Text -- 1 John 5:7 (NET)

5:7 For there are three that testify,

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: 1Jo 5:7

For there are three who bear witness ( hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes ).

At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en tōi ouranōi ho patēr , ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tēi gēi (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to 1Jo 5:8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian’ s exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus.

Vincent: 1Jo 5:7

There are three that bear record ( τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ).

Lit., three are the witnessing ones .

Vincent: 1Jo 5:7

The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.

These words are rejected by the general verdict of critical authorities. For the details of the memorable controversy on the passage, the student may consult Frederick Henry Scrivener, " Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament;" Samuel P. Tregelles, " An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament;" John Selby Watson, " The Life of Richard Porson, M.A.;" Professor Ezra Abbot, " Orme's Memoir of the Controversy on 1Jo 5:7;" Charles Foster, " A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses," or " Porson's Letters to Travis Eclectically Examined," Cambridge, 1867. On the last-named work, Scrivener remarks, " I would fain call it a success if I could with truth. To rebut much of Porson's insolent sophistry was easy, to maintain the genuineness of this passage is simply impossible." Tregelles gives a list of more than fifty volumes, pamphlets, or critical notices on this question. Porson, in the conclusion of his letters to Travis, says: " In short, if this verse be really genuine, notwithstanding its absence from all the visible Greek manuscripts except two (that of Dublin and the forged one found at Berlin), one of which awkwardly translates the verse from the Latin, and the other transcribes it from a printed book; notwithstanding its absence from all the versions except the Vulgate, even from many of the best and oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate; notwithstanding the deep and dead silence of all the Greek writers down to the thirteenth, and of most of the Latins down to the middle of the eighth century; if, in spite of all these objections, it be still genuine, no part of Scripture whatsoever can be proved either spurious or genuine; and Satan has been permitted for many centuries miraculously to banish the 'finest passage in the New Testament,' as Martin calls it, from the eyes and memories of almost all the Christian authors, translators, and transcribers."

Wesley: 1Jo 5:7

What Bengelius has advanced, both concerning the transposition of these two verses, and the authority of the controverted verse, partly in his "Gnomon," and partly in his "Apparatus Criticus," will abundantly satisfy any impartial person.

Wesley: 1Jo 5:7

Literally, testifying, or bearing witness. The participle is put for the noun witnesses, to intimate that the act of testifying, and the effect of it, are continually present. Properly, persons only can testify; and that three are described testifying on earth, as if they were persons, is elegantly subservient to the three persons testifying in heaven.

Wesley: 1Jo 5:7

In the word, confirmed by miracles.

Wesley: 1Jo 5:7

Of baptism, wherein we are dedicated to the Son, (with the Father and Spirit,) typifying his spotless purity, and the inward purifying of our nature.

Wesley: 1Jo 5:7

Represented in the Lord's supper, and applied to the consciences of believer.

Wesley: 1Jo 5:7

In bearing the same testimony, - that Jesus Christ is the divine, the complete, the only Saviour of the world.

JFB: 1Jo 5:7

Two or three witnesses were required by law to constitute adequate testimony. The only Greek manuscripts in any form which support the words, "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness in earth," are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus, copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the Margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All the old versions omit the words. The oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate omit them: the earliest Vulgate manuscript which has them being Wizanburgensis, 99, of the eighth century. A scholium quoted in Matthæi, shows that the words did not arise from fraud; for in the words, in all Greek manuscripts "there are three that bear record," as the Scholiast notices, the word "three" is masculine, because the three things (the Spirit, the water, and the blood) are SYMBOLS OF THE TRINITY. To this CYPRIAN, 196, also refers, "Of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is written, 'And these three are one' (a unity)." There must be some mystical truth implied in using "three" (Greek) in the masculine, though the antecedents, "Spirit, water, and blood," are neuter. That THE TRINITY was the truth meant is a natural inference: the triad specified pointing to a still Higher Trinity; as is plain also from 1Jo 5:9, "the witness of GOD," referring to the Trinity alluded to in the Spirit, water, and blood. It was therefore first written as a marginal comment to complete the sense of the text, and then, as early at least as the eighth century, was introduced into the text of the Latin Vulgate. The testimony, however, could only be borne on earth to men, not in heaven. The marginal comment, therefore, that inserted "in heaven," was inappropriate. It is on earth that the context evidently requires the witness of the three, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, to be borne: mystically setting forth the divine triune witnesses, the Father, the Spirit, and the Son. LUECKE notices as internal evidence against the words, John never uses "the Father" and "the Word" as correlates, but, like other New Testament writers, associates "the Son" with "the Father," and always refers "the Word" to "God" as its correlate, not "the Father." Vigilius, at the end of the fifth century, is the first who quotes the disputed words as in the text; but no Greek manuscript earlier than the fifteenth is extant with them. The term "Trinity" occurs first in the third century in TERTULLIAN [Against Praxeas, 3].

Clarke: 1Jo 5:7

There are three that bear record - The Father, who bears testimony to his Son; the Word or Λογος, Logos, who bears testimony to the Father; and the Holy Ghost, which bears testimony to the Father and the Son. And these three are one in essence, and agree in the one testimony, that Jesus came to die for, and give life to, the world

But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every MS. of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve

It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin

The words, as they exist in all the Greek MSS. with the exception of the Codex Montfortii, are the following: -

" 1Jo 5:6. This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness because the Spirit is truth

1Jo 5:7. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one

1Jo 5:9. If we receive the witness of man, the witness of God is greater, etc.

The words that are omitted by all the MSS., the above excepted, and all the versions, the Vulgate excepted, are these: -

[In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, and there are three which bear witness in earth]

To make the whole more clear, that every reader may see what has been added, I shall set down these verses, with the inserted words in brackets

" 1Jo 5:6. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth

1Jo 5:7. For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. 1Jo 5:8. And there are three that bear witness in earth],the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one

1Jo 5:9. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater, etc.

Any man may see, on examining the words, that if those included in brackets, which are wanting in the MSS. and versions, be omitted, there is no want of connection; and as to the sense, it is complete and perfect without them; and, indeed much more so than with them. I shall conclude this part of the note by observing, with Dr. Dodd, "that there are some internal and accidental marks which may render the passage suspected; for the sense is complete, and indeed more clear and better preserved, without it. Besides, the Spirit is mentioned, both as a witness in heaven and on earth; so that the six witnesses are thereby reduced to five, and the equality of number, or antithesis between the witnesses in heaven and on earth, is quite taken away. Besides, what need of witnesses in heaven? No one there doubts that Jesus is the Messiah; and if it be said that Father, Son, and Spirit are witnesses on earth, then there are five witnesses on earth, and none in heaven; not to say that there is a little difficulty in interpreting how the Word or the Son can be a witness to himself.

It may be necessary to inquire how this verse stood in our earliest English Bibles. In Coverdale’ s Bible, printed about 1535, for it bears no date, the seventh verse is put in brackets thus: -

And it is the Sprete that beareth wytnes; for the Sprete is the truth. (For there are thre which beare recorde in heaven: the Father, the Woorde, and the Holy Ghost, and these thre are one.) And there are thre which beare record in earth: the Sprete, water, and bloude and these thre are one. If we receyve, etc

Tindal was as critical as he was conscientious; and though he admitted the words into the text of the first edition of his New Testament printed in 1526, yet he distinguished them by a different letter, and put them in brackets, as Coverdale has done; and also the words in earth, which stand in 1Jo 5:8, without proper authority, and which being excluded make the text the same as in the MSS., etc

Two editions of this version are now before me; one printed in English and Latin, quarto, with the following title: -

The New Testament, both in Englyshe and Laten, of Master Erasmus translation - and imprinted by William Powell - the yere of out Lorde M.CCCCC.XLVII. And the fyrste yere of the kynges (Edw. VI.) moste gratious reygne

In this edition the text stands thus: -

And it is the Spirite that beareth wytnes, because the Spirite is truth (for there are thre whiche beare recorde in heaven, the Father, the Worde, and the Holy Ghost, and these thre are one.) For there are thre which beare recorde, (in earth), the Spirite, water, and blode, and these thre are one. If we receyve, etc

The other printed in London "by William Tylle, 4to; without the Latin of Erasmus in M.CCCCC.XLIX. the thyrde yere of the reigne of our moost dreade Soverayne Lorde Kynge Edwarde the Syxte,"has, with a small variety of spelling, the text in the same order, and the same words included in brackets as above

The English Bible, with the book of Common Prayer, printed by Richard Cardmarden, at Rouen in Normandy, fol. 1566, exhibits the text faithfully, but in the following singular manner: -

And it is the Spyryte that beareth witnesse, because the Spyryte is truthe. (for there are three which beare recorde in heaven, the Father, the Woorde, and the Holy Ghost; and these Three are One) And three which beare recorde* (in earth) the Spirite, and water, and bloode; and these three are one

The first English Bible which I have seen, where these distinctions were omitted, is that called The Bishops’ Bible, printed by Jugge, fol. 1568. Since that time, all such distinctions have been generally disregarded

Though a conscientious believer in the doctrine of the ever blessed, holy, and undivided Trinity, and in the proper and essential Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, which doctrines I have defended by many, and even new, arguments in the course of this work, I cannot help doubting the authenticity of the text in question; and, for farther particulars, refer to the observations at the end of this chapter.

Calvin: 1Jo 5:7

7.There are three than bear record in heaven The whole of this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am inclined to receive it as the true reading. ⁹⁴ And the meaning would be, that God, in order to confirm most abundantly our faith in Christ, testifies in three ways that we ought to acquiesce in him. For as our faith acknowledges three persons in the one divine essence, so it is called in so really ways to Christ that it may rest on him.

When he says, These three are one, he refers not to essence, but on the contrary to consent; as though he had said that the Father and his eternal Word and Spirit harmoniously testify the same thing respecting Christ. Hence some copies have εἰς ἓν, “for one.” But though you read ἓν εἰσιν, as in other copies, yet there is no doubt but that the Father, the Word and the Spirit are said to be one, in the same sense in which afterwards the blood and the water and the Spirit are said to agree in one.

But as the Spirit, who is one witness, is mentioned twice, it seems to be an unnecessary repetition. To this I reply, that since he testifies of Christ in various ways, a twofold testimony is fitly ascribed to him. For the Father, together with his eternal Wisdom and Spirit, declares Jesus to be the Christ as it were authoritatively, then, in this ease, the sole majesty of the deity is to be considered by us. But as the Spirit, dwelling in our hearts, is an earnest, a pledge, and a seal, to confirm that decree, so he thus again speaks on earth by his grace.

But inasmuch as all do not receive this reading, I will therefore so expound what follows, as though the Apostle referred to the witnesses only on the earth.

Defender: 1Jo 5:7

This verse is the famous "Johannine Comma," as it has been called, and it obviously carries the clearest and most explicit statement of the doctrine of the Trinity to be found in the Bible. However, it is only found in manuscripts of the Latin Bible and in four Greek manuscripts so is believed by many Biblical scholars to have been a pious addition or marginal annotation by some unknown ancient copyist. The doctrine of the Trinity does not depend on this verse, of course, as it is implied in many other Scriptures (Mat 28:19; 2Co 13:14). On the other hand, since it does fit perfectly in the context, it also seems that this verse could well have been in John's original autograph, and then been expunged from most of the accessible manuscripts at the height of the Arian controversy in the fourth century. To eliminate this verse would leave 1Jo 5:8 as a largely redundant repetition of 1Jo 5:6, whereas the continuity and sense are beautifully structured and sequenced if it is included. It would seem much more likely for Origen or Arius, both of whom rejected the doctrines of the Trinity and Biblical inerrancy, or one of their followers in the third or fourth centuries to boldly excise the offending verse than for some godly copyist to insert it. One who believed in the Trinity would surely have held the Scriptures in too much esteem to presume to amend them on his own initiative. Despite the weight of scholarly opinion to the contrary, the internal evidence, as well as the testimony of the Latin manuscripts and such later authorities as Erasmus and the Reformers, as well as many great commentators since, such as John Wesley and Matthew Henry, strongly argues that the Johannine Comma was actually written by John in his epistle and should still be regarded as part of the true text."

