Text -- 1 John 4:2 (NET)

4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God,

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: 1Jo 4:2

Hereby know ye ( en toutōi ginōskete ).

Either present active indicative or imperative. The test of "the Spirit of God"(to pneuma tou theou ) here alone in this Epistle, save 1Jo 4:13. With the clamour of voices then and now this is important. The test (en toutōi , as in 1Jo 3:19) follows.

Robertson: 1Jo 4:2

That Jesus Christ is come in the flesh ( Iēsoun Christon en sarki elēluthota ).

The correct text (perfect active participle predicate accusative), not the infinitive (elēluthenai , B Vg). The predicate participle (see Joh 9:22 for predicate accusative with homologeō ) describes Jesus as already come in the flesh (his actual humanity, not a phantom body as the Docetic Gnostics held). See this same idiom in 2Jo 1:7 with erchomenon (coming). A like test is proposed by Paul for confessing the deity of Jesus Christ in 1Co 12:3 and for the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus in Rom 10:6-10.

Vincent: 1Jo 4:2

Hereby ( ἐν τούτῳ )

See on 1Jo 2:3.

Vincent: 1Jo 4:2

Know ye ( γινῶσκετε )

Perceive . See on Joh 2:24.

Vincent: 1Jo 4:2

Confesseth ( ὁμολογεῖ )

See on Mat 7:23; see on Mat 10:32.

Vincent: 1Jo 4:2

That Jesus Christ is come in the flesh ( Ἱησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα )

Lit., Jesus Christ having come , etc. The whole phrase forms the direct object of the verb confesseth .

Vincent: 1Jo 4:2

Of God

Compare 1Co 12:3.

Wesley: 1Jo 4:2

Or teacher.

Wesley: 1Jo 4:2

Both with heart and voice. Jesus Christ, who is come in the flesh, is of God - This his coming presupposes, contains, and draws after it, the whole doctrine of Christ.

JFB: 1Jo 4:2

"Herein."

JFB: 1Jo 4:2

Whether he be, or not, in those teachers professing to be moved by Him.

JFB: 1Jo 4:2

That is, Every teacher claiming inspiration by the HOLY SPIRIT.

JFB: 1Jo 4:2

The truth is taken for granted as established. Man is required to confess it, that is, in his teaching to profess it openly.

JFB: 1Jo 4:2

A twofold truth confessed, that Jesus is the Christ, and that He is come (the Greek perfect tense implies not a mere past historical fact, as the aorist would, but also the present continuance of the fact and its blessed effects) in the flesh ("clothed with flesh": not with a mere seeming humanity, as the Docetæ afterwards taught: He therefore was, previously, something far above flesh). His flesh implies His death for us, for only by assuming flesh could He die (for as God He could not), Heb 2:9-10, Heb 2:14, Heb 2:16; and His death implies His LOVE for us (Joh 15:13). To deny the reality of His flesh is to deny His love, and so cast away the root which produces all true love on the believer's part (1Jo 4:9-11, 1Jo 4:19). Rome, by the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, denies Christ's proper humanity.

Clarke: 1Jo 4:2

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God - We know that the man who teaches that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah, and that he is come in the flesh, is of God - is inspired by the Divine Spirit; for no man can call Jesus Lord but by the Holy Ghost.

Calvin: 1Jo 4:2

2.Hereby, or by this, know ye He lays down a special mark by which they might more easily distinguish between true and false prophets. Yet he only repeats here what we have met with before, that as Christ is the object at which faith aims, so he is the stone at which all heretics stumble. As long then as we abide in Christ, there is safety; but when we depart from him, faith is lost, and all truth is rendered void. ⁸²

But let us consider what this confession includes; for when the Apostle says that Christ came, we hence conclude that he was before with the Father; by which his eternal divinity is proved. By saying that he came in the flesh, he means that by putting on flesh, he became a real man, of the same nature with us, that he might become our brother, except that he was free from every sin and corruption. And lastly, by saying that he came, the cause of his coming must be noticed, for he was not sent by the Father for nothing. Hence on this depend the office and merits of Christ.

As, then, the ancient heretics departed from the faith, in one instance, by denying the divine, and in another by denying the human nature of Christ; so do the Papists at this day: though they confess Christ to be God and man, yet they by no means retain the confession which the Apostle requires, because they rob Christ of his own merit; for where freewill, merits of works, fictitious modes of worship, satisfactions, the advocacy of saints, are set up, how very little remains for Christ!

The Apostle then meant this, that since the knowledge of Christ includes the sum and substance of the doctrine respecting true religion, our eyes ought to be directed to and fixed on that, so that we may not be deceived. And doubtless Christ is the end of the law and the prophets; nor do we learn anything else from the gospel but his power and grace.

Defender: 1Jo 4:2

The supreme test of the spirits, and the teachers whom they influence, is their teaching concerning the nature of Jesus Christ. If, in any way, they try to separate Jesus from "the Christ," denying either the full deity or perfect humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ, they are not from God. Some attempt to make Jesus a mere man upon whom "the Christ-spirit" came. Some argue that everyone can be "a Christ" in the same sense Jesus was. Many deny His miraculous conception, bodily resurrection or both. "Jesus" means "Jehovah our Savior" and "Christ" means "The Anointed One" which means God's anointed prophet, priest and king. Unless Jesus Christ was perfect man, He could not die for our sins. Unless He was God, He could not defeat death and thus could never save us. Any doctrine less than that of Jesus Christ as the God/Man, God and Man perfectly, united in the hypostatic union, is deadly heresy. Further, since He is the Creator and His Spirit inspired the Holy Scriptures, any dilution of the doctrines of special creation and Biblical inerrancy comes dangerously close to heresy and has often led their proponents into outright apostasy. It is thus extremely important to try the spirits to see whether they are of God."

TSK: 1Jo 4:2

Every : 1Jo 5:1; Joh 16:13-15; 1Co 12:3

come : 1Jo 4:3; Joh 1:14; 1Ti 3:16

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: 1Jo 4:2

Hereby - Greek, "By this;"that is, by the test which is immediately specified.

Know ye the Spirit of God - You may discern who are actuated by the Spirit of God.

Every spirit - Everyone professing to be under the influence of the Spirit of God. The apostle uses the word "spirit"here with reference to the person who made the claim, on the supposition that everyone professing to be a religious teacher was animated by some spirit or foreign influence, good or bad. If the Spirit of God influenced them, they would confess that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh; if some other spirit, the spirit of error and deceit, they would deny this.

That confesseth - That is, that makes a proper acknowledgment of this; that inculcates this doctrine, and that gives it a due place and prominence in his instructions. It cannot be supposed that a mere statement of this in words would show that they were of God in the sense that they were true Christians; but the sense is, that if this constituted one of the doctrines which they held and taught, it would show that they were advocates of truth, and not apostles of error. If they did not do this, 1Jo 4:3, it would be decisive in regard to their character and claims.

That Jesus Christ is come in the flesh - Benson and some others propose to render this, "That Jesus, who came in the flesh, is the Christ."But this is liable to serious objections.

(1)\caps1     i\caps0 t is not the obvious interpretation.

(2)\caps1     i\caps0 t is unusual to say that Jesus "had come in the flesh,"though the expression "the Son of God has come in the flesh,"or "God was manifested in the flesh,"would be in accordance with the usage of the New Testament.

(3)\caps1     t\caps0 his would not, probably, meet the real point in the case. The thing denied does not appear to have been that Jesus was the Messiah, for their pretending to be Christian teachers at all implied that they admitted this; but that the Son of God was "really a man,"or that he actually assumed human nature in permanent union with the divine. The point of the remark made by the apostle is, that the acknowledgment was to be that Christ assumed human nature; that he was really a man as he appeared to be: or that there was a real incarnation, in opposition to the opinion that he came in appearance only, or that he merely seemed to be a man, and to suffer and die. That this opinion was held by many, see the Introduction, Section III. 2. It is quite probable that the apostle here refers to such sentiments as those which were held by the "Docetae;"and that he meant to teach that it was indispensable to proper evidence that anyone came from God, that he should maintain that Jesus was truly a man, or that there was a real incarnation of the Son of God. John always regarded this as a very important point, and often refers to it, Joh 19:34-35; Joh 20:25-27; 1Jo 5:6. It is as important to be held now as it was then, for the fact that there was a real incarnation is essential to all just views of the atonement. If he was not truly a man, if he did not literally shed his blood on the cross, of course all that was done was in appearance only, and the whole system of redemption as revealed was merely a splendid illusion. There is little danger that this opinion will be held now, for those who depart from the doctrine laid down in the New Testament in regard to the person and work of Christ, are more disposed to embrace the opinion that he was a mere man; but still it is important that the truth that he was truly incarnate should be held up constantly before the mind, for in no other way can we obtain just views of the atonement.

Is of God - This does not necessarily mean that everyone who confessed this was personally a true Christian, for it is clear that a doctrine might be acknowledged to be true, and yet that the heart might not be changed; nor does it mean that the acknowledgment of this truth was all which it was essential to be believed in order that one might be recognised as a Christian; but it means that it was essential that this truth should be admitted by everyone who truly came from God. They who taught this held a truth which he had revealed, and which was essential to be held; and they thus showed that they did not belong to those to whom the name "antichrist"could be properly given. Still, whether they held this doctrine in such a sense, and in such connection with other doctrines, as to show that they were sincere Christians, was quite another question, for it is plain that a man may hold and teach the true doctrines of religion, and yet have no evidence that he is a child of God.

Poole: 1Jo 4:2

He here gives them the general rule, both affirmative and negative, which would suffice them to judge by in their present case; this being the great controversy of that time with the Jews: Whether Jesus were the Messiah? And whether the Messiah were as yet come or no? And with the Gnostics: Whether he were really come in the flesh, in true human nature? Or were not, as to that appearance, a mere phantasm? And he affirms: They that confessed him so come, were of God; i.e. thus far they were in the right, this truth was of God. Of the two litigating parties, this was of God, the other not of God; this took his side, that was against him. Yea, and they that not only made this true confession, but did also truly confess him, i.e. sincerely, cordially, practically, so as accordingly to trust in him, subject and devote themselves to him, were born of God, his very children, acted and influenced hereunto by his own Holy Spirit, as 1Jo 5:1,5 Mt 16:16,17 1Co 12:3 .

Haydock: 1Jo 4:2

By this is the Spirit of God known. He gives the new converts first general mark, by which they might have good grounds to think that the teachers they met with in those days had a good spirit, were of God, if they confessed and acknowledged Jesus Christ to have come from heaven and to have been made flesh, or made man; i.e. to be truly God and truly man. But if (ver. 3) they met with teachers of such a spirit as dissolveth Jesus, [1] by denying him either to be the Messias or to be truly God, or to be a true man, they might conclude for certain that such men had not a true spirit, but were heretics, antichrists, and forerunners of the great antichrist. Such, even in St. John's time, was Simon the magician, who, according to St. Epiphanius, (hær. xxi. p. 55. Ed Petav.) pretended among his countrymen, the Samaritans, that he himself was God the Father, and among the Jews that he was God the Son, and that Jesus suffered death in appearance only. His disciple also, Meander, said he was sent from heaven for the salvation of men. See St. Epiphanius, hær xxii. p. 61. 3. Cerinthus, as also Carpocras, held that Jesus was a mere man, born of Joseph and Mary, and also different from Christ. See St. Epiphanius, hær. xxxvii. and xxix. p. 102. and 110. 4. Ebion held much the same. See the same St. Epiphanius, hær. xxx. p. 142. These heretics and divers of their followers divided Jesus, and destroyed the faith and mystery of the incarnation. (Witham) ---

Every spirit which confesseth, &c. Not that the confession of this point of faith alone, is at all times and in all cases sufficient; but that with relation to that time, and for that part of the Christian doctrine, which was then particularly to be confessed, taught, and maintained against the heretics of those days, this was the most proper token by which the true teachers might be distinguished from the false. (Challoner)

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

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Qui solvit Jesum. Greek: Kataluei is read in some manuscripts and must have been the reading which the Latin interpreter followed. We read the same in St. Irenæus, lib. 3. chap. xviii. p. 197. Ed. Feuardentii; in Tertullian, lib. 5. cont. Marcion. chap. xvi. p. 481. Ed. Rigaltii; in St. Augustine in his commentary on these words, trac. 6, p. 871.

