himself, and therefore presented the best offerings he could. There were three special grounds for praising him, his virgin life, his priesthood, and his martyrdom. (As the writer of the Quastiones ad Orosun says); and S. Cyprian ( de Bono Patiant.) calls him the Protomartyr. So also Rupert in Isa. lix.;  S. Jerome iv. 42.;  S. Augustine ( contr. Faust, xii . 9 and 10), and others.  S. Augustine commences his "City of God" from Abel, and the city of the devil from Cain. See Book xv. 8.

Ver. 13.— Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hall you. This is an inference from the previous antithesis of the children of God, and the children of the devil. Our Lord alludes to the hatred of wicked men against Christ in S. John xv. 18. Everything is opposed to and hates its contrary, as black is opposed to white, cold to heat, sweetness to bitterness, &c. The world hates the faithful—1st Because their ways of going on are so different. See Wisdom 2:15. And S. Leo ( Serm. ix . de Quadrig.), "Wickedness never is at peace with righteousness. Drunkenness ever hates temperance, &c.; and so obstinate is this opposition, that when there is peace without there is war within, so that it never ceases to disquiet the hearts of the righteous; and it is true that they who wish to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution, and that our whole life is a temptation." And he gives as another reason the craft and malice of the devil, who when he cannot overpower our virtue would undermine our faith.

2d. There is further the envy which worldlings feel when they see that the righteous are not ensnared by their evil desires, but are stedfastly going on towards heaven, while they themselves are sinking down and down to hell.

3d. They hate the righteous, because they withdraw themselves from their company. See Mat 15:18; Wisdom 2:16.

4th. Because their conduct is a tacit reproof to the worldly. See Wisdom 2:12; and Joh 15:8.

5th. Worldlings are full of self-love, but Saints are full of the love of God, for which reason they hate them.

S. James (Jam 4:4) agrees with S. John, and so does S. Paul, Gal 1:10. Tertullian and others read here, "Be not afraid," for some not only marvelled, but were afraid of the hatred they would incur in becoming Christians. S. John therefore exhorts them not to be surprised or afraid, for those whom the world hates God loves. "It would be a greater wonder," says Didymus, "if wicked men did love those who were godly." We must not therefore in the least regard the hatred of such persons, but rather persevere in holiness and love of God, and make it our endeavour to make them our friends when they hear that we surpass them in charity.

As S. Peter says, 1Pe 4:12. And Sencea ( de Prov. cap. i . ) says, "God brings not up a good man in delicate ways; He makes trial of him, He hardens him, and thus prepares him for Himself, while the man himself considers all misfortunes as means of training, and as teaching him how much his patience can bear." And S. Basil ( adm. ad filii spirit ) says that "Patience is the highest virtue of the mind, enabling us most speedily to attain the height of perfection."  S. Augustine gives the reason, that God, through the hatred of the world, may draw us on to love Himself. "Oh the unhappiness of mankind! The world is bitter, and yet is loved. But how much more would it be loved, if it were sweet! How gladly wouldest thou gather its flowers, since thou withdrawest not this hand even from its thorns."

Ver. 14.— We know that we have passed from death unto life. Not because we believe that we are predestinated, but as a moral certainty, by the testimony of a good conscience, by the innocency of our life, and the consolation of the Holy Spirit.  S. John says this for their consolation and to keep them from dreading the hatred of the world. Be comforted by the thought, that by faith ye have been translated from the death of sin to a state of grace in this world, and in the world to come to glory, which will raise us above all hatred. And the clear proof of this is that we love the brethren. For this love is an undoubted sign and effect of sanctifying grace, and of the Holy Spirit Himself, from whom, as from an uncreated source, all love proceeds.  S. Basil truly says, "When can a man be fully persuaded that God has remitted his sins? When he finds that his feelings are like his who said, 'I have hated and abominated iniquity' (Psa 119:163)."