TSK: 1Jo 5:7

bear : 1Jo 5:10,1Jo 5:11; Joh 8:13, Joh 8:14

The Father : Psa 33:6 *Heb: Isa 48:16, Isa 48:17, Isa 61:1; Mat 3:16, Mat 3:17, Mat 17:5, Mat 28:19; Joh 5:26, Joh 8:18, Joh 8:54; Joh 10:37, Joh 10:38, Joh 12:28; 1Co 12:4-6; 2Co 13:14; Rev 1:4, Rev 1:5

the Word : 1Jo 1:1; Joh 1:1, Joh 1:32-34; Heb 4:12, Heb 4:13; Rev 19:13

the Holy : 1Jo 5:6; Mat 3:16; Joh 1:33; Act 2:33, Act 5:32; Heb 2:3, Heb 2:4

and these : Deu 6:4; Mat 28:19; Joh 10:30

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: 1Jo 5:7

For there are three that bear record in heaven ... - There are three that "witness,"or that "bear witness"- the same Greek word which, in 1Jo 5:8, is rendered "bear witness"- μαρτυροῦντες marturountes . There is no passage of the New Testament which has given rise to so much discussion in regard to its genuineness as this. The supposed importance of the verse in its bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity has contributed to this, and has given to the discussion a degree of consequence which has pertained to the examination of the genuineness of no other passage of the New Testament. On the one hand, the clear testimony which it seems to bear to the doctrine of the Trinity, has made that portion of the Christian church which holds the doctrine reluctant in the highest degree to abandon it; and on the other hand, the same clearness of the testimony to that doctrine, has made those who deny it not less reluctant to admit the genuineness of the passage.

It is not consistent with the design of these notes to go into a full investigation of a question of this sort. And all that can be done is to state, in a brief way, the "results"which have been reached, in an examination of the question. Those who are disposed to pursue the investigation further, can find all that is to be said in the works referred to at the bottom of the page. The portion of the passage, in 1Jo 5:7-8, whose genuineness is disputed, is included in brackets in the following quotation, as it stands in the common editions of the New Testament: "For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth,) the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one."If the disputed passage, therefore, be omitted as spurious, the whole passage will read, "For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one."The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings, are briefly the following:

I. It is missing in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in no Greek manuscript written before the 16th century. Indeed, it is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age - one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken partly from the third edition of Stephen’ s New Testament, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be missing in all the early Greek manuscripts.

II. It is missing in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions - one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic.

III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity - a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the 5th century. If the passage were believed to be genuine - nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favor - it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to anyone who examines the subject with an unbiassed mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it. IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine.

(a) The connection does not demand it. It does not contribute to advance what the apostle is saying, but breaks the thread of his argument entirely. He is speaking of certain things which bear "witness"to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah; certain things which were well known to those to whom he was writing - the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. How does it contribute to strengthen the force of this to say that in heaven there are "three that bear witness"- three not before referred to, and having no connection with the matter under consideration?

(b) The "language"is not such as John would use. He does, indeed, elsewhere use the term "Logos,"or "Word"- ὁ Λόγος ho Logos , Joh 1:1, Joh 1:14; 1Jo 1:1, but it is never in this form, "The Father, and the Word;"that is, the terms "Father"and "Word"are never used by him, or by any of the other sacred writers, as correlative. The word "Son"- ὁ Υἱός ho Huios - is the term which is correlative to the "Father"in every other place as used by John, as well as by the other sacred writers. See 1Jo 1:3; 1Jo 2:22-24; 1Jo 4:14; 2Jo 1:3, 2Jo 1:9; and the Gospel of John, "passim."Besides, the correlative of the term "Logos,"or "Word,"with John, is not "Father,"but "God."See Joh 1:1. Compare Rev 19:13.

© Without this passage, the sense of the argument is clear and appropriate. There are three, says John, which bear witness that Jesus is the Messiah. These are referred to in 1Jo 5:6; and in immediate connection with this, in the argument, 1Jo 5:8, it is affirmed that their testimony goes to one point, and is harmonious. To say that there are other witnesses elsewhere, to say that they are one, contributes nothing to illustrate the nature of the testimony of these three - the water, and the blood, and the Spirit; and the internal sense of the passage, therefore, furnishes as little evidence of its genuineness as the external proof. V. It is easy to imagine how the passage found a place in the New Testament. It was at first written, perhaps, in the margin of some Latin manuscript, as expressing the belief of the writer of what was true in heaven, as well as on earth, and with no more intention to deceive than we have when we make a marginal note in a book. Some transcriber copied it into the body of the text, perhaps with a sincere belief that it was a genuine passage, omitted by accident; and then it became too important a passage in the argument for the Trinity, ever to be displaced but by the most clear critical evidence. It was rendered into Greek, and inserted in one Greek manuscript of the 16th century, while it was missing in all the earlier manuscripts.

VI. The passage is now omitted in the best editions of the Greek Testament, and regarded as spurious by the ablest critics. See Griesbach and Hahn. On the whole, therefore, the evidence seems to me to be clear that this passage is not a genuine portion of the inspired writings, and should not be appealed to in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. One or two remarks may be made, in addition, in regard to its use.

\caps1 (1) e\caps0 ven on the supposition that it is genuine, as Bengel believed it was, and as he believed that some Greek manuscript would still be found which would contain it , yet it is not wise to adduce it as a proof-text. It would be much easier to prove the doctrine of the Trinity from other texts, than to demonstrate the genuineness of this.

\caps1 (2) i\caps0 t is not necessary as a proof-text. The doctrine which it contains can be abundantly established from other parts of the New Testament, by passages about which there can be no doubt.

\caps1 (3) t\caps0 he removal of this text does nothing to weaken the evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, or to modify that doctrine. As it was never used to shape the early belief of the Christian world on the subject, so its rejection, and its removal from the New Testament, will do nothing to modify that doctrine. The doctrine was embraced, and held, and successfully defended without it, and it can and will be so still.

Poole: 1Jo 5:7

Having mentioned the Spirit’ s testifying in the close of 1Jo 5:6 , he returns to give us in order, in these two verses, the whole testimony of the truth of Christianity, which he reduces to two ternaries of witnesses. The matter of their testimony is the same with that of their faith who are born of God, that Jesus is the Son of God, and the Messiah, as may be collected from what was said before, 1Jo 5:1,5 , and what is said afterwards, 1Jo 5:9 . What they believe, is no other thing than what these testify. For the first three,

in heaven that is not said to signify heaven to be the place of their testifying; for though the same thing concerning Jesus be also no doubt testified to the glorious inhabitants of that world, yet that is not the apostle’ s present scope, but to show what reason we have, who inhabit this world, to believe Jesus to be Christ, and the Son of God.

In heaven therefore is to be referred to

three not to bear record or witness; as if the text were read, which it may as well: There are three in heaven who bear witness; the design being to represent their immediate testifying from thence unto us, or the glorious, heavenly, majestic manner of their testifying. So the Father testified of the man Jesus by immediate voice from heaven, at his baptism and transfiguration: This is my Son & c. The eternal Word owned its union with him, in that glory with which it so eminently clothed his humanity, and which visibly shone through it in the holy mount, whereof this apostle was a spectator, and whereto he seems to refer in his Gospel, Joh 1:14 : We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father i.e. such as sufficiently testified him to be so, even the very Son of God. And the Holy Ghost testified, descending as a dove in a visible glorious appearance upon him, at his baptism also.

And these three are one viz. not only agreeing in their testimony, as 1Jo 5:8 , but in unity of nature: an express testimony of the triune Deity, by whatsoever carelessness or ill design left out of some copies, but sufficiently demonstrated by many most ancient ones, to belong to the sacred text: of which L. Brug. Not. in loc., with the other critics, and at large, Dr. Hammond.

Haydock: 1Jo 5:7

There are three that give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one: i.e. one in nature, in substance, and in all perfections, in the same sense as when Christ himself said, (John x. 30.) I and the Father are one, or one thing. The Socinians object that this verse is wanting in many Greek manuscripts; and even Erasmus in one edition, and Mr. Simon in his Critics, have questioned it, or rejected it, as a false reading, but without any sufficient proofs and grounds, as hath been shewn by many learned Catholics, and also by Protestant writers, who receive in their translations this verse as canonical. It is easy to account for the omission of this verse; for as both the seventh and eighth verse begin and end with the same words, this gave occasion to the oversight and omission of the transcribers, whereas it is not credible that such a whole verse could be added. And that it was only by the mistake and oversight of transcribers may further appear, because we find part of the seventh verse, to wit, and these three are one, cited by Tertullian, lib. cont. Praxeam. chap. xxiii. p. 515. Ed. Rig. and twice by St. Cyprian, Epist. 73. ad Jubaianum. p. 125. Ed. Rig. in the Oxford Edition, p. 310. and in his Treatise de Unit. Ecclesiæ, p. 181. Ed. Rigal. and in the Oxford Ed. p. 79, where also Dr. Fell defends this verse of St. John to be genuine. Tertullian and St. Cyprian wrote long before the dispute with the Arians. The Socinians also object that this passage is not brought by St. Athanasius and some other fathers against the Arians, which they could scarce have omitted had they read this verse, but this only proves that this omission had happened in some manuscripts in their time, or, as some conjecture, that the Arians had corrupted some copies. St. Fulgentius made use of it against the Arians, and also others about that time. See the Benedictines of St. Maur against Mr. Simon, in the first tome of St. Jerome, p. 1670. Both Catholics and Protestants, after diligent examination, have received this verse, which is found in the best manuscripts. See Greek Testament at Amsterdam, in the year 1711. The three divine Persons, who are present everywhere, though said to be in heaven, gave testimony concerning Christ. The Father by a voice from heaven, both at his baptism (Matthew iii. 17.) and at his transfiguration, (Matthew xvii. 5.) saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him:" and also by all the miracles wrought by the same power of all the three divine Persons. 2. The Son testified to the Jews on many occasions, that he was sent from God, that he was the only Son of God, that he and his Father were one, &c. as in the annotations on John iii. The Holy Ghost confirmed the same, particularly by coming down upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost, and inspiring them to teach the same doctrine concerning Jesus Christ. (Witham) ---

An express proof of the three distinct persons and unity of nature and essence in the blessed Trinity.