Gill: 1Jo 4:2

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God,.... This is a rule by which believers may know whether a man professing to have the Spirit of God, and to be called and sent by him, and whether the, doctrine he preaches, is of him or not:

every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh,

is of God; or of the Spirit of God; that is, every doctrine which carries this truth in it; or every man that owns, and professes, and publishes this doctrine concerning Christ, is on the side of God and truth; and which contains several articles in it, respecting the person and office of Christ; as that he existed before he came in the flesh, not in the human nature, or as man, or as an angel, but as the Son of God, as a divine person, being truly and properly God; so that this confession takes in his divine sonship, and proper deity, and also his true and real humanity; that the Messiah was incarnate, against the Jews, and was God and man in one person; and that he was really man, and not in appearance only, against the heretics of those times: and it also includes his offices, as that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, the Messiah, which the Jews denied, and that he was the anointed prophet, priest, and King; and so is a confession or acknowledgment of all the doctrines of the Gospel, which came by him, as a prophet; and of his satisfaction, sacrifice, and intercession, as a priest; and of all his ordinances and commands as a King; and that he is the only Saviour and Redeemer of men. Now, whoever owns and declares this system of truth, "is of God"; not that everyone that assents unto this, or preaches it, is born of God; a man may believe, and confess all this, as the devils themselves do, and yet be destitute of the grace of God; but the spirit, or doctrine, which contains these things in it, is certainly of God, or comes from him; or whoever brings these truths with him, and preaches them, he is, so far as he does so, on the side of God and truth, and to be regarded.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: 1Jo 4:2

¹ tn There is no subordinating conjunction following the ἐν τούτῳ (en toutw) here in 4:2, so the phrase could refer either (1) to what precedes or (2) to what follows. Contextually the phrase refers to what follows, because the following clause in 4:2b-3a (πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ ὁμολογεῖ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν…ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν), while not introduced by a subordinating conjunction, does explain the preceding clause beginning with ἐν τούτῳ. In other words, the following clause in 4:2b-3a is analogous to a subordinate clause introduced by an epexegetical ἵνα (Jina) or ὅτι (Joti), and the relationship can be represented in the English translation by a colon, “By this you know the Spirit of God: Every Spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, but every Spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.”

² tn Or “acknowledges.”

³ tn This forms part of the author’s christological confession which serves as a test of the spirits. Many interpreters have speculated that the author of 1 John is here correcting or adapting a slogan of the secessionist opponents, but there is no concrete evidence for this in the text. Such a possibility is mere conjecture (see R. E. Brown, Epistles of John [AB], 492). The phrase may be understood in a number of different ways, however: (1) the entire phrase “Jesus Christ come in the flesh” may be considered the single object of the verb ὁμολογεῖ (Jomologei; so B. F. Westcott, A. Brooke, J. Bonsirven, R. E. Brown, S. Smalley, and others); (2) the verb ὁμολογεῖ may be followed by a double accusative, so that both “Jesus Christ” and “come in the flesh” are objects of the verb; the meaning would be “confess Jesus Christ as come in the flesh” (so B. Weiss, J. Chaine, and others). (3) Another possibility is to see the verb as followed by a double accusative as in (2), but in this case the first object is “Jesus” and the second is “the Christ come in the flesh,” so that what is being confessed is “Jesus as the Christ come in the flesh” (so N. Alexander, J. Stott, J. Houlden, and others). All three options are grammatically possible, although not equally probable. Option (1) has a number of points in its favor: (a) the parallel in 2 John 7 suggests to some that the phrase should be understood as a single object; (b) option (2) makes “Jesus Christ” the name of the preincarnate second Person of the Trinity, and this would be the only place in the Johannine literature where such a designation for the preincarnate Λόγος (Logos) occurs; and (c) option (3) would have been much clearer if Χριστόν (Criston) were accompanied by the article (ὁμολογεῖ ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Χριστόν, Jomologei Ihsoun ton Criston). Nevertheless option (3) is preferred on the basis of the overall context involving the secessionist opponents: Their christological views would allow the confession of the Christ come in the flesh (perhaps in the sense of the Spirit indwelling believers, although this is hard to prove), but they would have trouble confessing that Jesus was (exclusively) the Christ incarnate. The author’s failure to repeat the qualifying phrases (Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, Criston en sarki elhluqota) in the negative repetition in 4:3a actually suggests that the stress is on Jesus as the confession the opponents could not or would not make. It is difficult to see how the parallel in 2 John 7 favors option (1), although R. E. Brown (Epistles of John [AB], 492) thinks it does. The related or parallel construction in John 9:22 (ἐάν τις αὐτὸν ὁμολογήσῃ Χριστόν, ean ti" auton Jomologhsh Criston) provides further support for option (3). This is discounted by R. E. Brown because the verb in John 9:22 occurs between the two accusative objects rather than preceding both as here (Epistles of John [AB], 493 – although Brown does mention Rom 10:9 as another parallel closer in grammatical structure to 1 John 4:2). Brown does not mention the textual variants in John 9:22, however: Both Ì⁶⁶ and Ì⁷⁵ (along with K, ˹³ and others) read ὁμολογήσῃ αὐτὸν Χριστόν (Jomologhsh auton Criston). This structure exactly parallels 1 John 4:2, and a case can be made that this is actually the preferred reading in John 9:22; furthermore, it is clear from the context in John 9:22 that Χριστόν is the complement (what is predicated of the first accusative) since the object (the first accusative) is αὐτόν rather than the proper name ᾿Ιησοῦν. The parallel in John 9:22 thus appears to be clearer than either 1 John 4:2 or 2 John 7, and thus to prove useful in understanding both the latter constructions.

Geneva Bible: 1Jo 4:2

^{( 2 )} Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: ^{( b )} Every spirit that confesseth that ^{( c )} Jesus Christ is come in the ^{( d )} flesh is of God:

^{( 2 )} He gives a certain and perpetual rule to know the doctrine of antichrist, that is, if either the divine or human nature of Christ, or the true uniting of them together is denied: or if the least jot that may be, be detracted from his office who is our only king, prophet and everlasting high priest.

^{( b )} He speaks simply of the doctrine, and not of the person.

^{( c )} The true Messiah.

^{( d )} Is true man.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: 1Jo 4:1-21

1 He warns them not to believe all who boast of the Spirit;

7 and exhorts to brotherly love.

MHCC: 1Jo 4:1-6

Christians who are well acquainted with the Scriptures, may, in humble dependence on Divine teaching, discern those who set forth doctrines according to the apostles, and those who contradict them. The sum of revealed religion is in the doctrine concerning Christ, his person and office. The false teachers spake of the world according to its maxims and tastes, so as not to offend carnal men. The world approved them, they made rapid progress, and had many followers such as themselves; the world will love its own, and its own will love it. The true doctrine as to the Saviour's person, as leading men from the world to God, is a mark of the spirit of truth in opposition to the spirit of error. The more pure and holy any doctrine is, the more likely to be of God; nor can we by any other rules try the spirits whether they are of God or not. And what wonder is it, that people of a worldly spirit should cleave to those who are like themselves, and suit their schemes and discourses to their corrupt taste?

Matthew Henry: 1Jo 4:1-3

The apostle, having said that God's dwelling in and with us may be known by the Spirit that he hath given us, intimates that that Spirit may be discerned and distinguished from other spirits that appear in the world; and so here,

I. He calls the disciples, to whom he writes, to caution and scrutiny about the spirits and spiritual professors that had now risen. 1. To caution: " Beloved, believe not every spirit; regard not, trust not, follow not, every pretender to the Spirit of God, or every professor of vision, or inspiration, or revelation from God."Truth is the foundation of simulation and counterfeits; there had been real communications from the divine Spirit, and therefore others pretended thereto. God will take the way of his own wisdom and goodness, though it may be liable to abuse; he has sent inspired teachers to the world, and given us a supernatural revelation, though others may be so evil and so impudent as to pretend the same; every pretender to the divine Spirit, or to inspiration, and extraordinary illumination thereby, is not to be believed. Time was when the spiritual man (the man of the Spirit, who made a great noise about, and boast of, the Spirit) was mad, Hos 9:7. 2. To scrutiny, to examination of the claims that are laid to the Spirit: But try the spirits, whether they be of God, 1Jo 4:1. God has given of his Spirit in these latter ages of the world, but not to all who profess to come furnished therewith; to the disciples is allowed a judgment of discretion, in reference to the spirits that would be believed and trusted in the affairs of religion. A reason is given for this trial: Because many false prophets have gone out into the world, 1Jo 4:1. There being much about the time of our Saviour's appearance in the world a general expectation among the Jews of a Redeemer to Israel, and the humiliation, spiritual reformation, and sufferings of the Saviour being taken as a prejudice against him, others were induced to set up as prophets and messiahs to Israel, according to the Saviour's prediction, Mat 24:23, Mat 24:24. It should not seem strange to us that false teachers set themselves up in the church: it was so in the apostles' times; fatal is the spirit of delusion, sad that men should vaunt themselves for prophets and inspired preachers that are by no means so!

II. He gives a test whereby the disciples may try these pretending spirits. These spirits set up for prophets, doctors, or dictators in religion, and so they were to be tried by their doctrine; and the test whereby in that day, or in that part of the world where the apostle now resided (for in various seasons, and in various churches, tests were different), must be this: Hereby know you the Spirit of God, Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (or that confesseth Jesus Christ that came in the flesh ), is of God, 1Jo 4:2. Jesus Christ is to be confessed as the Son of God, the eternal life and Word, that was with the Father from the beginning; as the Son of God that came into, and came in, our human mortal nature, and therein suffered and died at Jerusalem. He who confesses and preaches this, by a mind supernaturally instructed and enlightened therein, does it by the Spirit of God, or God is the author of that illumination. On the contrary, " Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (or Jesus Christ that came in the flesh ) is not of God, 1Jo 4:3. God has given so much testimony to Jesus Christ, who was lately here in the world, and in the flesh (or in a fleshly body like ours), though now in heaven, that you may be assured that any impulse or pretended inspiration that contradicts this is far from being from heaven and of God."The sum of revealed religion is comprehended in the doctrine concerning Christ, his person and office. We see then the aggravation of a systematic opposition to him and it. And this is that spirit of antichrist whereof you have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world, 1Jo 4:3. It was foreknown by God that antichrists would arise, and antichristian spirits oppose his Spirit and his truth; it was foreknown also that one eminent antichrist would arise, and make a long and fatal war against the Christ of God, and his institution, and honour, and kingdom in the world. This great antichrist would have his way prepared, and his rise facilitated, by other less antichrists, and the spirit of error working and disposing men's minds for him: the antichristian spirit began betimes, even in the apostles' days. Dreadful and unsearchable is the judgment of God, that persons should be given over to an antichristian spirit, and to such darkness and delusion as to set themselves against the Son of God and all the testimony that the Father hath given to the Son! But we have been forewarned that such opposition would arise; we should therefore cease to be offended, and the more we see the word of Christ fulfilled the more confirmed we should be in the truth of it.

Barclay: 1Jo 4:2-3

For John Christian belief could be summed up in one great sentence: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (Joh 1:14). Any spirit which denied the reality of the Incarnation was not of God. John lays down two tests of belief.

(i) To be of God a spirit must acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. As John saw it, to deny that is to deny three things about Jesus. (a) It is to deny that he is the centre of history, the one for whom all previous history had been a preparation. (b) It is to deny that he is the fulfilment of the promises of God. All through their struggles and their defeats, the Jews had clung to the promises of God. To deny that Jesus is the promised Messiah is to deny that these promises were true. © It is to deny his Kingship. Jesus came, not only to sacrifice, but to reign; and to deny his Messiahship is to leave out his essential kingliness.

(ii) To be of God a spirit must acknowledge that Jesus has come in the flesh. It was precisely this that the Gnostics could never accept. Since, in their view, matter was altogether evil, a real incarnation was an impossibility, for God could never take flesh upon himself. Augustine was later to say that in the pagan philosophers he could find parallels for everything in the New Testament except for one saying--"The Word became flesh." As John saw it, to deny the complete manhood of Jesus Christ was to strike at the very roots of the Christian faith.

To deny the reality of the incarnation has certain definite consequences.

(i) It is to deny that Jesus can ever be our example. If he was not in any real sense a man, living under the same conditions as men, he cannot show men how to live.

(ii) It is to deny that Jesus can be the High Priest who opens the way to God. The true High Priest, as the writer to the Hebrews saw, must be like us in all things, knowing our infirmities and our temptations (Heb 4:14-15). To lead men to God the High Priest must be a man, or else he will be pointing them to a road which it is impossible for them to take.

(iii) It is to deny that Jesus can in any real sense be Saviour. To save men he had to identify himself with the men he came to save.

(iv) It is to deny the salvation of the body. Christian teaching is quite clear that salvation is the salvation of the whole man. The body as well as the soul is saved. To deny the incarnation is to deny the possibility that the body can ever become the temple of the Holy Spirit.

(v) By far the most serious and terrible thing is that it is to deny that there can ever be any real union between God and man. If spirit is altogether good and the body is altogether evil, God and man can never meet, so long as man is man. They might meet when man has sloughed off the body and become a disembodied spirit. But the great truth of the incarnation is that here and now there can be real communion between God and man.

Nothing in Christianity is more central than the reality of the manhood of Jesus Christ.