He gives here three signs of indwelling grace and righteousness. (1.) Hatred of sin; (2.) mortifying the flesh, and all evil desires; and (3.) zeal for the salvation of others, like S. Paul (2 Cor. xi. 29). And S. Gregory ( Dial. i. 1), "The mind which is filled with the Divine Spirit, furnishes its own proofs, viz., virtuous actions and humility. And if those perfectly co-exist in the same mind, it is clear that they witness to the presence of the Holy Spirit." And S. Leo ( Serm. de Epiph. viii.) gives these three signs of grace and sanctity, humility, forgiveness of injuries, and doing as we would be done by. And "let every one who is such, doubt not that God rules and dwells within him."

He who loveth not (when he ought, or he who hates) abideth in death, with the stain of habitual sin, which abides after the act of sin is over; and from this he cannot escape, except by the grace of Christ, says Thomas Anglicus. But how the soul though immortal can yet die through sin, S. Augustine explains ( de Civ. iii. 1), "The death of the soul takes place when God forsakes it, just as, the body dies when the soul leaves it. It is then the entire death of a man, when the soul which has been forsaken of God, leaves the body, for in this case it does not itself live by God, nor does the body live through it." And in like manner S. Cyril Alex. says, "Death, properly speaking, is not that which separates body and soul, but that which separates the soul from God. God is life, and he who is cut off from Him, perishes."

Nay more, this death of the soul is absolutely termed death in our deeper teaching, for that death of the body which we dread so much is but a shadow and image of that true death, and not to be compared with it. See S. Gregory ( Mor. iv. 17). And S. Augustine ( de Civ. vi. cap. ult.), "If the soul lives in everlasting punishment, it should rather be called everlasting death, and not life." And S. Basil ( Hom. v. on the Martyr Julitta ) says, "Sin is the death of the soul, which would else be immortal. It deserves to be lamented with inconsolable grief," &c, And S. Jerome, on Isa. xiv. ( Lib. vi . ), terms a sinner "the devil's carcase, for no one can doubt that sin is a most fœtid thing, when the sinner himself says, 'My wounds stink and are corrupt.'"

Ver. 15. — Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. As he said before, "He that loveth not abideth in death."  S. John counts 'not loving' and 'hating' as the same thing, by miosis, when little is said, but more is meant, and also because want of love is counted as constructive hatred. Moreover, he who hates his brother is in will and desire a murderer. See S. Jerome ( Epist. xxxvi . ad Castorin.) and S. Mat 5:28, and hatred moreover disposes to murder, as desire disposes to adultery.

Mystically. He who hates his brother murders his own soul. As S. Ambrose says, "He who hates murders himself in the first place, slaying himself with his own sword." And S. Gregory ( Hom. x. 11) says the same thing more at length. Again, " he who hates his brother, ofttimes destroys his soul, by provoking him to anger and contention."

[Pseudo]-Alexander says, "He who calumniates his brother is a murderer, and no murderer hath any part in the kingdom of God." For, as Dionysius says, there are three kinds of murder, Bodily, Detraction, and Hatred.

Hath not eternal life abiding in Him. Hath not grace abiding in him, nor doth he abide in that grace whereby eternal life is obtained. It is a metonymy, say Cajetan and others. Or else he will not have eternal life; he cannot have it, the present being taken for the future tense. Which comes to this, He who hateth, hath no hope of eternal life, but abideth in the death of sin. As S. Augustine says ( Præf. in Ps. xxxi.), "As an evil conscience is full of despair, so is a good conscience full of hope; as Cain said, 'From Thy face shall I be hid, and shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth,'" &c.; as S. Jerome says, "Whosoever finds me out, from the trembling of my body and the agitation of my mind, will know that I deserve to die." Just as Orestes for the murder of his mother was continually harassed by the Furies.

Ver. 16.— Hereby we know the love of God, because He laid down His life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.  S. John here goes back to the law and living pattern of perfect charity, even Christ, who by laying down His life for us, taught us in like manner to lay down our lives for the brethren. For in Him there shone forth that boundless love which far exceeds the love of all parents and kinsfolk. For He, the Infinite God, laid down His life for us unworthy and ungrateful sinners, with great suffering and shame to Himself, and thus tacitly gave us a pattern for us to imitate, by laying down our lives for the brethren.