Gill: 1Jo 5:7

For there are three that bear record in heaven,.... That is, that Jesus is the Son of God. The genuineness of this text has been called in question by some, because it is wanting in the Syriac version, as it also is in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions; and because the old Latin interpreter has it not; and it is not to be found in many Greek manuscripts; nor cited by many of the ancient fathers, even by such who wrote against the Arians, when it might have been of great service to them: to all which it may be replied, that as to the Syriac version, which is the most ancient, and of the greatest consequence, it is but a version, and a defective one. The history of the adulterous woman in the eighth of John, the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the book of the Revelations, were formerly wanting in it, till restored from Bishop Usher's copy by De Dieu and Dr. Pocock, and who also, from an eastern copy, has supplied this version with this text. As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scriptures enough without it, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius ^z, in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius ^a about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian ^b, in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian ^c about, the year 200; and which was within a "hundred" years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the, first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation. The heavenly witnesses of Christ's sonship are,

the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. The "Father" is the first Person, so called, not in, reference to the creatures, angels, or men, he is the Creator, and so the Father of; for this is common to the other two Persons; but in reference to his Son Jesus Christ, of whose sonship he bore witness at his baptism and transfiguration upon the mount. The "Word" is the second Person, who said and it was done; who spoke all things out of nothing in the first creation; who was in the beginning with God the Father, and was God, and by whom all things were created; he declared himself to be the Son of God, and proved himself to be so by his works and miracles; see Mar 14:61, &c. and his witness of himself was good and valid; see Joh 8:13; and because it is his sonship that is, here testified of, therefore the phrase, "the Word", and not "the Son", is here used. "The Holy Ghost" is the third Person, who proceeds from the Father, and is also called the Spirit of the Son, who testified of, Christ's sonship also at his baptism, by descending on him as a dove, which was the signal given to John the Baptist, by which he knew him, and bare record of him, that he was the Son of God. Now the number of these witnesses was three, there being so many persons in the Godhead; and such a number being sufficient, according to law, for the establishing of any point: to which may be added, that they were witnesses in heaven, not to the heavenly inhabitants, but to men on earth; they were so called, because they were in heaven, and from thence gave out their testimony; and which shows the firmness and excellency of it, it being not from earth, but from heaven, and not human, but divine; to which may be applied the words of Job, in Job 16:19; it follows,

and these three are one; which is to be understood, not only of their unity and agreement in their testimony, they testifying of the same thing, the sonship of Christ; but of their unity in essence or nature, they being the one God. So that, this passage holds forth and asserts the unity of God, a trinity of persons in the Godhead, the proper deity of each person, and their distinct personality, the unity of essence in that they are one; a trinity of persons in that they are three, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and are neither more nor fewer; the deity of each person, for otherwise their testimony would not be the testimony of God, as in 1Jo 5:9; and their distinct personality; for were they not three distinct persons, they could not be three testifiers, or three that bare record. This being a proper place, I shall insert the faith of the ancient Jews concerning the doctrine of the Trinity; and the rather, as it agrees with the apostle's doctrine in words and language, as well as in matter. They call the three Persons in the Godhead three degrees: they say ^d,

"Jehovah, Elohenu (our God), Jehovah, Deu 6:4; these are the three degrees with respect to this sublime mystery, in the beginning Elohim, or God, created, Gen 1:1, &c.''

And these three, they say, though they are distinct, yet are one, as appears by what follows ^e:

"come see the mystery of the word; there are three degrees, and every degree is by itself, yet they are all one, and are bound together in one, and one is not separated from the other.''

Again, it is said ^f,

"this is the unity of Jehovah the first, Elohenu, Jehovah, lo, all of them are one, and therefore: called one; lo, the three names are as if they were one, and therefore are called one, and they are one; but by the revelation of the Holy Spirit it is made known, and they by the sight of the eye may be known, דתלתא אלין אחד, "that these three are one": and this is the mystery of the voice which is heard; the voice is one, and there are three things, fire, and Spirit, and water, and all of them are one in the mystery of the voice, and they are but one: so here, Jehovah, Elohenu, Jehovah, they are one, the three, גוונין, forms, modes, or things, which are one.''

Once more ^g,

"there are two, and one is joined unto them, and they are three; and when the three are one, he says to them, these are the two names which Israel heard, Jehovah, Jehovah, and Elohenu is joined unto them, and it is the seal of the ring of truth; and when they are joined as one, they are one in one unity.''

And this they illustrate by the three names of the soul of man ^h;

"the three powers are all of them one, the soul, spirit, and breath, they are joined as one, and they are one; and all is according to the mode of the sublime mystery,''

meaning the Trinity.

"Says R. Isaac ⁱ worthy are the righteous in this world, and in the world to come, for lo, the whole of them is holy, their body is holy, their soul is holy, their Spirit is holy, their breath is holy, holy are these three degrees "according to the form above".--Come see these three degrees cleave together as one, the soul, Spirit, and breath.''

The three first Sephirot, or numbers, in the Cabalistic tree, intend the three divine Persons; the first is called the chief crown, and first glory, which essence no creature can comprehend ^k, and designs the Father, Joh 1:18; the second is called wisdom, and the intelligence illuminating, the crown of the creation, the brightness of equal unity, who is exalted above every head; and he is called, by the Cabalists, the second glory ^l; see 1Co 1:24 Heb 1:3. This is the Son of God: the third is called understanding sanctifying, and is the foundation of ancient wisdom, which is called the worker of faith; and he is the parent of faith, and from his power faith flows ^m; and this is the Holy Spirit; see 1Pe 1:2. Now they say ⁿ that these three first numbers are intellectual, and are not מדות, "properties", or "attributes", as the other seven are. R. Simeon ben Jochai says ^o,

"of the three superior numbers it is said, Psa 62:11, "God hath spoken once, twice have I heard this"; one and two, lo the superior numbers of whom it is said, one, one, one, three ones, and this is the mystery of Psa 62:11.''

Says R. Judah Levi ^p,

"behold the mystery of the numberer, the number, and the numbered; in the bosom of God it is one thing, in the bosom of man three; because he weighs with his understanding, and speaks with his mouth, and writes with his hand.''

It was usual with the ancient Jews to introduce Jehovah speaking, or doing anything, in this form, I and my house of judgment; and it is a rule with them, that wherever it is said, "and Jehovah", he and his house or judgment are intended ^q; and Jarchi frequently makes use of this phrase to explain texts where a plurality in the Godhead is intended, as Gen 1:26; and it is to be observed, that a house of judgment, or a sanhedrim, among the Jews, never consisted of less than three. They also had used to write the word "Jehovah" with three "Jods", in the form of a triangle,

י י י

as representing the three divine Persons: one of their more modern ^r writers has this observation on the blessing of the priest in Num 6:24,

"these three verses begin with a "Jod", in reference to the three "Jods" which we write in the room of the name, (i.e. Jehovah,) for they have respect to the three superior things.''

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: 1Jo 5:7

¹ tn A second causal ὅτι (Joti) clause (after the one at the end of the preceding verse) is somewhat awkward, especially since the reasons offered in each are somewhat different. The content of the second ὅτι clause (the one in question here) goes somewhat beyond the content of the first. The first ὅτι clause, the one at the end of 5:6, stated the reason why the Spirit is the witness: because the Spirit is the truth. The second ὅτι clause, here, states that there are three witnesses, of which the Spirit is one. It is probably best, therefore, to understand this second ὅτι as indicating a somewhat looser connection than the first, not strictly causal but inferential in sense (the English translation “for” captures this inferential sense). See BDF §456.1 for a discussion of this ‘looser’ use of ὅτι.

² tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to {udwr kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence – both external and internal – is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings – even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.

Geneva Bible: 1Jo 5:7

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the ^{( h )} Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are ^{( i )} one.

^{( h )} See (Joh 8:13-14)

^{( i )} Agree in one.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: 1Jo 5:1-21

1 He that loves God loves his children, and keeps his commandments;

3 which to the faithful are not grievous.

9 Jesus is the Son of God;

14 and able to hear our prayers.

MHCC: 1Jo 5:6-8

We are inwardly and outwardly defiled; inwardly, by the power and pollution of sin in our nature. For our cleansing there is in and by Christ Jesus, the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. Some think that the two sacraments are here meant: baptism with water, as the outward sign of regeneration, and purifying from the pollution of sin by the Holy Spirit; and the Lord's supper, as the outward sign of the shedding Christ's blood, and the receiving him by faith for pardon and justification. Both these ways of cleansing were represented in the old ceremonial sacrifices and cleansings. This water and blood include all that is necessary to our salvation. By the water, our souls are washed and purified for heaven and the habitation of saints in light. By the blood, we are justified, reconciled, and presented righteous to God. By the blood, the curse of the law being satisfied, the purifying Spirit is obtained for the internal cleansing of our natures. The water, as well as the blood, came out of the side of the sacrificed Redeemer. He loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word; that he might present it to himself a glorious church, Eph 5:25-27. This was done in and by the Spirit of God, according to the Saviour's declaration. He is the Spirit of God, and cannot lie. Three had borne witness to these doctrines concerning the person and the salvation of Christ. The Father, repeatedly, by a voice from heaven declared that Jesus was his beloved Son. The Word declared that He and the Father were One, and that whoever had seen him had seen the Father. And the Holy Ghost, who descended from heaven and rested on Christ at his baptism; who had borne witness to Him by all the prophets; and gave testimony to his resurrection and mediatorial office, by the gift of miraculous powers to the apostles. But whether this passage be cited or not, the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity stands equally firm and certain. To the doctrine taught by the apostles, respecting the person and salvation of Christ, there were three testimonies. 1. The Holy Spirit. We come into the world with a corrupt, carnal disposition, which is enmity to God. This being done away by the regeneration and new-creating of souls by the Holy Spirit, is a testimony to the Saviour. 2. The water: this sets forth the Saviour's purity and purifying power. The actual and active purity and holiness of his disciples are represented by baptism. 3. The blood which he shed: and this was our ransom, this testifies for Jesus Christ; it sealed up and finished the sacrifices of the Old Testament. The benefits procured by his blood, prove that he is the Saviour of the world. No wonder if he that rejects this evidence is judged a blasphemer of the Spirit of God. These three witnesses are for one and the same purpose; they agree in one and the same thing.

Matthew Henry: 1Jo 5:6-9

The faith of the Christian believer (or the believer in Christ) being thus mighty and victorious, it had need to be well founded, to be furnished with unquestionable celestial evidence concerning the divine mission, authority, and office of the Lord Jesus; and it is so; he brings his credentials along with him, and he brings them in a way by which he came and in the witness that attends him.

I. In the way and manner by which he came; not barely by which he came into the world, but by and with which he came, and appeared, and acted, as a Saviour in the world: This is he that came by water and blood. He came to save us from our sins, to give us eternal life, and bring us to God; and, that he might the more assuredly do this, he came by, or with, water and blood. Even Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ, I say, did so; and none but he. And I say it again, not by or with water only, but by and with water and blood, 1Jo 5:6. Jesus Christ came with water and blood, as the notes and signatures of the true effectual Saviour of the world; and he came by water and blood as the means by which he would heal and save us. That he must and did thus come in his saving office may appear by our remembering these things: -

1. We are inwardly and outwardly defiled. (1.) Inwardly, by the power and pollution off sin and in our nature. For our cleansing from this we need spiritual water; such as can reach the soul and the powers of it. Accordingly, there is in and by Christ Jesus the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. And this was intimated to the apostles by our Lord, when he washed their feet, and said to Peter, who refused to be washed, Except I wash thee, thou hast no part in me. (2.) We are defiled outwardly, by the guilt and condemning power of sin upon our persons. By this we are separated from God, and banished from his favourable, gracious, beatific presence for ever. From this we must be purged by atoning blood. It is the law or determination in the court of heaven that without shedding of blood there shall be no remission, Heb 9:22. The Saviour from sin therefore must come with blood.

2. Both these ways of cleansing were represented in the old ceremonial institutions of God. Persons and things must be purified by water and blood. There were divers washings and carnal ordinances imposed till the time of reformation, Heb 9:10. The ashes of a heifer, mixed with water, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, Heb 9:13; Num 19:9. And likewise almost all things are, by the law, purged with blood, Heb 9:22. As those show us our double defilement, so they indicate the Saviour's two-fold purgation.