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 4:1-6

3. Rejecting worldliness reaffirmed 4:1-6

"The worldliness' in view here, as in 2:12-17, is primarily a wrong attitude: a determination to be anchored to a society which does not know God (cf. 3:1 . . .). But whereas in the earlier section John shows that worldly attitudes can be associated with material possessions and ambitions (the things of the world' as such; cf. 2:15, and the reference to pride in one's life style' at v 16), here the writer contrasts God and the world' chiefly in terms of truth and error . . ."¹⁴⁰

"The battlefield is not so much the ecclesial community itself as the heart of the believer."¹⁴¹

John showed that a Christian's righteous behavior identifies him or her as a Christian (2:29-3:10a) and that love for the brethren and boldness in prayer characterize this behavior (3:10b-24). Next he pointed out that this behavior is a manifestation of God who indwells the believer.

4:1-3 It is necessary to distinguish the Spirit of God from false spirits (i.e., spirits advocating falsehood) because many false prophets have gone out into the world. False spirits (utterances or persons inspired by a spirit opposed to Christ) result in false teaching. John's test question whereby one can determine whether the Spirit of God or a spirit of falsehood possesses a person was this. What does the person believe about Jesus Christ? If a person denies the incarnation of Jesus Christ--a heresy false teachers were promoting among John's original readers--he has the spirit of antichrist (cf. 2:18-27). That is, a denial of the doctrine of Christ as the apostles taught it, deviation from orthodox Christology, evidences a spirit opposed to Jesus Christ.

"The test of the presence of the Divine Spirit is the confession of the Incarnation, or, more exactly, of the Incarnate Saviour. The Gospel centres in a Person and not in any truth, even the greatest, about the Person."¹⁴²

4:4 John's readers had so far overcome these opponents of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit who indwelt them ("He who is in you;" cf. 3:24; 4:2, 13). The Holy Spirit is stronger than Satan ("he who is in the world"). We overcome Satan, his agents, and his influence as we resist his temptations to doubt, deny, disregard, and disobey the Word of God (1 Pet. 5:9; cf. Gen. 3; Matt. 4).¹⁴³

4:5 The antichrists' teachings have an appeal to worldly minds because they come from the world and share the viewpoint of the world (cf. John 3:31).

"The term world (kosmos) is probably to be understood in two ways: as a system of thought antithetical to Christian belief and as a description of those members of the community who were led astray by the false teachers. That some members of the community were easily persuaded to forsake the truth of the gospel should not bewilder the faithful."¹⁴⁴

"The word world' has several nuances of meaning; in verse 3 it means more the area inhabited by men, but in verse 4 it refers rather to sinful mankind, while in verse 5 the stress is more on the sinful principle found in such people"¹⁴⁵

4:6 "We" probably refers to the apostolic eyewitnesses as elsewhere in this epistle, but it also includes the faithful. Those believers who "know" God intimately respond positively to the teaching of the apostles. By apostolic doctrine we know whether any teaching is truth or error, namely, having its source in the Holy Spirit or Satan. The way to distinguish truth from error is to compare it with what the Scriptures teach.

"When people confess that Jesus came in the flesh, when they hear God speak to them in the gospel of his Son and are obedient to it, then the Spirit of truth' has been present and active. When people deny the gospel, when they will not hear it as God's Word and will not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, then the spirit of falsehood' has been at work."¹⁴⁶

"Since John issues warnings to his readers against being taken in by the false teachers (2:24; 2 Jn. 7-11), he appears to have reckoned with the possibility of true believers going astray."¹⁴⁷

College: 1Jo 4:1-21

1 JOHN 4

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

A. TESTING THE SPIRITS (4:1-6)

¹ Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. ² This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, ³ but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

⁴ You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. ⁵ They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit ^a of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

^a 6 Or spirit

Here, John returns to his arguments contained in 2:18-27 in which he is attacking the false prophets and their teachings, namely the Gnostics. Now, however, he is instructing his readers on how they should treat false teachers and how the false teachers can be identified.

John introduces a new phrase (for him) in these first six verses. He uses the expression "of God" seven times. It is obvious that he is making a strong argument for the source of his teachings: they are "of" or "from God" himself. This is in contradistinction to the source of the heretics' teaching. John would argue, in keeping with his previous discussions, that the teachings of the heretics came from the devil, who has been a liar from the beginning.

4:1 Dear friends,

Again, John uses the word ajgaphtoiv (agapçtoi, "beloved" or "dearly beloved") in reference to his readers. "Dearly beloved" or "beloved" would seem to be a better rendition of the word than the NIV use of Dear friends . The NIV translation seems to be more limiting, while "dearly beloved" is a stronger translation.

do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

The Old Testament tells of many false prophets who roamed the world. For example, there were the prophets of Baal and Asherah during the days of Elijah and other later prophets. The Israelites were told to test the prophets. So, in New Testament days, there were also many false teachers trying to lead the Christians astray, not the least of which were the Gnostics. John is warning that they "test the spirits," or teachers, to see whether they are from God. Deuteronomy lays down two tests for determining whether prophets were true or false. "You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?' If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him" (Deut 18:21-22). The two tests recommended in Deuteronomy are: (1) "if the word does not come to pass or come true;" and (2) "even if the word which the prophet speaks comes true, yet if he tries to lead his hearers astray to serve other gods, he is a false prophet" (Deut 13:1-5). No spirit should be accepted until it has been tested and proved by God's Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the final witness during the Christian age, for Jesus promised that he would come and "teach you all things" and "will remind you of everything I have said to you" (see John 14:26).

This warning from John probably indicates that some of the Christians he is addressing have been listening to some of the false prophets without "testing" them. Not only in John's day, but also in our own time, we must be on guard against false prophets, for they still exist among us. We must "test the spirits" to see if they are from God. These gnostic teachers must not be accepted unless they have been tested.

4:2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

This is not the only identifying mark of a true prophet or the teaching of the Spirit of God. This is only in reference to the false teaching that John is addressing, Gnosticism, or specifically, Docetism. There were other elements of the gnostic philosophy that would be contrary to the teachings from God; this is the one addressed here. Some commentators are convinced that the Christians in John's day may have been required to make a confession of his/her belief in the physical nature of Jesus. This may be based on the use of the expression pa'n pneu'ma o} oJmologei' =Ihsou'n CristoÉn ( pan pneuma ho homologei Içsoun Christon , "every spirit who confesses Jesus Christ") in this verse. The emphasis is upon the words ho homologei , which mean "who confesses." The NIV translation is "who acknowledges," but the more accurate rendition is probably "who confesses." From this use of the word "confess" some assume that a confession was expected of those who accepted Jesus. I have no specific opinion on this, but it certainly is a possibility. It was not long after this period of time that the Apostles' Creed, in its earliest forms, came to be recited by the early Christians.

Recognizing the earthly nature of Jesus, as well as his divine nature, begins to take on a very important element of faith. In a little over two centuries, the first Nicene Council would be called for the purpose of clarifying the nature of Jesus. It is impossible for us to determine with exactness when this came to be one of the divisive elements of Christian faith. But, John declares here that this is the way we know if a spirit, or prophet, has come from God: if it acknowledges [or, confesses] that Jesus has come in the flesh .

4:3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.

Earlier, we noted that John often restates an argument with a negative statement. This is another instance of this aspect of his writing style. In order to assure that his readers would not misunderstand his admonition, he states the same truth in reverse form. The acknowledgement, or confession, here is a parallel to the previous clause, and involves a confession that Jesus "has come in the flesh." The incarnation (coming in the flesh) of Jesus is, therefore, one of the fundamental principles of our faith in God. The incarnation of Jesus certainly presupposes the preexistence of Jesus, that is, the eternal existence of Jesus (see John 1:1ff; 1 John 1:1ff). I recall hearing a professor of mine say, "I believe in what the virgin birth stands for (by this, he meant the coming of Christ into the world), but I do not believe that Jesus was literally born of a virgin." We have no right to take part of God's truth and not accept all of it. In our own day of rationalizing the Bible to our own desires, we have the same commission that John gave his readers: we must accept the fact that Jesus came in the flesh and that he was the only begotten Son of God.

This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

Again, John identifies who, or what, the antichrist is: it is one who denies the incarnation, or the fleshly appearance of God, in our lives and in the world. Not only does he declare that the antichrist is coming, but it is already in the world. The antichrist is personified in "those who went out from" these Christians John is addressing. It is the Gnostic who denies the physical reality of Jesus!

4:4 You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them,

The expression "dear children" in the Greek is merely tekniva ( teknia ), "children," not "dear children." This is an attempt on the part of the NIV, and certainly not incorrect in its intention, of showing the very special relationship John had with these Christians. He declares that they are from God . And you have overcome them . "Them" undoubtedly refers to those who had accepted the false teachings of the Gnostics.

because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

The one who is in you , without question, refers to the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of God. The gender in this expression in the Greek has changed from the neuter gender in earlier references to "spirit" to the masculine gender, referring to the Holy Spirit. This inner power provided by the Holy Spirit enables us to be more successful in our struggle against the devil and his false teachings. Furthermore, John asserts that the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. The world has not been given the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, for it is only given to those who were baptized into Jesus (see Acts 2:38). Without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they are powerless to fight against evil and false teaching. When people accept Jesus into their lives and obey his commands, they become a distinctly different people, or as Peter says, they become "a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God" (1 Pet 2:9).

4:5 They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them.

These false teachers have gone out into the world. John insists that they are a part of this world. Hence they speak from the viewpoint of the world . Their success in spreading their heresy is undoubtedly because they speak the language of the world and the world understands them. We should remember that our language tells others who and what we are. When Peter and John astonished their listeners with what they said, "they were astonished and took note that these men had been with Jesus" (Acts 4:13). "Being with Jesus" makes a difference in what we say, how we act, and what kind of person we are.

4:6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Since we are from God, others who are also from God will know us by how we act and what we say. They will know that God listens to us because God listens to his own. Those who are not "from God" will not know us nor understand us. This being true, if God is speaking to us through his Holy Spirit and through the revelation given to us, we will know it because we know God. Those heretics John is discussing will not know what the truth is because they do not know what God speaks. They are not from God. There is a sort of parallel between John and these heretics. The Gnostics believed that they had received a special gift of knowledge from God that made them more exclusive than others who were in the Way. The Christians had received the Holy Spirit of God and He speaks to us through revelation. But, that is as far as the parallel goes - that each group (the Christians and the Gnostics) had received a special gift from God.

B. GOD'S LOVE AND OUR LOVE (4:7-21)

⁷ Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. ⁸ Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. ⁹ This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son ^a into the world that we might live through him. ¹⁰ This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for ^b our sins. ¹¹ Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. ¹² No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

¹³ We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. ¹⁴ And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. ¹⁵ If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. ¹⁶ And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. ¹⁷ In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. ¹⁸ There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

¹⁹ We love because he first loved us. ²⁰ If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. ²¹ And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

Already in this epistle, John has addressed "love" in some of the strongest language possible. In 2:1-11, he discusses love from the point of view of its being a new command. In 3:11-21, he shows how important it is for us to love one another. In 4:7-21, he discusses God's love and our love. He shows how love is a Godlike trait, emphasizes our love as we try to become like God in our practice of love.

4:7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.

Again, the NIV has weakened the force of the first word of this text by translating it Dear friends . As we have indicated before, the force of this word is "beloved," or "dearly beloved." Let us is a hortatory subjunctive, and it is a strong encouragement to move forward. "Let us" really is a statement that urges his listeners to do as he plans to do, that is love one another . Often, "loving one another" could be a translation of philos or phileô, but here John uses the stronger word agapaô from which we get the noun agapç. Why should we Christians love one another? Because love comes from God. If we carry the theme John is emphasizing of the family relation of God the Father with his children, Christians, we could say that love is a family characteristic. We love because our Father before us loves. John further stresses this point when he says that Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Two striking statements here again attack the gnostic beliefs: first, we have been "born of God." Second, we "know God." Both of these statements would run counter to the beliefs of the Gnostics, for they did not believe that "ordinary Christians," like those being addressed by John had either of these characteristics. We will say more about being "born of God" in 5:18-19. You are encouraged to turn and read those verses in connection with this theme of John. How can we "know" God? Through his revelation of himself to us through Jesus Christ and confirmed to us by the revelation of the Holy Spirit to us in Scripture.

4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

The expression does not know God makes it obligatory upon everyone who claims God to love not only him, but also his children. Jesus uses the same Greek word in Matthew 7:23 when he said to those claiming to know God, "I never knew [e[gnwn, egnôn] you."