But yet we must not risk our own salvation in order to save the souls of others, though we are bound to risk our life for their salvation, which is of more value than our own earthly life, which we must undoubtedly sacrifice for the eternal good of others, as S. Paul did and the other martyrs.

But you will ask, are we bound to risk our own lives for the sake of the lives of others? In ordinary cases, No, but in extraordinary cases, Yes. As when bound by oath or promise, or in defence of our country. But a friend is not bound to risk his own life for that of his friend, since that would be to love his neighbour even more than himself, which, S. Augustine says ( de Mend. cap. 10), goes beyond the rule laid down. But yet to do so would be laudable, for a man would risk his life for the sake of honour, and for the virtue of friendship. And this is a spiritual good, higher than life itself. So S. Augustine teaches ( de Amic. cap. 10); and S. Jerome on Micah vii. says, "When a man was asked, What is a friend? he replied, 'A second self.' And accordingly two Pythagoreans gave themselves up to the tyrant as mutual pledges for each other." (See S. Ambrose, Off. lib. iii.; Fr. Victoria, Relect. de Homicid.;  Soto, de Just. i. 6;  and S. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 26, art. 4, ad 2). And Valentia adds this case, "Ought a man to suffer himself to be killed rather than kill his assailant?" And he rules that he ought rather to be killed himself, than kill another who would die in the very act of sin. We should also risk our life to preserve another's chastity. As the soldier who saved Theodora by changing clothes with her in prison, and who in the end suffered with her. And Paulinus, who became a slave in the place of a widow's son (slavery being a kind of civil death), and who was highly praised for his act by S. Augustine and other fathers.

Instances are also given from heathen authors of those who gave up their lives for their friends, which is the highest proof of love. See Joh 15:13.

Ver. 17.— But whoso hath this world's goods, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? He deduces this as a consequence from the former verse. It is an argument from the less to the greater. If the love of Christ obliges us to lay down our lives for the brethren (which is most difficult), much more does it oblige us to give alms to the needy, which is most easy. And again, our laying down our lives for the brethren is a case which seldom happens, the duty of relieving the needy frequently occurs. So Œcumenius and S. Augustine.

Many doctors argue from this passage that the precept of alms-giving is binding not only in extreme but even in grave cases of necessity, so that a rich man is obliged to give up, not only superfluities, but even things necessary for his station, if he can avert in this way a grave loss to his neighbour. (See Gregory, de Valent. Tom. iii . Disput. iii . ; and Bellarmine, de bonis Oper. lib. iii.  See Eccles. iv. 1,  S. Ambrose, de 0ff. iii 31;  S. Gregory Nazianzen, de cura pauper ;  and S. Chrysostom, de Eleemos.)

And shutteth up his bowels from him. The bowels being the seat of compassion and pity. See Lam 2:11;  Col 3:12. They are the symbols of paternal as well as of maternal love. See Phile. 7, and Je. Iviii. 7. This teaches that alms should be given with much kindness and affection. As S. Gregory says ( Moral xx. 16), "Let the hard and merciless hear the thundering words of the wise man." Pro 21:13

Salvian, lib. iv., exhorts the faithful to put on these bowels of mercy, when teaching that Christ, in the persons of the poor, is a mendicant and in need of everything, and that they are cruel who squander their goods on their relations who are in no need, and suffer Christ in the person of the poor to be in want. . . . He shows that they have no faith, and that they do not believe in Christ, who promised abundant rewards to His almoners. . . . And next he shows that they greatly sin, not only because they do not relieve the poor, but also bestow those goods which they have laboriously acquired, on those who misapply them for purposes of display, gluttony, and luxury. "If thou wishest to have eternal life" (he continues), "and to see good days, leave thy substance to the saints that are in want, to the lame, the blind, the sick; let thy means be sustenance to the wretched, thy wealth the life of the poor, and may the refreshment thou givest them be thy own reward, that their refreshment may thus refresh thee." He concludes by severely inveighing against them, and more especially against ecclesiastics, who are particularly bound to relieve the poor, and not to enrich their kinsfolk out of the funds of the Church, which Prosper calls the patrimony of the poor. See S. Bernard ( Epist. xxiv.), who says that a bishop must not indulge in luxuries, but merely live on the funds of the Church: everything more which thou takest out of them is robbery and sacrilege. See, too, S. Basil on Luke xii. 18. The Stoics thought, on the contrary, that pity was no virtue, but rather the mark of a weak mind. See Seneca ( de Clem. ii . 5) and Plautus, as quoted by Lactantius, xi. 11, who condemns any giving of alms as being a waste, and an injury to the recipient. Valerius ( Max. iv . 8), on the other hand, records with approval the bountifulness of a certain Silicus.