3. At and upon the death of Jesus Christ, his side being pierced with a soldier's spear, out of the wound there immediately issued water and blood. This the beloved apostle saw, and he seems to have been affected with the sight; he alone records it, and seems to reckon himself obliged to record it, and seems to reckon himself obliged to record it, as containing something mysterious in it: And he that saw it bore record, and his record is true. And he knoweth, being an eye-witness, that he saith true, that you might believe, and that you might believe this particularly, that out of his pierced side forthwith there came water and blood, Joh 19:34, Joh 19:35. Now this water and blood are comprehensive of all that is necessary and effectual to our salvation. By the water our souls are washed and purified for heaven and the region of saints in light. By the blood God is glorified, his law is honoured, and his vindictive excellences are illustrated and displayed. Whom God hath set forth, or purposed, or proposed, a propitiation through faith in his blood, or a propitiation in or by his blood through faith, to declare his righteousness, that he may be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus, Rom 3:25, Rom 3:26. By the blood we are justified, reconciled, and presented righteous to God. By the blood, the curse of the law being satisfied, and purifying Spirit is obtained for the internal ablution of our natures. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit, the promised Spirit, through faith, Gal 3:13, etc. The water, as well as the blood, issued out of the side of the sacrificed Redeemer. The water and the blood then comprehend all things that can be requisite to our salvation. They will consecrate and sanctify to that purpose all that God shall appoint or make use of in order to that great end. He loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, Eph 5:25-27. He who comes by water and blood is an accurate perfect Saviour. And this is he who comes by water and blood, even Jesus Christ! Thus we see in what way and manner, or, if you please, with what utensils, he comes. But we see his credentials also,

II. In the witness that attends him, and that is, the divine Spirit, that Spirit to whom the perfecting of the works of God is usually attributed: And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, 1Jo 5:6. It was meet that the commissioned Saviour of the world should have a constant agent to support his work, and testify of him to the world. It was meet that a divine power should attend him, his gospel, and servants; and notify to the world upon what errand and office they came, and by what authority they were sent: this was done in and by the Spirit of God, according to the Saviour's own prediction, " He shall glorify me, even when I shall be rejected and crucified by men, for he shall receive or take of mine. He shall not receive my immediate office; he shall not die and rise again for you; but he shall receive of mine, shall proceed on the foundation I have laid, shall take up my institution, and truth, and cause, and shall further show it unto you, and by you to the world,"Joh 16:14. And then the apostle adds the commendation or the acceptableness of this witness: Because the Spirit is truth, 1Jo 5:6. He is the Spirit of God, and cannot lie. There is a copy that would afford us a very suitable reading thus: because, or that, Christ is the truth. And so it indicates the matter of the Spirit's testimony, the thing which he attests, and that is, the truth of Christ: And it is the Spirit that beareth witness that Christ is the truth; and consequently that Christianity, or the Christian religion, is the truth of the day, the truth of God. But it is meet that one or two copies should alter the text; and our present reading is very agreeable, and so we retain it. The Spirit is truth. He is indeed the Spirit of truth, Joh 14:17. And that the Spirit is truth, and a witness worthy of all acceptation, appears in that he is a heavenly witness, or one of the witnesses that in and from heaven bore testimony concerning the truth and authority of Christ. Because (or for) there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And so 1Jo 5:7 most appositely occurs, as a proof of the authenticity of the Spirit's testimony; he must needs be true, or even truth itself, if he be not only a witness in heaven, but even one (not in testimony only, for so an angel may be, but in being and essence) with the Father and the Word. But here,

1. We are stopped in our course by the contest there is about the genuineness of 1Jo 5:7. It is alleged that many old Greek manuscripts have it not. We shall not here enter into the controversy. It should seem that the critics are not agreed what manuscripts have it and what not; nor do they sufficiently inform us of the integrity and value of the manuscripts they peruse. Some may be so faulty, as I have an old printed Greek Testament so full of errata , that one would think no critic would establish a various lection thereupon. But let the judicious collators of copies manage that business. There are some rational surmises that seem to support the present text and reading. As,

(1.) If we admit 1Jo 5:8, in the room of 1Jo 5:7, it looks too like a tautology and repetition of what was included in 1Jo 5:6, This is he that came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and blood; and it is the Spirit that beareth witness. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood. This does not assign near so noble an introduction of these three witnesses as our present reading does.

(2.) It is observed that many copies read that distinctive clause, upon the earth: There are three that bear record upon the earth. Now this bears a visible opposition to some witness or witnesses elsewhere, and therefore we are told, by the adversaries of the text, that this clause must be supposed to be omitted in most books that want 1Jo 5:7. But it should for the same reason be so in all. Take we 1Jo 5:6, This is he that came by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. It would not now naturally and properly be added, For there are three that bear record on earth, unless we should suppose that the apostle would tell us that all the witnesses are such as are on earth, when yet he would assure us that one is infallibly true, or even truth itself.

(3.) It is observed that there is a variety of reading even in the Greek text, as in 1Jo 5:7. Some copies read hen eisi - are one; others (at least the Complutensian ) eis to hen eisin - are to one, or agree in one; and in 1Jo 5:8 (in that part that it is supposed should be admitted), instead of the common en tē gē - in earth, the Complutensian reads epi tēs gēs - upon earth, which seems to show that that edition depended upon some Greek authority, and not merely, as some would have us believe, upon the authority either of the vulgar Latin or of Thomas Aquinas, though his testimony may be added thereto.

(4.) The seventh verse is very agreeable to the style and the theology of our apostle; as, [1.] He delights in the title the Father, whether he indicates thereby God only, or a divine person distinguished from the Son. I and the Father are one. And Yet I am not alone; because the Father is with me. I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. Grace be with you, and peace from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, 2Jo 1:3. Then, [2.] The name the Word is known to be almost (if not quite) peculiar to this apostle. Had the text been devised by another, it had been more easy and obvious, from the form of baptism, and the common language of the church, to have used the name Son instead of that of the Word. As it is observed that Tertullian and Cyprian use that name, even when they refer to this verse; or it is made an objection against their referring to this verse, because they speak of the Son, not the Word; and yet Cyprian's expression seems to be very clear by the citation of Facundus himself. Quod Johannis apostoli testimonium beatus Cyprianus, Carthaginensis antistes et martyr, in epistolâ sive libro, quem de Trinitate scripsit, de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu sancto dictum intelligit; ait enim, Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt . - Blessed Cyprian, the Carthaginian bishop and martyr, in the epistle or book he wrote concerning the Trinity, considered the testimony of the apostle John as relating to the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit; for he says, the Lord says, I and the Father are one; and again, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit it is written, And these three are one. Now it is nowhere written that these are one, but in 1Jo 5:7. It is probable than that St. Cyprian, either depending on his memory, or rather intending things more than words, persons more than names, or calling persons by their names more usual in the church (both in popular and polemic discourses), called the second by the name of the Son rather than of the Word. If any man can admit Facundus's fancy, that Cyprian meant that the Spirit, the water, and the blood, were indeed the Father, Word, and Spirit, that John said were one, he may enjoy his opinion to himself. For, First, He must suppose that Cyprian not only changed all the names, but the apostle's order too. For the blood (the Son), which Cyprian puts second, the apostle puts last. And, Secondly, He must suppose that Cyprian thought that by the blood which issued out of the side of the Son the apostle intended the Son himself, who might as well have been denoted by the water, - that by the water, which also issued from the side of the Son, the apostle intended the person of the Holy Ghost, - that by the Spirit, which in v. 6 is said to be truth, and in the gospel is called the Spirit of truth, the apostle meant the person of the Father, though he is nowhere else so called when joined with the Son and the Holy Ghost. We require good proof that the Carthaginian father could so understand the apostle. He who so understands him must believe too that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are said to be three witnesses on earth. Thirdly, Facundus acknowledges that Cyprian says that of his three it is written, Et hi tres unum sunt - and these three are one. Now these are the words, not of 1Jo 5:8, but of 1Jo 5:7. They are not used concerning the three on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; but the three in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Ghost. So we are told that the author of the book De baptismo haereticorum , allowed to be contemporary with Cyprian, cites John's words, agreeably to the Greek manuscripts and the ancient versions, thus: Ait enim Johannes de Domino nostro in epistolâ nos docens, Hic es qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Jesus Christus, non in aquâ tantum, sed in aquâ et sanguine; et Spiritus est qui testimonium perhibet, quia Spiritus est veritas; quia tres testimonium perhibent, Spiritus et aqua et sanguis, et isti tres in unum sunt - For John, in his epistle, says concerning our Lord, This is he, Jesus Christ, who came by water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood; and it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth; for there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one. If all the Greek manuscripts and ancient versions say concerning the Spirit, the water, and the blood, that in unum sunt - they agree in one, then it was not of them that Cyprian spoke, whatever variety there might be in the copies in his time, when he said it is written, unum sunt - they are one. And therefore Cyprian's words seem still to be a firm testimony to v. 7, and an intimation likewise that a forger of the text would have scarcely so exactly hit upon the apostolical name for the second witness in heaven, the Word. Them, [3.] As only this apostle records the history of the water and blood flowing out of the Saviour's side, so it is he only, or he principally, who registers to us the Saviour's promise and prediction of the Holy spirit's coming to glorify him, and to testify of him, and to convince the world of its own unbelief and of his righteousness, as in his gospel, Joh 14:16, Joh 14:17, Joh 14:26; Joh 15:26; Joh 16:7-15. It is most suitable then to the diction and to the gospel of this apostle thus to mention the Holy Ghost as a witness for Jesus Christ. Then,

(5.) It was far more easy for a transcriber, by turning away his eye, or by the obscurity of the copy, it being obliterated or defaced on the top or bottom of a page, or worn away in such materials as the ancients had to write upon, to lose and omit the passage, than for an interpolator to devise and insert it. He must be very bold and impudent who could hope to escape detection and shame; and profane too, who durst venture to make an addition to a supposed sacred book. And,

(6.) It can scarcely be supposed that, when the apostle is representing the Christian's faith in overcoming the world, and the foundation it relies upon in adhering to Jesus Christ, and the various testimony that was attended him, especially when we consider that he meant to infer, as he does (1Jo 5:9), If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this (which he had rehearsed before) is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. Now in the three witnesses on earth there is neither all the witness of God, nor indeed any witness who is truly and immediately God. The antitrinitarian opposers of the text will deny that either the Spirit, or the water, or the blood, is God himself; but, upon our present reading, here is a noble enumeration of the several witnesses and testimonies supporting the truth of the Lord Jesus and the divinity of his institution. Here is the most excellent abridgment or breviate of the motives to faith in Christ, of the credentials the Saviour brings with him, and of the evidences of our Christianity, that is to be found, I think, in the book of God, upon which single account, even waiving the doctrine of the divine Trinity, the text is worthy of all acceptation.

2. Having these rational grounds on out side, we proceed. The apostle, having told us that the Spirit that bears witness to Christ is truth, shows us that he is so, by assuring us that he is in heaven, and that there are others also who cannot but be true, or truth itself, concurring in testimony with him: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one, 1Jo 5:7.