Here, again, John uses the language of the Gnostics in saying whoever does not love does not know God. There is no specific object of the love mentioned, just whoever does not love does not know God. The reason for this all-encompassing statement about love is because God is love. If God truly is love, then not-loving would be proof that we are ungodly, or ungodlike. This love that God is encompasses intelligence, intention, comprehension, and understanding, because to love in the manner that God is (that is, agapç, which we have already defined in previous pages) is not necessarily a love of passion, but a love of intention. We can be commanded to love in the manner that God loves. We can have compassion, concern for others' best, benevolence, and all the wide meanings that love really is. When one first hears the expression, "God is love," this sounds so simple and so easy to understand. But, in fact it is one of the most sublime, most inclusive, most all-encompassing traits we can have. Lenski wrote, "God is love. Love as well as life reveals its presence by its acts. In 3:1 it is the Father's gift that makes us his children."

4:9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.

What a way to demonstrate love! Only when a person has had to give up a son (or daughter) through death can we even approximate the greatness of the gift God gave. When we magnify the pain by recognizing the extent of the pain and humiliation that Jesus, God's Son, experienced and realize what a worthless people we humans were for God to sacrifice his Son for us, we can begin to realize something of the greatness of the sacrifice of God. No one can ever question the magnitude of the suffering of God until it is realized what a sacrifice it was. God manifested his love "in us," or "among us," which signifies the overt way that God performed this great demonstration of his love for us. He did it on the cross, with all of its shame and sorrow. This is in fulfillment of the prophecy, "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not" (Isa 53:3). The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was not a pretty thing. The American justice system seeks to assure that the death penalty will not suggest cruel and inhumane treatment. The Roman cross was the epitome of inhumane treatment: all of this because God wanted to show his love for us.

So, God sent his Son openly to all the world to give himself as a sacrifice for our sins, because he loved us. Not only did God send his Son to demonstrate his love, but also that we might live through him. This is not some kind of a future life that God provides. It is an immediate gift. We can be possessors of eternal life right here and now! This life is in harmony with the truly spiritual order of things! John often speaks of eternal life in the present tense or as an already accomplished fact: see 5:11,13. This in no way is a guarantee of eternal life or that we can do nothing to lose what we already have. If we were to reject Jesus, we would lose what he has promised (see 5:11).

4:10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

True love comes not from humankind; true love comes from God. It all started with God loving us. Even when humanity turned their backs on God, he still loved them. God did not need humanity; humanity had rejected God from the very beginning, even in the Garden of Eden. From that time till now, we have been in need of God. His love was seen when he sent his Son to atone for our sins: He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Marshall writes that "In this phrase we find the deepest meaning of the term 'love': love means forgiving the sins of the beloved and remembering them no more. This is what God has done for rebellious mankind: he pardons their sins against himself at his own cost. To remove this element from the biblical teaching on the nature of God's love is to water down the concept of love beyond measure." In no way was Jesus a martyr. He was a sacrifice. He was a propitiation. He was an "atoning sacrifice." If we start at our point of being to learn the true meaning of love, we will never understand it. We must start with God in order to understand it.

4:11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

To the "Dearly beloved," or Dear friends, John addresses some of the obligations or responsibilities that arise out of God's love for us. Good things rarely come to us apart from obligations. God's love for us places the responsibility, or "ought," for us to love one another. This "ought" in our lives comes at a high price. Christ has died for our sins, we have received the forgiveness of our sins, and now we also ought to love one another. This comes as an obligation to us, as is suggested by the verb ojfeivlomen ( opheilomen , "we ought").

4:12 No one has ever seen God;

This kind of love is different from any kind of love we experience with our fellow human beings. We love people in our physical existence because we see them, we associate with them, and for some reason, we come to love them. John reminds us that this is a different kind of love. No one has ever seen God . How can we love someone whom we have not seen? This is a concept addressed several times in the Old Testament. Moses was allowed to see God's back side but was never allowed to see "God's face." John discusses this elsewhere. "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only [NIV fn: but the only Son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known" (John 1:18). There is a difference in the "invisibility" of God and the revelation of the incarnate Son. Jesus taught his disciples that if they had seen him, then they had seen the Father.

but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

How, then, is it possible for us to love God whom we have not seen? We love him because He has expressed his love to us through the gift of his Son. When we recognize the world that God has created and the wonderful blessings that come from him, this should produce in us a love for the Father. [I]f we love each other, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. This is the answer to our question, "How is it possible for us to love God whom we have not seen?" We develop our love through loving our fellow Christians, and God lives in us. His love is made complete when we learn to love him with all of our hearts, souls, and minds. This is the essence of love.

4:13 We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.

The Holy Spirit has been given to all Christians. Peter declared to the great crowds of people on the Day of Pentecost, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). In chapter five (5:6ff), John appeals to three witnesses to the incarnation of Jesus - the Spirit, the water and the blood - which we will discuss in detail later. But the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives is certifying that we live in him. The Holy Spirit has demonstrated himself to us in a number of ways: the presence of the Spirit with Jesus on earth, the baptism of the Holy Spirit (to the apostles and the household of Cornelius), the laying on of hands, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is the "gift" that John is speaking of here. The "gift" is actually the Holy Spirit himself; God gives us the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. He has given us of his Spirit. He dwells within us, and this testifies that God loves us and that God lives in us. The Spirit has worked in our lives also in the revelation of God to us through his (the Spirit's) work. Paul states that the Holy Spirit was a "deposit" or an "earnest" of what was to come: "Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come" (2 Cor 5:5). I recently bought a new house. When the purchase was agreed upon, I was asked to give a "deposit," or a down payment to show that I really meant to buy the house. This is what Paul is saying. God has promised us a "heavenly dwelling" (see 2 Corinthians 5:1) and to guarantee that he would give what he has promised, he gave the Holy Spirit as a "deposit." So, we know that we live in him and he in us because of the deposit God made.

4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

This is another attack on Cerinthus and his gnostic followers. God's incarnate Son, which the Docetics denied, came to earth, suffered, died and arose from the dead to give us forgiveness of sins and eternal life. John repeats what he said at the outset of this letter, we have seen and testify that these things actually happened (see 1:1-2). To what is John testifying? To the fact that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Bear in mind that this attacks Cerinthus and his followers at the very root of their doctrines. If John's statement is true, then the gnostic foundation falls. All of this happened because God loves us and gave his Son as our Savior.

4:15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.

John returns to an argument he began earlier in this chapter (see verses 2 & 3). The docetic view that Jesus was not born of the flesh is a persistent theme throughout this epistle. This became an essential part of the early Christian's confession of his faith. As we have indicated earlier, it was not long after these words were written that the earliest forms of the Apostle's Creed began to emerge. Although this writer is not in favor of creeds and creedal developments, one can understand why some of the early Christians felt the need to verbalize, or confess, the articles of their faith. One who would confess his faith in the Sonship of Jesus would be responding to the false teachings of the gnostic system. The reality of the Sonship of Jesus guarantees that God abides in the one who makes this confession. Faith in Jesus' Sonship causes God to live in the believer and the believer to be a part of God, or to live in him.

4:16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.

We have ample proof that John is telling us the truth. He has witnessed with his own eyes and touched, and talked with Jesus as a man; his fellow disciples (perhaps referred to when John wrote "which we have heard" [1:1]) The "we" certainly could include all of those who had witnessed the life of Jesus. As we shall see in the next chapter, three witnesses, according to the Law of Moses, were enough to determine truth. We can, therefore, rely on John's message. We can know and rely on the love that God has for us.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.

John again makes the broad, inclusive statement, God is love. Stott makes these comments regarding this statement: "It tells us not only that God loved, but that God is love. It is one thing, however, to know and believe the love God has for us and that God is love ; it is another to 'live in love' ourselves. . . .The only way to love, as the only way to believe (v. 15) is by living in God and God in us." John assures us that whenever we practice love for God and for our brothers, we live in God and God lives in us. This is a most sublime thought: to know that God abides in us.

4:17 In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him.

Only when we put our faith in God, and allow his love to permeate our lives can love be perfected, or made complete. So, God's love can be made complete in us when we love. We can then develop a true confidence in our lives. We can have confidence that God has redeemed us through his Son, for it was his love that sent Jesus to die for us. We can then look to the Day of Judgment with confidence that our eternal life is secure.

4:18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

With this confidence we can then be beyond fear. This is why John assures us that there is no fear in love: because our confidence in our salvation is made secure. He also assures us that fear comes in when punishment is involved, and punishment will not be involved in our lives when we have allowed perfect love to abide in us. He emphatically says, the man who fears is not made perfect in love. What is your level of faith and love? Has it allowed you to develop a confident life? We must all strive for that kind of faith and love that provides us with confidence.

4:19 We love because he first loved us.

Since "God is love," then he is the source of all love. This is in keeping with John's statement that We love because he first loved us. We would not have known love if God had not demonstrated it to us first. The more that we behold God's love, the more we will understand it and respond positively to it. As we grow in our relationship with God, we will appreciate his love more and will learn to express our love.

4:20 If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.

True love requires that it be expressed to others. The greatest of all commandments was to "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'" (Matt 22:37-38). Jesus made this well-known comment to one who asked what is the greatest commandment. This being true, we can see why Jesus placed such an importance on loving our brother and why we are liars if we claim to love God and yet do not love our fellowman. John then gives the reason for this, For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. We may deceive our fellowmen by claiming to love God without loving our brothers. There are many people in God's church who have terrible attitudes toward each other. They will mistreat a brother, despise a brother, fail to practice brotherly love, and yet sing great praises to God at the same time. John says that this is not possible. We are liars when we make that claim.

4:21 And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

In concluding this chapter, John makes one further appeal for loving our brothers. This final reminder to love our brothers is needed. Evidently, it was also needed for these Christians in John's time or he would not be emphasizing it so much. It is possible that all of the problems surrounding the false teaching spreading among them had also developed hatred and lack of genuine love within the body. As we have already emphasized, this commandment is needed today in the Lord's body. There are too many Christians who do not properly regard each other. This is not a suggestion from God; it is a command!

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: 1Jo 4:1-21

Would someone please check the Psalm number in sentence formatted in blue in the 3rd note of ver. 18.

CHAPTER 4

1. Most dearly beloved, &c. By the word spirit he means suggestion, inspiration, impulse, teaching or rather the person himself who suggests, inspires, teaches, &c. He means, do not give credit to everything which every teacher or adviser teaches and advises you. For there are diverse, yea contrary teachers, who are influenced by contrary spirits. Wise and orthodox teachers are moved by the good Spirit of God, wicked and erring teachers, such as heretics, by the evil spirit of the devil. And so, as Dionysius says, the good, or evil spirit, speaks by the mouth of doctors. Thus the devil, speaking by the mouth of the serpent, tempted and seduced Eve. There is a reference to sailors, who do not trust every spirit, or breath, or blast of wind, for if they did, they would miss their destined port, and would be often driven upon rocks and quicksands. Wherefore he bids us examine and search out by what spirit teachers are led before we give them our confidence. This is the forewarning which Paul gives 1Tim 4: i. "The Spirit speaketh expressly," &c.

But try ye (as gold is tried by the Lydian stone), Syriac, discern Ye between : because, as saith Ambrosiaster, "unclean spirits are wont by imitation to say good things deceitfully, and so to superinduce evil things, that by means of the things which are good the evil things may be accepted, so that they should be supposed to be the words of one and the same spirit, and that they should not be discerned the one from the other, but that which is unlawful should be commanded by that which is lawful."

Moreover, that Lydian stone by which spirits and doctrines are to be tried is not every one's own private spirit. For this may be, and often is, moved by the devil, as when one is contrary to another: (for from this have been generated as many sects conflicting with themselves, as the poets have feigned heads to Cerberus*but it must be the doctrines of the Apostles and the Church. For this is the certain and common heritage of all the faithful. Such was that teaching which S. John suggests as suitable and necessary for his own age, saying, "Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God." Falsely therefore do the heretics argue from this passage that their heresies ought to be tried and examined. For they have been examined and condemned by the Church. So there is no need, nor indeed is it right for each private Christian to try them. Thus S. Jerome says to Pammachium, "Why after 4000 years dost thou strive to teach what we have not known before? Has the Christian world been without this doctrine until to-day?" And S. Augustine says ( contra Crescen. lib. 2. c. 35), "The Church, ye say, hath perished, and ye show of whom ye are sprung." And Vincent of Lerius says, "If novelty is to be shunned, antiquity is to be held fast: if novelty is profane, antiquity is sacred." And Primasius says acutely, "The spirits have been already tried by the Church. Why dost thou wish to prove that which hath been already disproved?"