Ver. 18.— My little children, let us not 1ove in word, and in tongue, but in deed and in truth. He condemns here all false charity, which exhibits itself in words only, as S. James (Jam 2:15) does also.  S. Gregory ( Moral. xxi. 14) says that our charity must ever be exhibited in reverent words, &c., and in ministering bountifully. And S. Bernard (in Son 2:4) explaining the words, "He ordered charity in me" (see. Vulg.) says, "He requires not the craft of the lying tongue, nor the taste of affected wisdom. Let us love in deed and in truth, being moved to good deeds by the impulse of living charity rather than by any affected love. Give me a man who loves God with all his heart, himself and his neighbours, and everything else relating to God with well-ordered love, and I boldly pronounce him to be a wise man, to whose taste all things seem to be just as they really are, and who can in truth safely say, Because He hath ordered love in me. But who is he?"

But observe here, that if any one cannot succour in deed and act (as, e g., being too poor), yet he can do so in words and kind feelings. And again, he who gives relief should not give it grudgingly, or with words of reproof, but cheerfully and kindly. See Rom 12:8; Ecc 18:15.

S. Gregory ( Hom. iii. in Evang.) says well, "Let not any one credit himself with anything which his mind suggests, unless his acts bear witness to it. For in loving God, our tongue, our thoughts, and our life are all required. Love towards Him is never idle. It worketh great things if it really exist, but if it refuses to do so, it is not love." And S. Chrysostom ( Hom. liii . et lxviii . ad pop. ) says, "The more thou givest to God, the more does He love thee, and to those He loves more, He gives more grace; when He sees any one to whom He owes nothing, He flies from him, and avoids him; but when He sees any one to whom He owes something, He runs up to him at once. Thou shouldest therefore do everything to make God thy debtor." And then he explains how this can be done, viz., by showing mercy to the poor. "Give largely, that thou mayest be rich, scatter abroad, that thou mayest gather in, imitate a sower. Sow in blessings, that thou mayest reap in blessings." And S. Leo ( Serm. vi . de Jejun. x. Mensis ) says, "Persevere, 0 Christian, in thy bounty, give that which thou wilt receive back again, sow what thou wilt reap, scatter that which thou wilt gather up. Fear not the cost, be not anxious or doubtful about the result. Thy substance, when well laid out, is increased, and to wish for rightful profit for thy piety, is to traffic for the gain of an eternal reward. He who rewardeth thee wishes thee to be munificent, and He who gives that thou hast, orders thee to give it away, saying, 'Give, and it shall be given,' and so on." S. Chrysostom accordingly said rightly, "that almsgiving was of all things the most gainful."

Ver. 19.— Hereby we know that we are of the truth, that we have true love, that we are the sons of truth, of true and genuine charity.

Secondly, we are of God, who is the chief and highest truth, and true charity. See John xiv. 6, xviii. 37. And accordingly S. Augustine rightly concludes ( de Moribus Eccl. cap. xxxiii.), "Let our meals, our words, our dress, our appearance be blended with charity, and be united and joined together in one charity; to violate this is counted as sinning against God . . . if only this be wanting, everything else is vain and empty; where it exists is perfect fulness."