(1.) Here is a trinity of heavenly witnesses, such as have testified and vouched to the world the veracity and authority of the Lord Jesus in his office and claims, where, [1.] The first that occurs in order is the Father; he set his seal to the commission of the Lord Christ all the while he was here; more especially, First, In proclaiming him at his baptism, Mat 3:17. Secondly, In confirming his character at the transfiguration, Mat 17:5. Thirdly, In accompanying him with miraculous power and works: If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, though you believe not me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him, Joh 10:37, Joh 10:38. Fourthly, In avouching at his death, Mat 27:54. Fifthly, In raising him from the dead, and receiving him up to his glory: He shall convince the world - of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and you see me no more, Joh 16:10, and Rom 1:4. [2.] The second witness in the Word, a mysterious name, importing the highest nature that belongs to the Saviour of Jesus Christ, wherein he existed before the world was, whereby he made the world, and whereby he was truly God with the Father. He must bear witness to the human nature, or to the man Christ Jesus, in and by whom he redeemed and saved us; and he bore witness, First, By the mighty works that he wrought. Joh 5:17, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Secondly, In conferring a glory upon him at his transfiguration. And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, Joh 1:14. Thirdly, In raising him from the dead. Joh 2:19, Destroy this temple, and in three days will I raise it up. [3.] The third witness is the Holy Ghost, or the Holy Spirit, and august, venerable name, the possessor, proprietor, and author of holiness. True and faithful must he be to whom the Spirit of holiness sets his seal and solemn testimony. So he did to the Lord Jesus, the head of the Christian world; and that in such instances as these: - First, In the miraculous production of his immaculate human nature in the virgin's womb. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, Luk 1:35, etc. Secondly, In the visible descent upon him at his baptism. The Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, Luk 3:22, etc. Thirdly, In an effectual conquest of the spirits of hell and darkness. If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come unto you, Mat 12:28. Fourthly, In the visible potent descent upon the apostles, to furnish them with gifts and powers to preach him and his gospel to the world after he himself had gone to heaven, Act 1:4, Act 1:5; Act 2:2-4, etc. Fifthly, In supporting the name, gospel, and interest of Christ, by miraculous gifts and operations by and upon the disciples, and in the churches, for two hundred years (1Co 12:7), concerning which see Dr. Whitby's excellent discourse in the preface to the second volume of his Commentary on the New Testament. These are witnesses in heaven; and they bear record from heaven; and they are one, it should seem, not only in testimony (for that is implied in their being three witnesses to one and the same thing), but upon a higher account, as they are in heaven; they are one in their heavenly being and essence; and, if one with the Father, they must be one God.

(2.) To these there is opposed, though with them joined, a trinity of witnesses on earth, such as continue here below: And there are three that bear witness on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one, 1Jo 5:8. [1.] Of these witnesses the first is the spirit. This must be distinguished from the person of the Holy Ghost, who is in heaven. We must say then, with the Saviour (according to what is reported by this apostle), that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, Joh 3:6. The disciples of the Saviour are, as well as others, born after the flesh. They come into the world endued with a corrupt carnal disposition, which is enmity to God. This disposition must be mortified and abolished. A new nature must be communicated. Old lusts and corruptions must be eradicated, and the true disciple become a new creature. The regeneration or renovation of souls is a testimony to the Saviour. It is his actual though initial salvation. It is a testimony on earth, because it continues with the church here, and is not performed in that conspicuous astonishing manner in which signs from heaven are accomplished. To this Spirit belong not only the regeneration and conversion of the church, but its progressive sanctification, victory over the world, her peace, and love, and joy, and all that grace by which she is made meet for the inheritance of the saints in light. [2.] The second is the water. This was before considered as a means of salvation, now as a testimony to the Saviour himself, and intimates his purity and purifying power. And so it seems to comprehend, First, The purity of his own nature and conduct in the world. He was holy, harmless, and undefiled. Secondly, The testimony of John's baptism, who bore witness of him, prepared a people for him, and referred them to him, Mar 1:4, Mar 1:7, Mar 1:8. Thirdly, The purity of his own doctrine, by which souls are purified and washed. Now you are clean through the word that I have spoken unto you, Joh 15:3. Fourthly, The actual and active purity and holiness of his disciples. His body is the holy catholic church. Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit, 1Pe 1:22. And this signed and sealed by, Fifthly, The baptism that he has appointed for the initiation or introduction of his disciples, in which he signally (or by that sign) says, Except I wash thee, thou hast no part in me. Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God, 1Pe 3:21. [3.] The third witness is the blood; this he shed, and this was our ransom. This testifies for Jesus Christ, First, In that it sealed up and finished the sacrifices of the Old Testament, Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Secondly, In that it confirmed his own predictions, and the truth of all his ministry and doctrine, Joh 18:37. Thirdly, In that it showed unparalleled love to God, in that he would die a sacrifice to his honour and glory, in making atonement for the sins of the world, Joh 14:30, Joh 14:31. Fourthly, In that it demonstrated unspeakable love to us; and none will deceive those whom they entirely love, Joh 14:13-15. Fifthly, In that it demonstrated the disinterestedness of the Lord Jesus as to any secular interest and advantage. No impostor and deceiver ever proposes to himself contempt and a violent cruel death, Joh 18:36. Sixthly, In that it lays obligation on his disciple to suffer and die for him. No deceiver would invite proselytes to his side and interest at the rate that the Lord Jesus did. You shall be hated of all men for my sake. They shall put you out of their synagogues; and the time comes that whosoever kills you will think that he doeth God service, Joh 16:2. He frequently calls his servants to a conformity with him in sufferings: Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach, Heb 13:13. This shows that neither he nor his kingdom is of this world. Seventhly, The benefits accruing and procured by his blood (well understood) must immediately demonstrate that he is indeed the Saviour of the world. And then, Eighthly, These are signified and sealed in the institution of his own supper: This is my blood of the New Testament (which ratifies the New Testament), which is shed for many, for the remission of sins, Mat 26:28. Such are the witnesses on earth. Such is the various testimony given to the author of our religion. No wonder if the rejector of all this evidence he judged as a blasphemer of the Spirit of God, and be left to perish without remedy in his sins. These three witnesses (being more different than the three former) are not so properly said to be one as to be for one, to be for one and the same purpose and cause, or to agree in one, in one and the same thing among themselves, and in the same testimony with those who bear record from heaven.

III. The apostle justly concludes, If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God, that he hath testified of his Son, 1Jo 5:9. Here we have, 1. A supposition well founded upon the premises. Here is the witness of God, the witness whereby God hath testified of his Son, which surely must intimate some immediate irrefragable testimony, and that of the Father concerning his Son; he has by himself proclaimed and avouched him to the world. 2. The authority and acceptableness of his testimony; and that argued from the less to the greater: If we receive the witness of men (and such testimony is and must be admitted in all judicatories and in all nations), the witness of God is greater. It is truth itself, of highest authority and most unquestionable infallibility. And then there is, 3. The application of the rule to the present case: For this is the witness, and here is the witness of God even of the Father, as well as of the Word and Spirit, which he hath testified of, and wherein he hath attested, his Son. God, that cannot lie, hath given sufficient assurance to the world that Jesus Christ is his Son, the Son of his love, and Son by office, to reconcile and recover the world unto himself; he testified therefore the truth and divine origin of the Christian religion, and that it is the sure appointed way and means of bringing us to God.

Barclay: 1Jo 5:6-8

Plummer, in beginning to comment on this passage says: "This is the most perplexing passage in the Epistle, and one of the most perplexing in the New Testament." No doubt, if we knew the circumstances in which John was writing and had full knowledge of the heresies against which he was defending his people, the meaning would become clear but, as it is, we can only guess. We do, however, know enough of the background to be fairly sure that we can come at the meaning of John's words.

It is clear that the words water and blood in connection with Jesus had for John a special mystical and symbolic meaning. In his story of the Cross there is a curious pair of verses:

One of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once

there came out blood and water. He who saw it has borne

witness--his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the

truth--that you also may believe (Joh 19:34-35).

Clearly John attaches particular importance to that incident and he guarantees it with a very special certificate of evidence. To him the words water and blood in connection with Jesus conveyed an essential part of the meaning of the gospel.

The first verse of the passage is obscurely expressed--"This is he who came through water and blood Jesus Christ." The meaning is that this is he who entered into his Messiahship or was shown to be the Christ through water and blood.

In connection with Jesus water and blood can refer only to two events of his life. The water must refer to his baptism; the blood to his Cross. John is saying that both the baptism and the Cross of Jesus are essential parts of his Messiahship. He goes on to say that it was not by water only that he came, but by water and by blood. It is, then, clear that some were saying that Jesus came by water, but not by blood; in other words that his baptism was an essential part of his Messiahship but his Cross was not. This is what gives us our clue to what lies behind this passage.

We have seen again and again that behind this letter lies the heresy of Gnosticism. And we have also seen that Gnosticism, believing that Spirit was altogether good and matter altogether evil, denied that God came in the flesh. So they had a belief of which Irenaeus tells us connected with the name of Cerinthus, one of their principal representatives and an exact contemporary of John. Cerinthus taught that at the baptism the divine Christ descended into the man Jesus in the form of a dove; Jesus, allied as it were with the Christ who had descended upon him, brought to men the message of the God who had hitherto been unknown and lived in perfect virtue; then the Christ departed from the man Jesus and returned to glory, and it was only the man Jesus who was crucified on Calvary and afterwards resurrected. We might put it more simply by saying that Cerinthus taught that Jesus became divine at the baptism, that divinity left him before the Cross and that he died simply a man.

It is clear that such teaching robs the life and death of Jesus of all value for us. By seeking to protect God from contact with human pain, it removes him from the act of redemption.

What John is saying is that the Cross is an essential part of the meaning of Jesus and that God was in the death of Jesus every bit as much as he was in his life.

Barclay: 1Jo 5:6-8

John goes on to speak of the triple witness.

There is the witness of the Spirit. In this John is thinking of three things. (i) The New Testament story is clear that at his baptism the Spirit descended upon Jesus in the most special way (Mar 1:9-11; Mat 3:16-17; Luk 3:21-22; Act 10:38; Joh 1:32-34). (ii) The New Testament is also clear that, while John came to baptize with water, Jesus came to baptize with the Spirit (Mar 1:8; Mat 3:11; Luk 3:16; Act 1:5; Act 2:33). He came to bring men the Spirit with a plenitude and a power hitherto quite unknown. (iii) The history of the early church is the proof that this was no idle claim. It began at Pentecost (Act 2:4), and it repeated itself over and over again in the history and experience of the Church (Act 8:17; Act 10:44). Jesus had the Spirit and he could give the Spirit to men; and the continuing evidence of the Spirit in the Church was--and is--an undeniable witness to the continuing power of Jesus Christ.

There is the witness of the water. At Jesus' own baptism there was the witness of the Spirit descending upon him. It was, in fact, that event which revealed to John the Baptist who Jesus was. It is John's point that in the early church that witness was maintained in Christian baptism. We must remember that thus early in the Church's history baptism was adult baptism, the confession of faith and the reception into the Church of men and women coming direct from heathenism and beginning an absolutely new way of life. In Christian baptism things happened. A man plunged below the water and died with Christ; he emerged and was resurrected with Christ to a new life. Therefore, Christian baptism was a witness to the continuing power of Jesus Christ. It was a witness that he was still alive and that he was indeed divine.

There was the witness of the blood. The blood was the life. In any sacrifice the blood was sacred to God and to God alone. The death of Christ was the perfect sacrifice; in the Cross his blood was poured out to God. It was the experience of men that that sacrifice was availing, that it did redeem them and reconcile them to God and give them peace with God. Continuously in the Church the Lord's Supper, the Eucharist, was and is observed. In it the sacrifice of Christ is full displayed; and in it there is given to men the opportunity not only to give thanks to Christ for his sacrifice made once for all, but also to appropriate its benefits and to avail themselves of its healing power. That happened in John's time. At the Lord's Table men met the Christ and experienced his forgiveness and the peace with God which he brings. Men still have that experience; and, therefore that feast is a continuing witness to the atoning power of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

The Spirit and the water and the blood all combine to demonstrate the perfect Messiahship, the perfect Sonship, the perfect Saviourhood of this man Jesus in whom was God. The continued gift of the Spirit, the continued death and resurrection of baptism, the continued availability of the sacrifice of the Cross at the Lord's Table are still the witnesses to Jesus Christ.