Moraliter : S. John here teaches that no Christian ought to trust all his inward motions, impulses, inspirations, desires, reasons seemingly good, but ought carefully to examine their origin and their author. Thus a man of a melancholy temperament perceives motions and impulses to sadness, pusillanimity, suspicion. Let him not give way to them. For if he examine their origin, he will find that they arise from the evil spirit of melancholy, which is false and deceitful. The choleric man is agitated by blasts of anger, revenge, indignation. He thinks he is moved by a zeal for justice. But let him with a calm mind and reason search into their origin, and he will find they spring from the evil spirit of bile and anger. Thus when the Samaritans would not receive Christ, and James and John said, "Lord, wilt thou that we call down fire from heaven to consume them?" He answered, "Ye know not what spirit ye are of." For ye think ye are moved by the Spirit of God, and ye are acted upon by the human spirit of impatience. Thus many think they are led by the Spirit of God, that is to say by the Spirit of truth, sobriety, chastity, charity; whereas, if they would thoroughly and sincerely, as in the presence of God, examine the ground of their heart, they would find that they are led by the spirit of the devil, that is to say, of vanity, gluttony, lust, &c. Wherefore in those blasts, passions, and tumults of the mind, the judgment ought to be suspended. And most especially ought the Holy Spirit to be invoked, that He would bestow upon us the gift of discernment of spirits.

In this is known the Spirit of God. He means, This is the pledge of the true faith and doctrine, which the Spirit of God teaches and suggests, that is to say, every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. This therefore was in the time of S. John as it were the pledge and the symbol of the true Christian faith, namely, to believe and confess the Incarnation of Christ the Son of God, and the rest of the Dispensation in the flesh. For all the heretics and heresies at that time fought against this article of the faith as something new and strange. Some denied Christ's Divinity, and taught that He was a mere man, as Cerinthus and others denied Christ's humanity, and said that it was not real, but a phantasm. Such were Simon Magus, Manes, and many others.

S. Augustine adds that all heresies reject Christ Incarnate, because they oppose His doctrine, Church, Sacraments, Pontiff, or priestly order, which He established. Thus Pelagius, in denying the grace of Christ, although with his lips he confessed His Incarnation, in reality overthrew it, because the Incarnation of Christ took place for the very purpose of giving us grace. You may say the same of Luther, Calvin, and the rest of the sectaries. For which cause S. John calls all heresiarchs antichrists, because they are all opposed to Christ's doctrine and His Church.

Mystically : Œcumenius understands this confession of the coming of Christ in the flesh "to be made not with the tongue, but by works." For not many heretics only, but bad Catholics also, confess Christ in words, but deny Him by their deeds. It means, he who confesses Christ, both by living rightly, as well as by believing truly concerning Him, this man is of God. So Bede. As S. Augustine says, "Let us confess that Christ has come in the flesh, both by speaking the truth in words, and by living well in deeds. For if we confess in words, and deny by deeds, the faith of such is very nigh the faith of devils."

Ver. 3.— And every spirit which dissolves ( solvit ) Jesus, is not of God. (Vulg.) It means that Jesus is composed of the Godhead and the manhood by the bond of the hypostatic union. He therefore who loosens this bond, by denying that Christ is God, as do the Arians, or that He is man, as other heretics, is not of God, but of the devil. For such deny that Christ the Son of God came from heaven in the flesh, and say that He is God only or man only. This is what is set forth to be believed in the Athanasian symbol concerning Christ. "For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man are one Christ;" where observe that the word as signifies union and unity, not the same but similar. For the rational soul and flesh make our composite being, our man. But the Godhead and the manhood united in Christ make one composite Being, not essentially, but substantially, or hypostatically. Nor indeed does the Godhead inform the Humanity in the same way that the soul informs the body, but subsists whole and immingled. It unites the Manhood to Itself in the same hypostasis of the Word. Wherefore Nestorius truly dissolves Christ, teaching that in Him are two Persons, as there are two Natures, and that therefore in Christ the man is diverse and distinct from God. Christ therefore as God in the Humanity is as the pearl in the shell, conceived and formed of virgin matter, and the dew of the Holy Ghost, most fair by the innocency of His life, most bright by the light of His wisdom, rounded by the possession of all perfection, having the weight of constancy, the polish of meekness, the price of blessedness. So Salmeron.

Observe: the Greek and Syriac read here, Every spirit which confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. So also reads S. Cyprian ( l. 2. contr. Jud. ), Tertullian ( lib. de Carne Christ, c. 24), though they, instead of does not confess, read who denies. But the rest of the Latin Fathers have generally which dissolves, as above. So S. Leo ( Epist. 10 c. 5), Tertullian also ( lib. contr. Psych. c. 1), and Irenæus ( lib. 3 c. 18), and S. Augustine on this passage, who also brings forward and explains the other reading. Moreover, in the Greek, instead of ὸμολογε̃ι, i.e., confess, it was formerly read α̉ναλύει, i.e., dissolves. This we learn from Didymus and S. Cyril ( de Fide ad Regin.). And from him Socrates writes ( l 7 c. 32), speaking of Nestorius, who denied that the Blessed Virgin was the Mother of God, as follows: "He was ignorant that in ancient copies of the Catholic Epistle of John, it is written, 'Every spirit which dissolves Jesus is not of God.' For those who wished to separate the Godhead from the dispensation of the Manhood took away this sentence out of the ancient codices."

Allegorically : he dissolves Christ, who by schism rends the Church, which is the Body of Christ. "Christ," says S. Augustine, "came to gather together: thou comest to dissolve. How dost thou not deny that He came in the flesh, when thou breakest in pieces the Church which He gathered together?"

And this is Antichrist : The Greek reads, And this is of Antichrist ; the Syriac, This is from the false Christ himself. And S. Cyprian reads ( contr. Jud. lib. 2 c. 7 vol. 8), He who denies that He is come in the flesh is not of God, but is of the spirit of Antichrist. In a similar manner, John the Baptist is called Elias, not in person, but in office and spirit.

Because he comes (Vulg.), i.e., will surely come.

And now already he is in the world, not in person, but in spirit; that is to say, in his forerunners. This is what Paul says, "The mystery of iniquity doth already work." (2 Thess 2: 7.) Thus Luther paved the way for Mahometanism, and consequently for Antichrist, by teaching, amongst other things, that the Turk ought not to be resisted. This he attempted to prove by the following sophistical argument—We must not resist the scourge of God, for that is the same thing as resisting God scourging us. But the Turk is the scourge of God. Therefore the Turk ought not to be resisted. The same argument would prove that thieves and robbers ought not to be resisted, for they are all a scourge of God. But there are scourges that ought to be scourged by the magistrates, for they are not by the direct, but the permissive will of God. And what other effect would such an argument have but to subject all Christians to the Turks, and make them Turks? Wherefore when the Turkish Sultan Solyman asked the imperial ambassador how old Luther was, and received in reply that he was forty-eight, he said he was sorry that on account of his impending old age he would not be able to assist him as much in the time to come as he had done. Luther makes a boast of this Solyman's good opinion of him ( lib. Symposiac ), and glories in his entire good-will towards him.

Ver. 4. — Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome him. Because ye, 0 Christians, are of God, who is the prime and eternal Truth, therefore ye have overcome him; namely, the spirit of Antichrist, the spirit of error and heresy. Hence the Greek and Syriac read them, i.e., ye have overcome the false prophets, and spirits of error. S. Cyprian ( lib. de Simp. Prelat.) reads νικα̃τε, i.e., overcome them, as a voice exhorting to battle and victory. The present Greek text has νενικήκατα, ye have overcome them, the voice of congratulation on account of victory.

For greater is He that is in you, &c. He gives the reason of victory, namely Christ and His Spirit of truth, which rules the faithful, and who is greater than the devil, and his spirit of error, who rules over the world, i.e., worldly men, heretics and impious persons. He says this to impress humility upon the faithful, that they should ascribe their victory, not to their own strength, but to the grace of God.

The same principle may be extended to every temptation. Wherefore S. John says ( Rev 12: 11), "They overcame him by the Blood of the Lamb, and the word of their testimony." And the Church sings in her hymn for martyrs, "Thou conquerest in the martyrs."

3. S. Ambrose ( Hom. 1 de Elisæo ) extends the same principle to hostile armies: "I remember that I have often said that we ought by no means to fear the warlike assaults of enemies, nor dread their numbers, however vast. For, as the Apostle says "greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world." Christ is more powerful to protect His servants than the devil is to urge their enemies on. For although the devil collects his multitudes, and arms them with cruel rage, yet are they soon destroyed, because the Saviour encompasses His people with better defenders. For the prophet says, "The Lord shall send His angel round about them that fear Him, and deliver them." But if the angel of the Lord rescues them that fear Him out of dangers, they who fear the Saviour cannot fear barbarians. Neither can he who keeps the precepts of Christ fear the attack of an enemy." He gives the reason, the arms of Christ. "The commands of Christ are the arms of Christians. And the fear of God drives out the enemies' fear. Our arms are those with which the Saviour has provided us, prayer, mercy, and fasting. Fasting is a better defence than a wall. Mercy more easily delivers than rapiers. Prayer hath a longer flight than an arrow." Then he confirms what he says by the example of Elisæus when he was encompassed by the hosts of Syrians. He said to his trembling servant, "Fear not, for more are they that are with us, than they that are with them."

4. S. Prosper ( lib. 1 de Vocat. Gent.) extends it to the daily temptations of the faithful. He shows, in opposition to Pelagius, that there is need of the grace of God to overcome them. "The victory of the saints," he says, "is the work of God dwelling in the saints."

5. Some extend it to every arduous work, so that each Christian should animate himself by saying to himself, "Greater is He that is in me than he that is in the world." And with S. Paul, "I can do all things through Him who strengtheneth me." And with S. Cyprian, "He who is greater than the world cannot desire anything of the world." ( lib. 2, ep. 2). And he adds, "He becomes greater and stronger in might, so that with imperial authority he rises superior to all the hosts which attack him." "Let us despise therefore everything under heaven as vain and deceitful, and unworthy of our love." And with S. Hilary, "Let us be lowly in heart, but lofty in mind," for we bear upon our head the strength and omnipotence of Christ. I once saw in Belgium a colonel who said to the heretics who were menacing him, "I fear none of you, for I bear the crown of Spain upon my head." So let the Christian say, "I bear upon my head, not the crown of Spain, but the crown of God. Therefore I fear not all the power of men and devils; no, not all the might of hell. I challenge them all to battle." Thus did S. Athanasius challenge all the Arians and the whole world. For "if God be for us, who can be against us?" What great things by the power of God did S. Paul, S. Antony, S. Simeon Stylites, S. Francis, and all the virgins, heroes, and martyrs! We can do likewise through the same God "who triumphs," i.e., "who makes us to triumph in Christ." (2Co 2:14). And God Himself has made us this promise (Isa 58:24), saying, "I will lift thee up above the high places of the earth," so that like an eagle dwelling in heaven thou mayest there despise whatsoever is in the world. This Seneca saw as in a shadow, when he said, "We must seek for that which does not become more worthless day by day. And what is that? It is the mind. But this must be a mind right, and good, and great. And what else can you call this but God dwelling as a guest in a human body?" ( Epist. 54.)

5. They are of the world, &c. For heretics are not of God but of the world, because they love the riches, honours, and pleasures of the world. Whence worldly people, who care only for what is of the world, gladly hear them. "A heretic," says S. Augustine ( de util. credendi ), "is he who for the sake of some temporal advantage, but especially of glory, and the pre-eminence which it gives, either brings forth or follows new and false opinions." "All heretics," says Tertullian, "are puffed up, all make profession of science." "What heretic," says S. Jerome, "does not swell with pride?" And again, S. Augustine says, "One mother, pride, hath brought forth all heresies, even as our own mother, the Catholic Church, all faithful Christians dispersed throughout the world."

Ver. 6.— We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us, &c. Even as Christ saith, "He that heareth you, heareth Me: he that despiseth you, despiseth Me," We, i.e., all the faithful, who have been born again in baptism, and are endued with charity. We, viz. the predestinated.  3d. And last: We, i.e., the Apostles. For, as Œcumenius says to heresiarchs, who, he said, spoke of the world, and from the world—i.e., who teach worldly and carnal cupidity—to them he opposes the Apostles, who being born of God, and imbued with heavenly doctrine, and being sent by God, teach men to covet things spiritual, divine, and heavenly. Wherefore he who practically knows God, i.e., he who loves Him, heareth us, i.e., me John, and the rest of the Apostles, and Apostolic men. But he who does not love God, and therefore is not of God, but of the world, this man heareth not us. Wherefore he adds, By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error; by this, namely, "because he that heareth us hath the spirit of truth, he that heareth not us hath the spirit of error," as S. Augustine saith. For heretics, who are led by the spirit of error, teach the things of the world: but the Apostles and Apostolic Doctors, who are born of God, teach things Divine.