And shall assure our hearts before Him. (1.) Hugo, Lyranus, and Dionysius explain, We shall induce our hearts to please God daily more and more. (2.) Ferus explains it, We shall gain confidence to ask anything of God. (3.) We shall have our hearts at peace, for we shall persuade them that we are striving after true charity, when we love, not in word, but in deed and in truth. (4.) The sense most clearly is this, We, shall approve our hearts to God in manifesting the fruits of love. We can lie to men by pretending love in our hearts, but we cannot lie to God, who sees the heart. They then who love their neighbour in deed and in truth fear not the eye and judgment of God, but would boldly appear in His sight, lay their hearts before Him, and show that they were resting on real charity. So Œcumenius; and see Gal. i. 10, "Do I wish to persuade men or God?" That is, I strive to prove my cause to God. So S. Chrysostom.  S. Augustine reads in this passage, "I wish to make myself approved to God, and not to men." As S. Augustine ( contra Secundi, num. i. 1) says, "Think as you please about Augustine, provided only my conscience accuses me not in the sight of God."

Morally. S. John here teaches us to examine all our deeds by the rule of God's judgment. For frequently we are deceived into thinking that we are acting purely from the love of God, when in fact we are acting from the impure motive of self-love. Before beginning anything conform thyself to this rule, act as in the sight of God, who sees, and will call thee to account. Do it as though it were thy very last act. And in any doubt, adopt that course which thou wouldest wish thou hadst adopted when thou comest to die. So did the Psalmist (Psa 16:8); Elisha ( 2Ki 3:14); and S. Paul (2Co 1:12).

And S. Francis Xavier, "Wherever I am, I would remember that I am on the stage of the world." And Campion, when about to suffer martyrdom, said, "We are made a spectacle to the world, and to angels, and to men" (1 Cor iv. 9). Let us imitate these, and thus "shall we persuade our hearts in His sight."

Ver. 20.— For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. If we cannot conceal our hypocrisy from our own hearts, much less can we conceal it from God, who is greater and deeper even than our own heart, who is more intimately acquainted with it, and is nearer to it than we are ourselves. If thy conscience condemns thee, how much more will God, who rules over and judges thy conscience? "If we cannot hide anything from our conscience," says Œcumenius, "how can we hide it from God who is ever present?" "Thou hidest thy conscience from man," says S. Augustine, "hide it from God if thou canst. Let thy conscience bear thee witness, for it is of God. And if it is of God, do not boast of it before men, because the praises of men exalt thee not, nor do their reproofs bring thee down. Let Him see thee who crowneth thee: let Him, by whose judgment thou wilt be crowned." Diadochus says ( de perf. Spirit. cap. c.), "The judgment of God is far above that of our conscience." See 1 Cor. iv. 1 and Ps. lxiii. (Vulg. 7). "Man will go down to his deep heart, and God will be exalted," that is, man will think many evils in the depth of his heart, but God will be deeper than it. But Lyra, Aquila, and Theodotion read iorem, will shoot at it. See A. V.

Thomas Anglicus merely applies the passage thus, If the sin of the heart is great, greater is God's compassion in forgiving. And God too is greater than our heart, because He alone satisfies the desires of our heart, and even overflows and surpasses them.

Ver. 21.— If our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence towards God, viz., that we shall obtain from Him all that we ask. See Psa 119:6. The contrary is the case with the wicked. See Pro 28:9, as S. Gregory says ( Mor. x. 15, or 17), "He who remembers that he still refuses to listen to the command of God, doubts whether he will obtain what he wishes for. And our heart blames us when we pray, when it calls to mind that he opposes the will of Him whom he is addressing. 'As oil makes the light to shine, so do good deeds give confidence to the soul.'"

Ver. 22.— And whatsoever we ask, we receive of Him. Wh

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 3 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

1Jo 3:1, He declares the singular love of God towards us, in making us his sons; 1Jo 3:3, who therefore ought obediently to keep his commandments; 1Jo 3:11, as also to love one another as brethren.

Poole: 1 John 3 (Chapter Introduction)

JOHN CHAPTER 3

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 3 (Chapter Introduction)

(1Jo 3:1, 1Jo 3:2) The apostle admires the love of God in making believers his children.

(1Jo 3:3-10) The purifying influence of the hope of seeing Christ, and the danger of pretending to this, and living in sin.

(1Jo 3:11-15) Love to the brethren is the character of real Christians.

(1Jo 3:16-21) That love described by its actings.