Note on 1Jo 5:7:

In the King James Version there is a verse which we have altogether omitted. It reads, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."

The English Revised Version omits this verse, and does not even mention it in the margin, and none of the newer translations includes it. It is quite certain that it does not belong to the original text.

The facts are as follows. First, it does not occur in any Greek manuscript earlier than the 14th century. The great manuscripts belong to the 3rd and 4th centuries, and it occurs in none of them. None of the great early fathers of the Church knew it. Jerome's original version of the Vulgate does not include it. The first person to quote it is a Spanish heretic called Priscillian who died in A.D. 385. Thereafter it crept gradually into the Latin texts of the New Testament although, as we have seen, it did not gain an entry to the Greek manuscripts.

How then did it get into the text? Originally it must have been a scribal gloss or comment in the margin. Since it seemed to offer good scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, through time it came to be accepted by theologians as part of the text, especially in those early days of scholarship before the great manuscripts were discovered.

But how did it last, and how did it come to be in the King James Version? The first Greek testament to be published was that of Erasmus in 1516. Erasmus was a great scholar and, knowing that this verse was not in the original text, he did not include it in his first edition. By this time, however, theologians were using the verse. It had, for instance, been printed in the Latin Vulgate of 1514. Erasmus was therefore criticized for omitting it. His answer was that if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript which had the words in it, he would print them in his next edition. Someone did produce a very late and very bad text in which the verse did occur in Greek; and Erasmus, true to his word but very much against his judgment and his will, printed the verse in his 1522 edition.

The next step was that in 1550 Stephanus printed his great edition of the Greek New Testament. This 1550 edition of Stephanus was called--he gave it that name himself--The Received Text, and it was the basis of the King James Version and of the Greek text for centuries to come. That is how this verse got into the King James Version. There is, of course, nothing wrong with it; but modern scholarship has made it quite certain that John did not write it and that it is a much later commentary on, and addition to, his words; and that is why all modern translations omit it.

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 5:5-13

5. Keeping the faith reaffirmed 5:5-13

Here John set out his fifth and final condition for living as children of God (cf. 2:18-29).

"We can believe, and therefore we should maintain the faith."¹⁶²

In the previous section (4:7-5:4) John wove together the themes of faith and obedient love. In this one he stressed faith and the witness which supports faith. Corollary ideas are victory and life.

5:5 Continuing to overcome is not automatic for the Christian. Not all Christians continue to overcome the world (cf. 2 Tim. 4:10). Only those who continue to live by faith (i.e., trust and obey God) do. Furthermore no one can overcome the world unless he or she believes that Jesus is the Son of God. That trust is the key to any and all overcoming. Obviously every believer will overcome the world ultimately when we go to heaven, but that thought is foreign to the context here.

5:6-7 This "water" probably refers to John the Baptist's baptism of Jesus in water. The "blood" probably refers to His death by crucifixion.

"The true identity of Jesus, the writer appears to be saying, is only to be discovered by looking at the whole of his life, including its end."¹⁶³

Some false teachers in the early church taught that the divine Christ descended on the human Jesus at His baptism but left him before His crucifixion.¹⁶⁴ John repeated this teaching in this verse. He considered this teaching untrue because it did not come from the Holy Spirit (v. 7) who is truth (cf. John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13).

5:8 Really there are three witnesses to the truth. These witnesses are the Holy Spirit teaching through the apostles and prophets, the water of Jesus' baptism, and the blood of His crucifixion. John personified the latter two in this verse. The testimony of eyewitnesses and prophets as well as that of the historical events affirmed the divine and human character of Jesus Christ.

5:9 God gave His witness concerning His Son through the prophets, at Jesus' baptism (Matt. 3:7; John 1:32-33, 34), and at His crucifixion (John 19:35-37). All three witnesses came from God ultimately.

5:10 Having spoken of the character of the divine witness to Jesus (vv. 6-9) John moved to discuss the results of that witness (vv. 10-12). The witness is the truth about Jesus Christ that the indwelling Holy Spirit bears. This may be the objective witness of Scripture, or it may be a subjective witness in the believer's heart. Probably the Spirit witnesses in both ways. If someone does not believe this testimony, he is saying that God has lied (cf. 1:10). John clarified the implications of rejecting the gospel in stark terms.

"The writer, then, cannot allow that one can profess belief in God, as did his opponents, and yet reject God's testimony to his own Son. Such rejection cannot be excused on the basis of ignorance. The evidence is too clear and too weighty. Rather, it is deliberate unbelief, the character of which in the end impugns the very being and character of God. If Jesus is not God's own Son in the flesh, then God is no longer the truth. He is the liar."¹⁶⁵

5:11-12 This is the content of God's testimony. Eternal life is inseparable from the person of Jesus Christ.

"Eternal' life is qualitative, not quantitive; it is the highest kind of spiritual and moral life, irrespective of time, which God enables the believer to share in relationship with Jesus."¹⁶⁶

Some of the false teachers seem to have tried to separate them (cf. 2:25-26). Jesus Christ and eternal life are one gift from God.

5:13 The phrase "these things" evidently refers to what John had just written about God's witness (vv. 9-12) rather than to his whole epistle. The "these things" in 2:1 likewise refer to what immediately precedes in 1:5-10, and the "these things" in 2:26 refer to what immediately precedes in 2:18-25.¹⁶⁷ John stated the purpose of the whole epistle in 1:3-4.¹⁶⁸

"This assertion [i.e., v. 13] is very frequently, and wrongly, taken as a statement of purpose for the entire epistle . . . . But this is contrary to the writer's usage."¹⁶⁹

Our assurance of salvation rests on the testimony of God, His promise (v. 12). It does not rest on the presence of spiritual fruit (cf. John 15:12). It rests on God's Word, not on man's works.

John MacArthur claimed to believe that the Christian's assurance of salvation rests on both God's objective promises in Scripture and on the subjective evidence of the believer's works.¹⁷⁰ However the following quotation from him seems to ground our assurance only on subjective evidence.

"Those who cling to the promise of eternal life but care nothing for Christ's holiness have nothing to be assured of. Such people do not really believe. Either their professed faith' in Christ is an utter sham, or they are simply deluded. If they did truly have their hope fixed on Christ, they would purify themselves, just as He is prue (3:3)."¹⁷¹

College: 1Jo 5:1-21

1 JOHN 5

C. FAITH IN THE SON OF GOD (5:1-5)

¹ Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. ² This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. ³ This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, ⁴ for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. ⁵ Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

As John begins the fifth chapter, he starts with a moral and natural principle: the closeness of family. He goes back to a principle that he started in 4:7ff. This is the principle of God's family. In 4:7, he states that "everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God." He is not claiming that all one has to do to be in the family of God is to have love. Many people who are not in the family of God certainly have love. Jesus had said, "Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). There is ample and adequate demonstration in the Scripture to show that the new birth occurs when one is baptized in the name of Jesus. We shall not take the time nor space here to argue this. But, being born of God involves more than just loving. Loving God and brother is more than just an emotional experience, or even a "doing good" experience. John makes clear in 5:2, "This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands." Since God is the Father of the family and his very nature is love ("God is love," 4:16), then it is one of the family traits for us to love God and our brothers if we are a part of the family of God. This, I believe, is the nature of the argument that John is making in these first two verses.

5:1Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God,

Again, John is excluding those of the docetic persuasion in the gnostic movement from being in the family of God. They must believe in the incarnation [or "the coming in the flesh"] of Jesus. In the next several generations from when John is writing, this will become a very important element of Christology. This will be discussed in more than one of the Ecumenical Councils to come.

and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

As we have indicated earlier, there was evidently some great need in the church of John's day for the Christians to love one another. Otherwise, why would he emphasize it so often? If love is one of the familial traits in God's family, then each of his children will love God and love the brothers and the sisters, in God's family. You cannot love God without loving your brother. You cannot have one without the other. John reminds us that the way for us to become children of God is (1) by loving God; and (2) by carrying out his commands. His commands can be known by listening to the revelation of the Spirit of God. He was sent to bear witness to the message being taught. J.W. Roberts wrote, "John is actually saying, then, that the one continuing to believe that Jesus is the Christ (having become a Christian) continues to demonstrate by this that he has been begotten or is a child of God. Continuing in the status of a child of God depends on continued faith in Jesus." C.H. Dodd suggests that the word "father" in verse one need not be capitalized, which is the case in the NIV translation, it is a "general principle that if you love the parent you will love the child. (It is not necessary to give the 'father' a capital letter, for the writer is enunciating a general maxim: love me, love my child; although, of course, in the application which he gives it the parent is God and the child the Christian man.) the conclusion we expect is: therefore if you love God you will love your fellow Christian)."

5:2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.

But, how can we know that we are loving the children of God? Not everyone is lovable in nature, and sometimes it is difficult for us to love someone. How, for example, can we love one who does us or our society wrong? John gives us an answer: by loving God and carrying out his commands . So it is not a blind or empty kind of love; it involves loving God first, for Jesus said that this was the first and greatest commandment (Matt 22:34-40).

5:3 This is love for God: to obey his commands.

The kind of love that God expects from us is an obedient love. This should not surprise us, for Jesus is quoted by John as saying, "If you love me, you will obey what I command" (John 14:15). And, "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him" (John 14:21). And, further he even calls us his friends if we obey him, "You are my friends if you do what I command" (John 15:14). John is interested here in showing the continuing relationship with Christ. Loving our brothers is not only a command, but it is an "ought" that is bound on Christians. As we have said before, one cannot command the emotional type of love, but the kind of love that represents God can be commanded.

And his commands are not burdensome,

We are to obey the commands of God. John insists that his commands are not burdensome . I like the comments that Lenski makes to this, "Is it a burden to believe in the Son of God who died in expiation of our sins (2:2; 3:23; 4:10)? There is no greater joy than this confidence and trust. Is it a burden to be called one of God's children (3:1), children of him who is love (4:8, 16), and for the love of him who first loved us (4:10) to love him and thus also his children even as he loves us, and as they love us? Can there be any greater joy than to stand in this circle of love, to have this love poured out upon us, to be warmed into answering love by this love? No; his commandments are not burdensome!" There is nothing that needs to be added to this. No, it is not burdensome. How can it be burdensome to respond to God's love?

5:4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.

John now returns to one of the central arguments of this epistle: how to overcome the world, which includes overcoming the Gnostics' teaching that Jesus was not born of the flesh. God gives us the victory in Christ. Or, to express it more in the language of John, God has already given us the victory through Christ. When we are born again, at that moment we are given the victory. John is not teaching a salvation that cannot be lost. We can lose the victory by denying him who gave us the victory, namely, Jesus Christ. It is our faith that gives us the victory! As if we didn't get it the first time, John repeats this truth, "Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God." For as long as I can remember, these statements have been some of the most awe-inspiring statements I know. Think of it! Our faith can and has overcome the world! All of Satan's dominion - the world - is under the power of him for whom we have dedicated our lives.

5:5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

In the opening verses of this chapter, John has suggested three things that characterize the children of God:

1) Those who have faith in the incarnation of Jesus Christ,

2) Those who love God and their brothers, and

3) Those who are obedient to the commands of God.