Ver. 7.— Dearly beloved, let us love one another. These words are rightly connected with what preceded. He means that the spirit of error is the spirit of cupidity, but the Spirit of truth is the Spirit of love and charity. Erroneous and heretical doctrine teaches men to love honours, wealth, gluttony; but the Apostles teach us to love God and our neighbour. He subjoins the reason:

For love is of God. The Spirit of truth is the Spirit of charity, that we may love one another; because as truth is from God, so also is charity. Yea, God, who is the chief and eternal Truth, is also the highest and uncreated Love. Wherefore it follows as a necessary consequence, that any one who loveth (not by natural, but by supernatural charity) is born of God. Being born again of faith and charity, which are from God, he is made a child of God. For charity is a supernatural faculty, giving to the soul the ability to love God and our neighbour. That he may know God, not merely theoretically, but practically, because he supremely loves God whom he knows to be the Highest Good. Again, love causes a man more fully to know, and to have taste and experience of God, as it were by spiritual taste. And this taste and experience grow continually, even as love increases. Especially is this so, because God manifests Himself to him who loves, and more clearly reveals Himself to him by interior illuminations, inspirations, and consolations, according to that promise of Christ, "He that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father: and I will love him, and will manifest Myself unto him." (Joh 14:21).

Observe : Love is of God,—1st. Because the essential, uncreated charity flows naturally from the Divine Essence Itself, like heat from fire. Indeed, the Divine Essence Itself is Love.

2d. Because the Holy Spirit is Itself substantial or essential ( notionalis ) Love. For He, as essential Love, proceeds from the Father and the Son by that act of love by which they love one another with an infinite love.

3d. Charity was created by God, because it is the highest and noblest gift of God, according to the words (Rom. v. 5), "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts;" not as if the charity wherewith we love God were itself God, or the Holy Spirit. For this is an exploded error. But because God, who is uncreated Love, inspires and kindles in us that created charity with which we love Him. As the light illuminating produces the light illuminated, as S. Augustine says ( Confess. 12. 15). And this is precisely S. John's meaning in this place, in which he tacitly intimates that this gift is not to be ascribed to our own strength, but is to be asked of God by constant prayer.

4th. Charity is of God, because God first loved us (1Jo 4:19), and by loving us inflames us to love Him in return.

5th. Charity is of God, because it is sanctioned by the law of God, and frequently and especially commanded by it. For the whole Decalogue is nothing else but the law of love to God and our neighbour.

From hence it follows that God is in Himself formal charity, and in us causal charity, and that as respecting every kind of cause: material, because He Himself is the object of our love; formal, because He is the pattern of the same; efficient, because He produces it in us; He is the final cause, because He is our end, and the end of our love.

Lastly, natural love is from nature, carnal love from the flesh, worldly love from the world; but supernatural love, or charity, is from God alone.

Ver. 8.— He that loveth not knoweth not God. S. John having said just above, Every one that loveth is born of God, now proves the same thing from the contrary. He means, he who loveth not God and his neighbour, although he may know God speculatively, does not know Him practically, that is, experimentally. Just as no one knows experimentally the savour and sweetness of honey unless he taste it. For as taste is known by tasting, so is love known and tasted by actually loving. Wherefore, although S. John might in a similar manner have said, He who is not wise doth not know God, because God is Wisdom; or he who is not patient, knows not God, because God is Patience; or he who is not humble, knows not Christ, because Christ is Humility, and so on—nevertheless, preferred to say, He that loveth not, knoweth not God, because God is Love. This was (1.) Because he is treating of charity, not of wisdom, patience, &c. (2.) Because being full of the love of God and Christ, he breathes and delights in nothing else. For, as S. Bernard says, "Between the bridegroom and the bride, i.e., between lovers, no union need be sought but to love and be loved, for that Spouse is not only loving, but Love Itself." This is what Jeremiah says (Jer 31:3), "I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee."

For God is love : both formal and uncreate, and so essential, and also causal and created. For in God and the Divine Essence, on account of Its perfection and simplicity, there are no accidents, but those things which in us are accidents, are in God inseparable from His Essence. Wisdom, goodness, love, and power are themselves the Divine Essence. So the Council of Rheims defined against Gilbert. Moreover, God is charity, or love, both in the abstract and the concrete. For He is supreme affection, and loves supremely, and therefore ought to be supremely loved by us in return. God, then, is Love, because He hath supremely loved us. And He hath given us this most clear proof of His love in that He sent His only Begotten Son to save us. Hence S. Augustine and Bede teach that he who loves not his neighbour sins against God, because God is Love.

Again, S. Chrysostom teaches that nothing can be compared with charity, because God Himself, who is incomparable, is Charity. Gagneius declares that we are certain that God loves us with an infinite love because He is very Love Itself. Hence the Fathers infer that Charity commands and embraces all the other virtues, for God commands and includes them.

Ver. 9.— In this love appeared: He now declares why he said, God is Love. It is because God hath declared His infinite love towards us by sending Christ in the flesh for our salvation, that by this means He might invite us to love Him back. There is an allusion to the words in 8. John's Gospel (Joh 3:19), "So God loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."

"Behold," says S. Augustine, "how we have an exhortation to love God. How could we love Him unless He had first loved us? If we were slow to love, let us not be slow to love again." Pathetically and learnedly does S. Paulinus write about S. Mary Magdalene ( Epist. 4 ad Sever.): "Therefore, let us love Him whom it is our duty to love. Let us kiss Him whom to kiss is purity. Let us be joined to Him whose marriage-bond is virginity. Let us be subject to Him, at whose feet to lie is to stand above the world. Let us fall down because of Him for whom to fall is resurrection. Let us die for Him in whom is life. In whom we live though we are dead."

In this, i.e., in the love of God wherewith He loved us.  S. John, the beloved of Christ, lays special stress upon this, that God, moved by no love or duty on our part, but offended by our many provocations and wickednesses, first loved us. And when we were sinners and enemies, fleeing from Him, and fighting against Him, He followed us, and turned us by His love, that He might bring us back and save us. "For to this end He loved us," says S. Augustine, "that we might love Him." And therefore He sent his Son to be a propitiation, i.e., to be a propitiator, and a propitiatory victim for our sins.  S. Augustine reads libatorem, a pourer of libations, and explains it to mean Sacrificer. As S. Augustine says again, "He loved the wicked, that He might make them holy. He loved the unjust, that He might make them just. He loved the sick, that He might make them whole."

See in this how high the ways of God are above the ways of men. For with men, if any one despise them, vex or spoil them, straightway they hate him, and think how they may do him some greater injury. But God—despised, contemned, robbed of His honour, injured in a thousand ways—enlarges the bowels of His love towards us. With love He fights against man's hate. By hatred He is stirred up to love. Hatred is the whip of His love. He overcomes hatred by His infinite love, swallows it up, drowns and extinguishes it, as a mighty conflagration extinguishes a little drop of water. The love of God therefore towards His enemies is so wonderful, that by it He makes them His friends, His sons and heirs, and turns the greatest sinners into the greatest saints. Out of the thief upon the cross He made a preacher of Himself. Out of Saul He made S. Paul. Out of the sinful Magdalene He made a mirror of penitence and holiness. This is what Paul celebrates and admires

(1Ti 1:15), "This is a faithful saving, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief; but therefore I obtained mercy, that in me first Christ Jesus might shew all patience, for the instruction of those who should hereafter believe in Him unto eternal life."

Ver. 11.— Dearly beloved, if God so loved us, &c. If here is not a particle expressive of doubtfulness. It is not conditional, but causal, and is equivalent to because. It means, Because God so loves us. Christ uses a similar construction, when He says, "If I, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet."

S. John says if, rather than because, for the sake of greater weight and pathos, as it were lost in amazement at the infinite love of God. Wherefore it is advisedly and intentionally that he says after the antecedent, if God so loved us, not we therefore ought so to love God, which is impossible, but, we ought also to love one another. As much as to say, Since we cannot render equal love in return for Divine love, let us at least love one another according to our slender capacity. For what we do to our neighbour God accounts as done to Him.

The word us includes also our neighbours. If God, who is not a partaker, vouchsafes to love all who participate in our nature, how much more does it become us to embrace with our love all who are of the same nature, and in respect of it are equals? Truly does S. Augustine say on this passage ( Tract. 7): "Love, and do what thou wilt. For if thou art silent, thou keepest silence through love. If thou criest out, thou criest out in love. If thou correctest, thou correctest lovingly. If thou sparest, thou sparest in love. Let this be the root of love within. From that root nothing but love can spring."

Ver. 12.— No man hath seen God at any time. Why does S. John here introduce these words? It is because these words partly give the reason why from the antecedent, if God so loved us the inference is drawn we also ought to love one another, not God (as might seem to be the conclusion that should be drawn), because we cannot see God, and benefit Him by loving Him. Hence, in the place of God, we testify our love towards Him whom we cannot see and do good to, by doing good to our neighbour whom we can see and benefit. Partly the words invite us to love our neighbour, and cohere with what follows. As though he said, Zealously love your neighbour. For this love God reckons as given to Himself. For although we cannot see Him, yet, if we love our neighbour, He, the Invisible, will be most truly present with us, and thus abiding in our soul, will place His seat and throne there. Yea, His love will be fully imprinted and perfected in our soul. The reason is because indivisible and Divine charity conjoins and confederates us with the invisible God. Moreover, God, who is invisible in Himself, seems visible in our neighbour. For he is God's image.

Observe, no one hath seen God at any time, viz., in His Essence, or face to face, in this life. Whence the Doctors teach, with probability, that neither Moses, nor Paul, nor any other mere man (for Christ saw God, but He was the God-man), hath seen the Divine Essence in this life, according to the words in Exod. xxxiii.: "No man shall see Me and live." Yet S. Augustine holds a contrary opinion, and from him S. Thomas.

Again, no man hath seen God, for neither is he able to see Him by the powers of his nature, as the Anomæans and Eunomæans supposed. Whom S. Chrysostom and S. Basil ( lib. contr. Eunom.) refute. For the Blessed in heaven see God, but by the power of grace. For their mind is there elevated, and receives as it were another eye of a Divine order, even the light of glory, by which it sees God. By this sentence, then, S. John signifies that the majesty of God is so sublime, and so transcends, not only all other created things, but also the intelligence both of men and angels, that although He Himself is the most glorious Light, yet on account of His purity, subtilty, and sublimity, He cannot be perceived by any mind, or any created eye.  S. John says the same thing in his Gospel (i. 18). But there he applies it to the knowledge of God, as here to the love of God. It is as though he said, "God is invisible, and therefore cannot (in Himself) receive any office of love from man, because He far transcends all human wealth, as well as human sight and action. Yet He makes so much account of love, and of those who love their neighbour, that He stoops to them from the topmost height of heaven, and as it were comes down, dwells and abides in their hearts. This is that which S. Paul speaks of (1Ti 6:16), "Who only hath immortality, and dwelleth in the inaccessible light, whom no man hath seen or can see."

Lastly, S. Cyril of Jerusalem ( Cateches. 9) thinks that God cannot be seen with the bodily eyes, because He Himself is incorporeal; and that therefore He stretches out the heaven itself as a veil before our eyes, lest the brightness of the Godhead should blind us, or kill us. But this is not true unless it be thus explained, that God, although dwelling Himself incorporeally in the empyrean, which is corporeal, and manifesting Himself and His glory to the bodies of the Blessed, there produces so great sensible light, which in some way sets forth His majesty, that it would blind the eyes of the Blessed, yea destroy them, unless they were fortified and preserved by the Divine power.

Hence S. Epiphanius ( in vii . Synod. Actor. 6) teaches that God as He is in Himself cannot be expressed by any image. Moreover also, Moses, forbidding the Jews to make an image of God, gives the reason. "Ye heard the voice of His words, but ye saw no shape, &c. Ye saw no similitude, lest being deceived ye should make a graven image." (Deu 4:12.)

His love is perfected in us: perfected, because it is perfect and complete in all its parts. Now the parts and offices of charity are two-fold—1st. Love of God;  2d. Love of our neighbour. Wherefore, if there were only that part of charity that we loved God, it would be imperfect; but it is perfected and completed if the second be added, and charity extends to our neighbour. Again, the charity with which we love God is perfected by charity towards our neighbour, because we love our neighbour for no other reason than for God's sake. The love therefore of our neighbour for God's sake perfects the love of God, because that which is the reason why other things are loved is Itself much more loved. When therefore we love our neighbour for God's sake, much more do we love God Himself.

2d. The words may be understood of charity—not ours, but God's. For this is the meaning of the word His : thus—Although God be invisible, yet He abides in us by love. Moreover, He shows that He loves us with a perfect love, since abiding in us, He forms, preserves, and augments in us the charity with which we love, not only Himself, but our neighbour for His sake. This meaning is alluded to in the next verse.

Moreover, charity is chiefly perfected by the love of our enemies, extending itself beyond our friends to our rivals, enemies, and persecutors. "The fire of charity," says S. Augustine, "first seizes upon our neighbours, and so extends itself further, from our brethren to strangers, from thence to our adversaries." Further on he teaches us to love our enemies, just as a physician loves the sick and insane. "When any one rages against thee, let him rage, but do thou entreat. When he hates, do thou pity. It is his fevered soul which hates thee. As soon as he is well, he will give thee thanks. How do physicians love the sick? Do they wish them always to be sick? They love the sick in order to make them whole. How much do they suffer from the insane! What reproaches! How often they are struck! The physician attacks the fever, he forgives the man."