(1Jo 3:22-24) The advantage of faith, love, and obedience.

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 3 (Chapter Introduction)

The apostle here magnifies the love of God in our adoption (1Jo 3:1, 1Jo 3:2). He thereupon argues for holiness (1Jo 3:3), and against sin (v. 4-19). He presses brotherly love (1Jo 3:11-18). How to assure our hearts before God (1Jo 3:19-22). The precept of faith (1Jo 3:23). And the good of obedience (1Jo 3:24).

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 3 (Chapter Introduction)

Remember The Privileges Of The Christian Life (2Jo_3:1-2)

Remember The Possibilities Of The Christian Life (2Jo_3:1-2 Continued)

The Obligation Of Purity (2Jo_3:3-8)

The Man Who Is Born Of God (2Jo_3:9)

The Man Who Cannot Sin (2Jo_3:9 Continued)

The Marks Of The Children Of God (2Jo_3:10-18)

The World's Resentment Of The Christian Way (2Jo_3:10-18 Continued)

The Only Test (2Jo_3:19-24)

The Inseparable Commands (2Jo_3:19-24 Continued)

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 3 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 1 JOHN 3

In this chapter the apostle exhorts to a holy life and conversation in general, and to the exercise of brotherly love in particular. The former of these is urged from the consideration of the great blessing of adoption, which springs from the free love and favour of God, is unknown to the men of the world, and indeed, in the present state of things, does not appear to the saints themselves in all its fulness and advantages, as it will do in the future state, when the children of God will be like to Christ, and see him as he is; the hope of which should engage them to purity of life and conversation, 1Jo 3:1, and this is further enforced from the nature of sin, which is a transgression of the law, 1Jo 3:4, from the end of Christ's manifestation in the flesh, which was to take away sin, and who was without it, 1Jo 3:5, from communion with Christ, expressed by abiding in him, seeing and knowing him, which such must be strangers to that live a sinful course of life, 1Jo 3:6, from this, that only such that do righteousness are righteous persons, and these are righteous as Christ is, 1Jo 3:7, and from a man's being of the devil, that is, of a vicious conversation, who was a sinner from the beginning, and whose works Christ was manifested in the flesh to destroy, 1Jo 3:8, and from the nature of the new man, or that which is born of God, which is not to sin, nor can it, 1Jo 3:9, and from the distinction there is between the children of God and the children of the devil, those not being of God who do not righteousness, nor love their brethren, 1Jo 3:10, from hence the apostle passes to brotherly love, and excites and engages to that, from its being a message which had been heard from the beginning, 1Jo 3:11, which is illustrated by its contrary in the instance of Cain, who by the instigation of Satan slew his brother, because his works were righteous, and his own were evil, 1Jo 3:12, wherefore, it is no wonder that good men should be hated by the world, who, as Cain, are of the same wicked one, 1Jo 3:13, brotherly love is further urged unto, from its being an evidence of passing from death to life, or of regeneration; whereas he that hates his brother openly continues in a state of death, is a murderer, and so has not eternal life abiding in him, 1Jo 3:14, and from the great instance of Christ's love, in laying down his life for his people, the saints are incited to lay down their lives for one another; to such a pitch does the apostle carry brotherly love, 1Jo 3:16, wherefore, he that is rich, and is uncompassionate to his brother in distress, cannot be thought to have the love of God dwelling in him, 1Jo 3:17, hence he presses the exhortation to brotherly love, that it be not in profession only, but true, real, and cordial, 1Jo 3:18, and that by observing the advantages of it, as that hereby men know they are of the truth, and can assure their hearts before God; and which is illustrated by the contrary, the condemnation of the heart, 1Jo 3:19, the advantages of non-condemnation of the heart are confidence before God, and receiving whatsoever we ask of him; the reason of which is, because his commandments are kept, and things done which are pleasing to him, 1Jo 3:21, the commandments are explained of faith in Christ, and love to one another, 1Jo 3:23, and the happiness of them that do them is, that Christ dwells in them, and they in him, the evidence of which is, the Spirit that is given unto them, 1Jo 3:24.

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.