He concluded his characterization of God's children by saying, Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God will overcome the world. This is a bridge statement between what has gone before and what comes next.

D. THE THREE WITNESSES (5:6-12)

⁶ This is the one who came by water and blood - Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. ⁷ For there are three that testify: ⁸ the ^a Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. ⁹ We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. ¹⁰ Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. ¹¹ And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. ¹² He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

^a 7,8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. ⁸ And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)

The subject addressed by John here is that of "witnesses" or "testimony." He began his epistle with the subject of "witnesses" and now he is bringing it to a close with the same subject. He began by discussing, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched" (1 John 1:2). He has declared that "we" (whoever the "we" refers to) have truly witnessed the historical Jesus, the one who has become incarnate. What greater witness can one have than to have heard, seen, and touched, that which has existed from the beginning: the "we" may be the original twelve apostles, some of the Christians to whom John was writing, or another group which make up the "we." I have stated earlier that it is my view that the "we" were those who originally saw him in the flesh, perhaps the apostles. For John's argument, it really does not make a great difference, for if there were three or more, this satisfied the legal requirements of the Law of Moses to make a declaration. Moses had declared many years before, "One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses" (Deut 19:15). Jesus was evidently alluding to this when he was discussing how we should treat matters with our brothers. "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector" (Matt 18:15-17).

John refers to multiple "witnesses" to Jesus' reality in the opening verses of this epistle. And, in the verses we are currently looking at, he is evidently conscious of the three witnesses. As noted in the footnote, some of these words are not in the NIV and other more modern translations, because they do not appear in some of the earliest manuscripts. Marshall has a good insight into this topic. It does no damage to the argument John is making nor to the overall truth of Scripture for these words not to be included in our texts.

John has made the argument (v. 4), "This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith." From the context, we can correctly assume that John is discussing "faith" in the incarnation, or the bodily reality, of Jesus Christ. Undoubtedly striking out at the gnostic Docetics, John further enhances his argument by stating, "Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God" (v. 5) truly overcomes the world.

5:6 This is the one who came by water and blood - Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood.

But, who is this Jesus, the Son of God? John answers with this verse. To some readers, this is a vague passage. Marshall remarks,

We now have a closer definition of Jesus: the person I am writing about, says John, is the One who came by water and blood, namely Jesus Christ. To the modern reader this is a statement which obscures rather than clarifies the thought. Nevertheless, it was obviously meant to draw the readers' attention to facts which would act as convincing testimony (vv. 7f.) about the person of Jesus.

Cerinthus and other Gnostics would adamantly deny this, for they believed that Jesus was simply the naturally born son of Joseph and Mary. John is arguing that Jesus, on the other hand, was the divinely begotten Son of God born through a divine miracle of conception of Mary, Jesus' mother. But, what does John mean by saying that Jesus came from water and blood? Some would argue that this was referring to the physical birth, since in the mother's womb, the child is encased in water (or, amniotic fluid) and the blood involved in the birth of the child. This is not what John is arguing! In keeping with what is to follow, it seems obvious that John is discussing the water from the point of view that Jesus was baptized in water, and the blood from the point of view that Jesus shed his blood in his death. Both of these analogies would argue the physical reality of Jesus. The fact that he was baptized in water in the River Jordan seems clear enough that this was a physical activity. And, certainly, the shedding of blood is definitely proof that Jesus was truly human, as well as divine! It is necessary, according to John's treatment of the incarnation of God's Son, that both the water and the blood be involved in identifying him. John's opponents undoubtedly would accept the coming by "water," while they would deny the "coming by blood."

5:7 For there are three that testify: 5:8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Now, we come to the focal argument of John. Keep in mind our discussion of witnesses and the Law of Moses' requirement of two or three witnesses needed to convict one of a crime. This is evidently a very important principle that John is using to convict the Gnostic false teachers of their sin of heresy. John has been very careful to establish the fact that there are at least three witnesses for the message he is presenting. Jesus was born of a virgin, was God's Son in the flesh, had died, arisen from the dead, and had manifested himself to them. The apostle Paul had declared the certainty of the resurrection of Christ's body from the dead, for he wrote,

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born (1 Cor 15:3-8).

Whether John was personally acquainted with these words written and declared by Paul, we do not know. But, he was surely acquainted with many appearances of Jesus. What a tremendous argument the early Christians had to certify that Jesus was truly the son of man and Son of God at the same time!

But John has yet to present his most powerful argument against the Docetists: the three witnesses in verses 7 and 8. Many of the witnesses that John could call to testify would die soon; some had already died, the same with the witnesses cited by Paul. But John introduces here three perpetual witnesses. The three witnesses John cites now will be with us until Jesus returns to forever prove the truth of his incarnation. These three witnesses are: the Spirit, the water, and the blood . These three witnesses, John wrote, are in agreement . The Spirit refers to the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus asked his Father to send to his disciples after he had gone back to the Father (see John 14:26; 15:26; 16:5-11). From these references, we learn that the Spirit was to testify of him. He did this in many ways:

1) In their preaching,

2) In the signs and miracles the he brought them, and

3) In the inspiration which permitted the apostles to testify of him through the inspired Scriptures we have.

Every time that we read God's revelation found in the Scriptures, the Spirit is testifying that Jesus was born of the flesh and that he was fully God and fully mankind. The water, in like manner, testifies to the incarnation of Jesus. It speaks through baptism which is required of all who would believe Jesus. Every time that we see someone being baptized, that person is saying, in essence, "Watch me; my baptism testifies that I am dying to sin, that I am being buried as Jesus was, and that I am being raise from the dead." See Paul's discussion of baptism in Romans 6:1ff. The blood, which is the third witness testifies every time that a Christian eats the Lord's Supper. For, when we eat the bread and drink the cup we are saying to the world: "I am testifying to you that Jesus died and was buried for my sins, and I declare this by my partaking of the Communion." This argument by John is one of the strongest arguments I know to testify against the gnostic, docetic teaching.

5:9 We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.

John mildly chastises those of us who will believe what men testify but who do not accept God's testimony. The testimony that God gives to us is stronger than any testimony mankind could give. First, it is the testimony of God! Should we not accept God's testimony simply because it is God's testimony? What else would we need than the assurance from God. Second, when we look at God's testimony, we have far greater evidence for its truth than we do for what mankind testifies to us. John, more than once, has given the two or three witnesses required by the Law of Moses; and then God has given us additional. Paul declared that more than five hundred had seen God's testimony. In the first chapter of 1 John, John declares that "we" have seen, heard, felt and experienced Jesus. The "we" to whom he refers is certainly more than two or three. So, we have more than ample reason to believe that God has given his Son through the incarnation to be our Savior.

5:10 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.

John is giving great emphasis to the testimony of God. He mentions testimony at least eight times. And, now, he states that if one believes in God, he has this testimony in his heart. Some commentators would infer that God has given a special message into the heart of those who believe him. It is my understanding that this is not the force of his argument. I would be surprised if John would use that type of argument to the gnostic heretics since this is their argument: that God has given them a special knowledge. What John seems to be saying here is that it is in one's heart because believing has come from hearing, receiving, and obeying God's message. One who does not believe God is making God out to be a liar, because that person has not received nor believed in the testimony that God has provided.

5:11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

John now uses one of the greatest motivations for us to believe or accept God's testimony. God's testimony is greater than mankind's testimony. God's testimony is that God has given us eternal life . John is not indicating that this life eternal is ours regardless of what we may do in the future. We can so sin as to lose that life, but God has already given eternal life to us. Life eternal is a "here and now" possession, not a "there and then" promise. We already possess it!

5:12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

The testimony that we have been given eternal life is based on our relation to the Son. If we accept and obey Jesus as the Son of God - both his human and divine character - then we have been given eternal life. We have already learned from our previous studies in this epistle that the gift to us is not a blind, meaningless gift. It depends on our faith, our love, and our obedience to his commands. John gave his assurance, He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

V. CONCLUDING REMARKS (5:13-21)

¹³ 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. ¹⁴ This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. ¹⁵ And if we know that he hears us - whatever we ask - we know that we have what we asked of him.

¹⁶ If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. ¹⁷ All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

¹⁸ We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him. ¹⁹ We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.

²⁰ We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true - even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

²¹ Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.

5:13 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.

John begins this last section with another of his "I write these things to you . . . ." We have discussed this in other parts of this commentary. John has been very careful to let his readers know why he is writing to them. In John's Gospel, he was clear in showing why he wrote to them: "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:30, 31). It is interesting to note how closely related are the purposes of writing the Gospel and in writing the epistle. Both are written so that we will know

1) That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,

2) That all can have life by believing in him and obeying his commands, and

3) To love God and our brothers.

In John's Gospel, there is ample proof of the importance of love; and in this epistle one cannot mistake the importance of love.

5:14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us.

John reiterates the promises he has made before. If we approach God - that is, believe in him and his incarnated Son, love our brothers, and obey his commands - we will have assurance or boldness to know that we do have eternal life. We are children of God, and as children, we can "ask anything according to his will, and he hears us." Jesus expressed this same idea several times during his personal ministry. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened" (Matt 7:7,8). In John's Gospel, Jesus promised, "If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish and it will be given (John 15:7). What a promise!

5:15 And if we know that he hears us - whatever we ask - we know that we have what we asked of him.

All too often we have failed to believe that God answers prayer. He does not give anything to us that is against his will (see Jas 4:3). For example, he does not give salvation to those who do not love him; nor does he answer the prayer of those who refuse to obey him (Heb 5:9). But, John wrote, And if we know that he hears us - whatever we ask - we know that we have what we asked of him. We should never ask that which is not in accordance with his plan of salvation nor what is against the nature of God. But, when we do ask, we had better believe that he will answer. Have you ever asked that God provide a cure for someone's illness and than been surprised when he answered you? We must leave room in our lives for trust in God's fulfillment of his promises.

5:16 If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that.

This short section of 1 John is one of the most troublesome in the epistle. There are several theories that have arisen to explain the passage. However, in the light of the overall theme of the epistle, it seems to this author that only one of them satisfactorily explains it and we will consider it later. J.W. Roberts included three of these alternate interpretations, as he refers to them. They are:

(1) that sin unto death refers to a crime for which the authorities may exact the death penalty (e.g., murder which could be a capital offense; (2) that the sin is one that the church might punish with death by asking God to visit the sinner as he did Ananias and Sapphira as recorded in Acts 5, and (3) that the sin is one which causes the church to withdraw fellowship or excommunicate the sinner. But there is no confirmation for these meanings.

The troublesome expression here is "sin that leads to death" and "sin that does not lead to death," aJmartiva (ouj) proÉ" qavnaton ( hamartia [ou] pros thanaton , lit., "sin [not] toward death"). The word aJmartavnonta ( hamartanonta , "sinning," translated "commit" in the NIV) is present tense. What do they mean? What kind of sin is he referring to? Is he saying that there are some sins that God cannot forgive? There are some other references in the New Testament that we need to address before suggesting what this writer believes John intends. Jesus warned against the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." "I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin" (Mark 3:28, 29). "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit" is a very strong warning: they shall never be forgiven! This is a very dismal warning, but Jesus infers that if one ascribes to the Holy Spirit the works of Satan, then that person has cut himself off from God and would probably never be open to accept and honor God. Another strong reference against rejecting God comes in Hebrews. That writer stated, "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace" (Heb 6:4-6). The key to this warning seems to lie in rejecting of, or crucifying of, the Son of God. If we cut off our relationship with Jesus Christ, there is nothing else, there is nobody else who can save us. This reference is parallel to Hebrews 10:26, "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left." The Hebrew writer is dealing here with a different mindset of the sinner than some other references. The key to this is "deliberately keep on sinning" and "no sacrifice for sins is left." The Hebrew writer had devoted this book to those who were turning back from Christ and going back to the Law of Moses. He declares that there is no more sacrifice for sins if we reject Jesus. He is the last sacrifice; there will be no more!