Ver. 13.— In this we know that we abide in Him . . . by His Spirit, &c. By His Spirit, i.e., the participation of the Spirit, the communication of grace and charity, which are the gifts of the Spirit.

In the preceding verse S. John said that God abides in us, and consequently we in God by charity. For so loving He abides in the lover and the beloved. For so God loves us and we God. He here inculcates the same thing, repeats it, and as it were enforces it by a reason. The reason is this, He who hath the Spirit of God abides in God, and God in him: but he who hath charity hath the Spirit of God. Therefore he who hath charity abides in God and God in him. The major premiss is self-evident, because where the Spirit of God is, there is God Himself. But where God is, there He unites to Himself the subject in which He is, and by, as it were, the infinity of His Essence incorporates and absorbs it, so that the subject should be more in God than God in it. He therefore who hath experience in himself of the Spirit of God, i.e. of charity, this man feels God's presence and liberality. He feels God to be in him and himself in God, in such wise that God is bestowing His gifts upon him, and printing His perfect image in him, according to the words, "he that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit." (1 Cor. xii.)

Ver. 14. — And we have seen and do testify, &c. These words have reference to the 9th verse, where he saith that God hath shown His love to us by sending His Son. This he now proves and confirms by his own testimony, and that of the other Apostles. For they were the eye and ear witnesses, who saw, heard, and conversed with Christ Incarnate, as he said in the beginning of the Epistle.

This is an allusion to S. John's Gospel (Joh 3:17). "For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world, but that through Him the world might be saved." Whence S. Bernard saith ( de amor Dei, c. 8), "Christ Himself is our Love, by whom we attain to Thee, by whom we embrace Thee: for how otherwise, 0 incomprehensible Majesty, couldest Thou appear comprehensible to the soul that loveth Thee? For although no understanding of any soul or spirit can comprehend Thee, yet the love of the loving soul comprehends Thee wholly as thou art."

Ver. 15 . — Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, &c. He here maintains the Divinity of Christ because Ebion, Cerinthus, and many others at that time impugned it. This is as it were a conclusion drawn from the preceding verse. As though he said, Christ is the Saviour of the world. Whosoever therefore believeth in Him, and stedfastly confesses His faith, God abideth in him, and he in God. He abides, I say, by a true, living faith and confession, which includes charity, and which works by love. As S. Augustine says, "Whosoever shall confess, not in word, but in deed, not in tongue, but in life. For many confess in words, but deny by their deeds."

Ver. 16 . — And we know and have believed the love which God hath in us. In these words S. John confirms and inculcates what he has said in the two preceding verses. His meaning is, "We have seen and do testify of Christ incarnate, who is the Love of God, because we know Him by experience and conversation to be really such. And we have believed in Him by faith. Therefore we have believed the love which God hath in us, i.e., towards us, because we have believed that God in his infinite love towards us hath given to us Christ the Saviour. The Vulg. has in us, but the Syriac translates towards us. (So also the Eng. Version.)

Observe: S. John moves in a circle. From God he leaps to Christ, from Christ to charity, from charity to love of our neighbour, from charity and love he returns to God, thence to Christ, and so on. For all these things have reference to this one point, that we should love one another. And this is his argument, God in His infinite charity hath loved us, i.e. all men, by giving Christ His Son for our salvation. Therefore it is just that we should imitate His charity, and answer to His love by loving our neighbours and doing good to them in His love, because we cannot do good to God Himself.

Observe: the Vulgate renders more significantly, we have trusted in the charity ( credidimus chatitate ) than it is in the Greek ( we have believed the charity [ credidimus charitatem ]), signifying that we are joined to the love of God, not only by faith, but likewise by hope and charity. We have not only known, and by faith believed the mystery of the Incarnation, in which God's peculiar love to us shines forth, but we have wholly trusted and committed ourselves to the Divine charity. We have fixed our whole faith, hope, and love upon it. We rest securely upon it in all things, certain that it can never fail us, and saying with the Psalmist, "Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth which I desire in comparison of thee. God is the God of my heart, and my portion for eternity."

God is love : the Syriac reads, for God is love, giving the reason why he had said, and we have believed the love, and why God hath love towards us. The reason is because God Himself by His Essence is love. Therefore He cannot deceive him who believes, hopes in, and loves Him.

Now the reason why God is essentially love is because He Himself in His Essence is pure, perfect, and highest goodness, whose nature it is to be plainly and fully communicative and diffusive of Himself. This, says S. Dionysius, is an attribute of love. For God is a sea of honey, an ocean of goodness and charity. God is as it were a fire always burning, kindling all things and transforming them into Itself. For "our God is a consuming fire." ( Heb 12:29.) Listen to S. Bernard ( Serm. 83 in Cant.): "I read," he says, "that God is love, not that He is honour, or dignity. It is not that God does not wish to be honoured, for He saith, 'If I be a Father, where is My honour?' Honour is the due of a father. But if he manifest Himself as a bridegroom, I think He will change His voice and say, 'If I be a Husband, where is My love?' For before this He had spoken, and said, 'If I be a Master, where is My fear?' God therefore requires to be feared as a master, to be honoured as a father, to be loved as a husband. What is it which shines pre-eminently amongst these? Surely it is love. Without love fear hath torment, and honour hath no grace. Fear is slavish until it be manumitted by love. And the honour which springs not from love is mere flattery. And indeed to God alone belong honour and glory: yet will He accept of neither unless they be flavoured with the honey of love."

Therefore God is love, because love is as it were a spiritual flame, kindling all, and like light shining everywhere, and illuminating all things. Hence S. Dionysius ( de Div. Nom. c. 24, part 1) says that "Divine love is a motive force drawing things upward to God, who alone is Himself of Himself beautiful and good." On these words of S. Dionysius our Lessius comments thus ( de Div. Attrib. lib. 9, c. 2 and 3): "For by this very thing that God beholds His own infinite beauty and excellence, there arises in Him an infinite fire of love, by which he loves them as they are worthy to be loved, i.e. with an absolutely infinite love. For that which is beautiful and good, as soon as it is perceived, kindles love. Wherefore what is infinitely beautiful and good, when it is infinitely known, will excite infinite love; infinite, I say, both as to its warmth, and as to its appreciation, or, as the Schoolmen say, infinite intensively and appreciatively. 2d. That which is beautiful and good extends Itself and descends to the creatures, that It may communicate the same to them, either fully, or else some of Its rays and adumbrations, according to each one's capacity and merits. For of what we supremely love, we desire to make known to all the excellency and beauty, and that its sweetness should be perceived by all, so that all may praise it. Love does the same in God. A third effect of this love is that it raises creatures upward, and turns them to the beautiful and good. This especially obtains with angels and men: for other things cannot take in the Divine goodness and beauty. But in man other things are drawn in some way to God, both because all the other steps of nature are in him, and also because all other things are for him. 4th. The Divine love is ecstatic, because it draws the lover out of itself to the thing loved. For it causes God in a sense to forget His loftiness, and inclines Him to our humility, and makes Him to be wholly occupied in the business of our salvation. The token of which is the Incarnation, preaching, miracles, His passion, death, sacraments, the sending of the Holy Ghost, the perpetual and wonderful government of His Church, the care and direction of individuals. In like manner it sets man outside himself, making him think not of himself and his own advantage, but only of God, and the good things of God. Wherefore a great lover of God denies himself, renounces his own desires, is careless about benefits for himself; forgets himself, and is wholly taken up with the things of God. In thought and affection he is wholly outside of himself, and is translated to his beloved. Such was S. Ignatius the Martyr, who said, 'My Love is crucified.' Such was the Apostle S. Paul, who said, 'To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.' There is an illustrious figure of this in the sun. For in things corporeal the sun is the highest beauty and greatest. Wherefore S. Gregory Nazianzen in a certain place saith, 'As is the sun in things sensible, so is God in things intellectual.' From the sun heat descends to lower things. It descends also by light. And things are illuminated before they receive heat. Receiving heat they become light, and are carried up to the sky. The sun is an emblem of God, and light of wisdom, warmth of love, and earthly things of souls and spirits. Love descends from God by wisdom. For first the mind is enlightened by the knowledge of the Divine beauty and goodness: then through that knowledge it conceives love. Love conceived makes the soul spiritual, heavenly, and presently draws it upward, and unites it to God, and makes it like to Him, the only and eternal One, as it were a parhelion, which is an express image of the sun."

And he that abideth in love, &c. And, i.e., therefore. For this is as it were the conclusion from the premisses. God is love, therefore he that remaineth in love, remaineth in God, because God and Love are one and the same thing. And God in him, as in a sort of temple of love.

Thus love has united God to man, not only in affection and care, but also effectually and substantially, by, in truth, an hypostatic union. But it unites man to God, so that, wholly departing out of himself, he passes into God, and as it were loses himself, no longer thinking of anything, understanding or feeling anything but God. Not seeking, or desiring any other thing, having joy in no other thing but the good things of God. He who is thus joined to God is made one spirit with Him, because he puts off himself, and puts on God. Wherefore, as if he was altogether transformed into the Divine nature, he is in thought and affection wholly in God. Thus all the Saints in heaven will be one with God (this the Lord prays for them, John 17:17-21.), because they all acknowledge their own nothingness, as they are in themselves, and value themselves at nothing, except so far as they belong to God, and are for Him. And in this way they altogether cease from themselves. For why should they abide in nothing? Thus by the intellect and the will they will be most powerfully borne to Him, and will be wholly in Him. And they will, as it were, flow into Him, and be transformed, feeling and tasting nothing else but God, valuing nothing but His good, altogether as if they themselves were changed into God. Listen to S. Augustine—He who abideth in love, &c.: "They dwell one in the other, both that which contains and that which is contained." Again he saith, "Let God be thy house. be thou the house of God. Abide in God, and let God abide in thee. God abides in thee that He may contain thee. Thou abidest in God that thou mayest not fall. For thus speaks the Apostle of charity, 'Charity never falls.' How can he fall whom God holds?"

For this cause, namely for a symbol of love, Christ instituted, and left to us by His testament, His very Self in the Eucharist, that indeed He might remain in us, and we in Him, not by a figure, as the heretics say, but really, substantially, personally, according to the words, "He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me and I in him." ( S. John 6:54.) The Eucharist therefore is the fuel and incentive of love, which S. John in his whole epistle commends. For by it, as S. Chrysostom says ( Hom. 54 in Joan.), "Not only in love, but in reality let us be changed into that Flesh." By the Food which he has bestowed upon us this is brought about. For when He would show His love towards us, by means of His Body He commingled Himself with us, and brought Himself to be one with us, that body might be united with body. For this is the great desire of lovers." Pope Leo teaches the same thing. "The participation of the Body and Blood of Christ does this very thing, that we should pass into that which we receive." Lastly, S. Cyril of Jerusalem says, "Thus we shall be Christophus, i.e., Christ-bearers, when we have received His Body and Blood into our members: and thus, as Blessed Peter saith, we shall 'become partakers of the Divine nature.'" Wherefore S. Irenæus ( lib. 5 c. 6), explaining 1Th 5:26, "that your whole spirit, soul, and body may be preserved," declares that the perfect man is renewed by the Body and Soul (of Christ) and the Holy Ghost dwelling in him.

Beautifully does S. Bernard say ( Serm. 71 in Song ), "Who is he who is perfectly joined to God but he who remains in God, as beloved by God? He has drawn God to himself by loving Him again. Therefore since man and God are wholly united between themselves, they are united by a close and mutual, as it were, bosom affection. And that in this way God is in man, and man is in God, I say without any doubt. But man indeed has been eternally in God, as being eternally loved, but God has been in man since He has been loved (by man)." Herein is that saying of Cato true, "Those who love are in a manner dead in their own bodies, but live in another's." Therefore God by love willed to bring us back to our first beginning, to unite us, that is, to His own goodness and beauty, to transform us into Himself. This could not be done by nature, therefore He found a method whereby He might perfectly accomplish this by love, that by its warmth we might flow into and be absorbed in Him. As S. Bernard says ( de Delig. Deo ), "In that what is felt is wholly Divine, to be thus affected is to be deified. As a little drop of water infused in a great quantity of wine seems wholly to lose itself whilst also it takes the colour and flavour of wine. And as iron made red-hot in the fire becomes exactly like (fire), and ceases from its own original appearance. And as the atmosphere suffused with the solar light is transformed into the brightness, so that it seems to be not so much illuminated, as light itself. Thus it will be necessary that all human affection in the Saints should in an ineffable manner cease from itself, and be wholly transfused into the will of God." This indeed will be perfectly accomplished in the glory of heaven, but it is begun on earth by charity and grace. The same S. Bernard ( Serm. 83 in Cant.) says, "Love is its own merit, its own reward. Beyond itself it requires neither cause nor enjoyment. Its enjoyment is experience. I love because I love. I love that I may love. A mighty thing is love. Yet if it recur to its origin, if it be brought back to its beginning, if it flow back to its fountain-head, it can always take of itself that wherewith it may flow. Love is the only one of all the motions, senses, and affections of the soul in which the creature can, although not upon an equality, yet in some likeness, respond to its Creator."

Moreover, God abiding by love in the faithful soul produces in it these effects. First, it purifies it from earthly desires, so that it only seeks for and accomplishes heavenly things. Thus king Josaphat, when he was converted by Barlaam, burned with so great a fire of love that he left his kingdom, in his pleasures and honours; and as he went away into solitude he exclaimed, "Like as the hart desireth the water brooks, so longeth my soul after Thee, 0 God. My soul cleaveth unto Thee, 0 Christ. Let Thy right hand uphold me." ( Damas. Hist. cap. 37.)

2d. The soul draws all its powers, senses, affections, love, faculties, thoughts, intentions Godward, so that it thinks only of God, sighs for Him, according to those words of S. Basil, "Have continually imprinted in thee the remembrance of God, as it were an indelible mark." For what does he seek for without who has God within?

3d. Love causes the soul to desire to do great and heroic things for God her beloved, and to endure many things, and to be made like unto Christ crucified. Thus while the Spouse saith in the Canticles, "My Beloved is mine, and I am His," she also saith, "A bundle of myrrh is my Beloved unto me, He shall dwell between my breasts." Which words S. Bernard explains thus ( Serm. 43), "Myrrh is a harsh and bitter thing, and signifies the harshness of tribulations. Looking with joyfulness at such things impending over her for the sake of her Beloved, the Bride speaks thus, being confident that she can bravely endure them all. 'The disciples,' it says, 'went with joy from the presence of the Council because they were counted worthy to suffer shame for Jesus' name.' Lastly, the Bride speaks not of a bunch, but a little bunch ( fasciculus ), of myrrh, because she reckons all labours and sorrows light in comparison with love. Truly 'a little bunch,' because 'the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.'"

4th. It causes the soul to increase in love day by day. Listen to S. Bonaventura speaking of the charity of S. Francis ( Lib. 1, Vit. ejus ): "As it were a living coal of fire he seemed altogether absorbed in the Divine love. For as soon as he heard speak of the love of the Lord he was affected, roused up, inflamed, as though the inner chord of his heart were struck by the bow of the voice. In the midst of beauty he beheld Him the most beautiful, and by means of His footsteps impressed on visible things He followed His Beloved everywhere, making of all things a ladder for himself by which he might mount up to apprehend Him who is altogether desirable." And again, "He was inflamed with love towards the Sacrament of the Lord's Body with a thrill in every pulse, being lost in utter amazement at that most loving condescension of the Divine love."

In chap. 13 he treats of the sacred stigmata. "The furnace of the love of the Blessed Jesus had grown in him to lamps of fire and flames. Since therefore he was drawn to God by the ardour of seraphic desires, and was transformed into Him by the fellowship of His sufferings who, out of his exceeding love, willed to be crucified, he beheld a seraph having six burning and glorious wings. There appeared between the wings the likeness of one crucified. He understood from, this that he should be wholly transformed, not by the martyrdom of the flesh, but by the inflaming of his mind into the likeness of Christ crucified. When the vision disappeared it left in his heart a marvellous ardour: in his flesh also it left a no less wonderful impress of the signs (of Christ crucified)."

5th. It causes the soul which is kindled with the love of God to be in earnest to kindle the whole world with the same love. Thus the Blessed Jacoponus, when he heard of some sin by which God was offended, burning with charity, was wont to be greatly troubled, and would straightway weep. When he was asked "why?" he would answer, "Because Love is not loved." Love is burning and hath wings. There is no tarrying in love. As S. Bernard says, "Love is nothing else than a burning will for good. He therefore who hath no zeal hath no love."

6th. It causes that the soul which loves God should, by its love and confidence in Him, as it were rule over Him, and obtain from Him everything it asks. Thus it becomes as it were almighty, as Jacob struggling with the angel, God's vicar, prevailed over him, and so was called Israel, i.e. "ruling God." Hence the paradox, "To a believer belongs the whole world of riches." Wherefore S. Francis says, "Fly from the creatures, if you wish to possess the creatures."

7th. God makes the loving soul like unto Himself in character and virtues, and so makes it to be conscious of His secrets. He reveals to it the secrets of hearts, and things distant, and yet to come, as He did to His Apostles and Prophets.

8th. This love tranquillises the soul, makes it calm and imperturbed, yea glad and joyful in adversity as well as prosperity. Thus it always exults in God, and gives Him thanks. It praises and blesses Him, singing with the Psalmist, "I will bless the Lord at all times: His praise shall ever be in my mouth" (xxxiv. 1). And it saith, "As oft as I breathe, I breathe unto Thee, 0 my God."

Lastly, this love so increases in very eminent saints that it brings on a sort of languor, and at last death itself, according to the words of the Spouse ( Song ii. 15), "Prop me up with flowers, support me with apples, for I am sick through love. His left arm shall be under my head, and His right arm shall embrace me." Thus the Blessed Virgin, languishing and panting for her Son, breathed out her soul into His hands, not from any disease, but from love and desire of enjoying Christ her Son. So teach Suarez, Canisius, and others.

Ver. 17.— In this is the love of God perfected, that we should have confidence, &c. Conf. Greek παζζησίαν, i.e., liberty, boldness in speaking. 1st. In this, i.e., with this end and fruit. Perfect charity produces this result, viz., confidence in the day of judgment—both the particular and the general judgment. Hence the righteous desire the coming of the Lord, and desire like Paul to be dissolved, and to be with Christ. As S. Augustine says, "They live with patience, and die with delight." John descends from charity to its fruits. Of these he enumerates thus: (1.) Confidence to live and die trustfully. (2.) That the loving soul becomes without fear. (3.) That she obtains of God whatever she asks.

2d. And more powerfully. In this, i.e., God hath loved us and doth love us to such a purpose, and we in our turn are so allured by this precious love that we fully and perfectly love Him back again. And He so abides, I say, in us, that when we shall be examined by Him in the day of judgment concerning charity, we shall answer with confidence that we have loved, not the world, but Him, with our whole heart, and therefore He will award us the bliss of heaven.

3d. Others explain the words in this as follows:—By this sign we know that we have perfect love, if casting fear away we can anticipate the judgment day with great hope and confidence. From hence S. Augustine draws this conclusion, "Therefore, brethren, take heed, strive inwardly with yourselves that ye desire the day of judgment. In no other way is charity proved to be perfect except when that day begins to be longed for."

Because as He is, so are we in this world. Who is He? First, God, whom shortly before he had spoken of. It means—Therefore shall we have confidence in the day of judgment because we are in charity, and live in this world perfected in it, so that we love even our enemies. So too God in His perfect love makes His sun to shine upon the evil and the good, and sendeth rain upon the just and the unjust.

2d. And more profoundly: He, namely Christ, whom, as my love, I always carry in my mind and my mouth. For this reason, S. John when he says He is, means Christ. Moreover Christ is, i.e. in this world, as the Syriac version renders. And even now He is by the providence, charity, and friendship by which He dwells in the minds of His saints endowed with charity. The meaning then is this: As He, Christ, lived in this world holy and immaculate, and being full of the love of God, was, and is, dead to the world, and so abides in us; so let us, in imitation of Him, strive to live holily and without spot in this world. Yea, as being dead to the world, and always bearing about in our body with Paul the death of Christ, we are full of love even to our enemies, and abide in Christ. Therefore we have confidence that in the day of judgment we shall not be confounded, but shall be glorified. For we have that day ever before our eyes, and we daily dispose ourselves for

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: 1Jo 4:2

1 JOHN 4:2-3 —Does this refer to Jesus being in the flesh before or after His resurrection?

PROBLEM: John declares that those who deny “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” are of Antichrist. While all orthodox Christians take this to mean Jesus was fully human, including having a physical body of flesh before His resurrection, some contend that Jesus was not raised from the dead in the same body of flesh and bones in which He died, but in a body that was not essentially material. What does this verse mean?

SOLUTION: John uses the perfect tense here in Greek, meaning past action with continuing results in the present. Thus, he affirms that Jesus came in the flesh in the past and continues in the flesh in the present (i.e., when he is writing, which was after the Resurrection).

This is further clarified by John’s use of the same phrase, only in the present tense. He declared that many deceivers do not “confess Jesus Christ as coming [present tense] in the flesh” ( 2 John 7 ). From this it is clear that, even after the Resurrection when John wrote, he insisted that Jesus was still continuing in the flesh.

Finally, in addition to these two passages in John’s epistles, there are two other NT texts which explicitly declare Christ’s resurrection body to be one of flesh. Referring to the resurrection of Christ, Peter declared that “nor did Hisflesh see corruption” ( Acts 2:30-31 ). Jesus Himself said to His disciples in one of His post- resurrection appearances, “Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not haveflesh and bones as you see I have” ( Luke 24:39 ).   

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 4 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

1Jo 4:1, He warns them not to believe all who boast of the Spirit; 1Jo 4:7, and exhorts to brotherly love.

Poole: 1 John 4 (Chapter Introduction)

JOHN CHAPTER 4

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 4 (Chapter Introduction)

(1Jo 4:1-6) Believers cautioned against giving heed to every one that pretends to the Spirit.

(1Jo 4:7-21) Brotherly love enforced.

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 4 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter the apostle exhorts to try spirits (1Jo 4:1), gives a note to try by (1Jo 4:2, 1Jo 4:3), shows who are of the world and who of God (1Jo 4:4-6), urges Christian love by divers considerations (1Jo 4:7-16), describes our love to God, and the effect of it (1Jo 4:17-21).

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 4 (Chapter Introduction)

The Perils Of The Surging Life Of The Spirit (2Jo_3:24 2Jo_4:1)

The Ultimate Heresy (2Jo_4:2-3)

The Cleavage Between The World And God (2Jo_4:4-6)

Love Human And Divine (2Jo_4:7-21)

God Is Love (2Jo_4:7-21 Continued)

Son Of God And Saviour Of Men (2Jo_4:7-21 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 4 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 1 JOHN 4

In this chapter the apostle cautions against seducing spirits; advises to try them, and gives rules by which they may be known, and by which they are distinguished from others; and then returns to his favourite subject, brotherly love. He exhorts the saints not to believe every man that came with a doctrine to them, but to try them, since there were many false teachers in the world; and gives a rule by which they may be tried and judged, as that whatever teacher owns Christ to be come in the flesh is of God, but he that does not is not of God, but is the spirit of antichrist that should come, and was in the world, 1Jo 4:1, but, for the comfort of those to whom he writes, he observes, that they were of God, and had overcome these false teachers, through the mighty power of the divine Spirit in them, who is greater than Satan, and all his emissaries, 1Jo 4:4. He distinguishes between seducing spirits, and faithful ministers of the word; the former are of the world, speak of worldly things, and worldly men hear them; but the latter are of God, and they that have any spiritual knowledge of God hear them; but such as are not of God do not heal them, by which may he known the spirit of truth from the spirit of error, 1Jo 4:5. And then the apostle returns to his former exhortation to brotherly love, which he enforces by the following reasons, because it is of God, a fruit of his Spirit and grace, and because it is an evidence of being born of God, and of having a true knowledge of him; whereas he that is destitute of it does not know him, seeing God is love, 1Jo 4:7, and having affirmed that God is love, he proves it, by the mission of his Son, to be a propitiation for the sins of such that did not love him, and that they might live through him; wherefore he argues, that if God had such a love to men, so undeserving of it, then the saints ought to love one another, 1Jo 4:9. Other arguments follow, engaging to it, as that God is invisible; and if he is to be loved, then certainly his people, who are visible; and that such who love one another, God dwells in them, and his love is perfected in them; and that he dwells in them is known by the gift of his Spirit to them, 1Jo 4:12, and that God the Father so loved the world, as to send his Son to be the Saviour of it, before asserted, is confirmed by the apostles, who were eyewitnesses of it; who also declare, that whoever confesses the sonship of Christ, God dwells in him, and he in God; and who had an assurance of the love of God to them, who is love itself; so that he that dwells in God, and God in him, dwells in love, 1Jo 4:14. And great are the advantages arising from hence, for hereby the saints' love to God is made perfect; they have boldness in the day of judgment, since as he is, so are they in this world, and fear is cast out by it, 1Jo 4:17, but lest too much should be thought to be ascribed to love, that is said to be owing to the love of God to them, which is prior to theirs to him, and the reason of it, 1Jo 4:19. And the chapter is closed with observing the contradiction there is between a profession of love to God, and hatred of the brethren, seeing God, who is invisible, cannot be loved, if brethren that are seen are hated; and also the commandment, that he that loves God should love his brother also, 1Jo 4:20.

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.