John's reference to "sin unto death" (the older translations reflect the Greek construction more accurately than the NIV) seems to be a different situation. It is possible that John is using this language to indict those false teachers who were claiming that Jesus was not born in the flesh. Their sin would likely be "unto death," that is, until they died. These brothers had gone out from them. John does not name any specific sin as a "sin unto death." John does not use the article "the" in the Greek text, thus allowing the translation "sin unto death" rather than "the sin unto death." "Sin unto death" should be regarded as those sins from which no recovery is possible.

John is concerned here in this passage with a brother who commits "a sin that does not lead to death" (v. 16) which another brother sees him committing. If that sin is not "unto death" we should pray for the brother and God will give him life or forgiveness. John specifically states, I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death . He then directly refers to the sin that does not lead to death . He declares that there is sin that does not lead to death . What sin is, or whether there is a specific sin that leads to death, John does not tell us. But, he says, I am not saying that he should pray about that . This statement is difficult for us to interpret. There is definitely sin that leads to death and sin that does not lead to death. What that specific sin is, John does not say. However, undoubtedly those who were reading John's original letter surely would have known. This is the reason this writer associates the "sin unto death" as the rejection of the humanity of Jesus; hence, he seems to be directing his teaching to the gnostic Docetics about whom this entire letter is concerned.

5:17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

John sets about now to tell us what sin is. Wrongdoing , from adikia, which has the meaning of "unright living." He intensifies the meaning of this statement by stating that "all wrongdoing, or unrighteousness, is sin." Furthermore, he states that there is some wrongdoing that does not lead to death. (See previous discussion for more about "sin unto death."

5:18We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him.

We have already seen that the one born of God does not live a life of sin (see comments on 1 John 3:6 and 9). Here, John adds another dimension to this concept. He says, the one who was born of God keeps him safe . This statement is a little ambivalent on first reading. He is not talking about "anyone born of God," but the "one born of God" undoubtedly referring to Jesus. He is the center of all of John's argument. The Docetics were dividing the church and spreading the heresy that Jesus was not God's Son, born of the virgin Mary. John says, this is the one who keeps the ones born of God safe. Jesus has conquered death, the last stronghold of Satan, and Satan cannot touch God's children. Believing that Jesus is the Son of God in the flesh, obeying his commands and loving the brothers is a shield against Satan.

5:19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one. 5:20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true - even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

In his concluding remarks, John hits repeatedly on the theme that the Christian has knowledge that is directly contradictory to the mystical knowledge the Gnostic claimed. Christ brought to us both understanding of God's nature, and eternal life, because he not only came from God, but is the true God.

5:21 Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.

The final exhortation by John, to keep away from idols, stands in for all that he has said earlier in the letter about walking in the light and not continuing to sin. Whether the particular form of this final instruction indicates a Gentile audience or not, idol worship was a problem that had plagued God's people throughout the history of the world. In the early days of the Ephesian church, before they "lost [their] first love" (Rev 2:4), the Ephesian Christians had been very conscientious in cutting themselves off from their old practices - so much so that it affected the city's economy as recorded in Acts 19. John's concern is that his "dear children" be just as conscientious that nothing take the place of the true God, revealed to us in the Word made Flesh (John 1:14).

QUESTIONS ON FIRST JOHN

Consider These as You Read 1 John 1:1-4

1. Is there "scientific" proof for the truth of the Christian gospel?

2. What does the use of the verbs of hearing, seeing, and handling indicate about the author's relationship to the incarnation?

3. What does John say is his two-fold purpose of writing (1 John 1:3-4)?

4. How does John's claim to sensory experience with the "word of life" answer the Gnostic problem?

5. What other New Testament writing begins with a similar prologue?

6. What do we know about the word (logos) from John's Gospel? (Read John 1:1-14.)

7. How does this writing become part of the fulfillment of John's Apostolic Commission? (Compare 1 John 1:2-3 and Acts 1:8.)

Questions for Review of 1 John 1:1-4

1. How are John's answers to the Gnostic problem relevant in our time?

2. What does "God In A Test Tube" mean? In what way does the experience of John with the Incarnate Word prove the fact of God's being? (See John 14:1-9.)

3. Whom among the twelve Apostles demanded "scientific proof" of the resurrection? (See John 20:24-25.)

4. Why does John say "That which" rather than "Whom" in 1 John 1:1?

5. Name some specific incidents in the life of Jesus which John could still see "in his mind's eye."

6. What specific incidents in John's relationship with Jesus gave him opportunity to actually touch him?

7. What are John's qualifications to write this message?

8. What difference does the Incarnation make in the means by which we may understand life?

9. What is the key word of 1 John?

10. What is the real meaning of the word "fellowship" as used by the New Testament writers?

11. With whom do we have fellowship on the basis of the Apostolic witness to the Incarnation according to 1 John 1:3?

12. Does John write to bring people into the fellowship or to maintain those who are already in it?

13. What does the meaning of fellowship teach us about the necessity of the incarnation? (Cf. Hebrews 2:14-18.)

14. In addition to his concern that his readers remain in the fellowship of the Father and the Son, what is John's personal reason for this writing?

Consider These as You Read 1 John 1:5

1. Why does John change from the neuter "that which" of the prologue to the masculine "him?"

2. What does John mean by "light?"

3. What does John mean by "darkness?"

4. What are the practical implications of this verse for the Christian life?

Questions for Review of 1 John 1:5

1. What is the basis of John's argument in 1 John?

2. What statement by John summarizes the entire ministry of Jesus, including both his actions and teachings?

3. Describe the glory of God. (Read Exodus 24:17; 40:34 and 1 Kings 8:11.)

4. What did the oriental mystery cults teach about light and darkness?

5. What did the Greek and Roman religions teach about light and darkness?

6. When John says "God is light," does he agree or disagree with the pagan religions of the day? Explain.

7. What three "tests of life" constitute the framework of 1 John?

8. What does the light of God reveal about personal sin?

9. What is love in John's writings? What does love give and why?

10. How does John know God is light?

11. How does the truth revealed by Jesus differ from truth in other areas of investigation? How is it similar?

12. What gives meaning to truth discovered by man in the areas of science and the humanities?

Consider These as You Read 1 John 1:6-7

1. How is it possible for sinful men to "walk in the light as he is in the light?"

2. Why does John say ". . . we do not live by the truth," instead of saying ". . . we are not telling the truth?"

3. Why does John change from ". . . have fellowship with him" in verse 6 to ". . . have fellowship one with another . . ." in verse 7?

Questions for Review of 1 John 1:6-7

1 . What are two practical results of walking in the light as he is in the light?

2. How does the light of God come into our lives?

3. Why do men refuse to walk in this light (John 3:16-21)?

4. How is the same truth contrasted in these two verses?

5. Does "walking in the light" imply moral perfection equal to that of God? Explain.

6. How is the truth of 1 John 1:6 related to that of John 14:6?

7. To walk in the light as he is in the light is to ____________ .

8.What does God's light in Christ reveal about personal guilt?

9. Why are men at war with one another?

10. To leave the fellowship of those who walk in the light results in broken fellowship also with __________________ .

11. The first thing the gospel message says to anyone is what?

12. How does the life of Jesus reveal the guilt of others?

13. What purifies us from all sin?

14. What is meant by the statement, "Nothing could be more diametrically opposed to the Gnostic than John's statement about the blood?" How is this the most "anti-Gnostic" terminology possible?

15. How is the summary statement of 1 John 1:6-7 relevant to the religious atmosphere of our day?

Consider These as You Read 1 John 1:8- 2:6

1. Is it possible for a child of God to sin?

2. What should a Christian do if he does sin?

3. What are the consequences of claiming we do not sin?

4. What is the relationship of Jesus now to a Christian who does sin?

5. What does it mean to "know" God?

6. Does the claim to know God in any way obligate the one making the claim?

7. What is the intended end of God's love to man?

Questions for Review of 1 John 1:8-2:6

1. What does the claim not to sin reveal about the sincerity of the one making the claim (1 John 1:8)?

2. What does "if we confess our sins" mean (1 John 1:9)?

3. What is the attitude toward God of one who claims he has not sinned (1 John 1:10)?

4. Why does John say he is writing these things (1 John 2:1)?

5. If one should sin, we have an advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1). Explain.

6. Jesus is our propitiation for our sin (1 John 2:2). Explain.

7. In what sense is Jesus also a propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2; compare 1 John 2:5)?

8. How does 1 John 2:3 challenge the claim of the Gnostic to special knowledge of God?

9. How is keeping God's commands evidence that we know him (1 John 2:4)?

10. How does the love of God reach its intended end in the life of the individual believer (1 John 2:5)?

11. What does it mean to "walk as Jesus walked" (1 John 2:6)?

12. What is the moral obligation of one who claims to know God (1 John 2:6)?

13. State in your own words, in a single sentence, the first test presented in 1 John whereby we may assure ourselves that we have eternal life.

Consider These as You Read 1 John 2:7-17

1. The relationship between spiritual darkness and hatred.

2. The relationship between light and love.

3. How a command can be both new and old.

4. How our relationship to our brothers in Christ indicates our relationship to God.

5. How the proper direction of love is essential to life.

6. Why one cannot love God and the world at once.

Questions for Review of 1 John 2:7-17

1. 1 John 2:7-11

a. To what command does John refer in vv. 7 & 8?

b. How can this command be both new and old?

c. What is the significance of "Dear friends" in v. 7?

d. Explain why John here commands to love our brothers rather than our enemies. (Compare v. 5.)

e. What is the source of brotherhood?

f. How is the absence of love proof that one is "walking in darkness?"

g. What are two possible interpretations of v. 10?

h. Which of these two seems most likely to be John's real meaning? Support your answer.

2. 1 John 2:12-14

a. What is one possible explanation of John's repetition in these verses?

b. Of what blessing is the new Christian likely to be most aware?

c. What is the significance of John's writing to the older men of the church "because you have known him who is from the beginning?"

d. Why does John address the young men, "Because you are strong, and the word of God lives in you, and you have overcome the evil one?"

3. 1 John 2:15-17

a. What is the meaning of "love" as John uses it here?

b. What is the basis for the conclusion, "Man must love something?"

c. What three classifications does John use for the "things of the world?"

d. What is the meaning of "the cravings of sinful man" (v. 16)?

e. What is the meaning of "the lust of his eyes?"

f. What is the meaning of "boasting of what he has and does?"

g. If there is nothing essentially wrong with these things, why does John demand that we not love them?

h. What is the result of loving God?

i. What is the result of loving the things of the world?

j. How does the statement that a Christian has "passed away" reflect fuzzy thinking about the results of love?

Consider These as You Read 1 John 2:18-28

1. How our faith in Jesus as God's only Son is evidence that we are in fellowship with God.

2. What is the meaning of antichrist?

3. What does our anointing from the Holy Spirit have to do with the truth that Jesus is the Christ?

4. Who are those who "went out from us?"

5. How does the promise of eternal life relate to our holding fast the message of the gospel?

6. How does being mindful of our anointing keep us from denying Jesus?

Questions for Review of 1 John 2:18-28

1. What is the significance of the fact that there is no "the" with last hour ( v. 18)?

2. What is the purpose of 1 John?

3. What do the terms "last hour" and "last day" seem to indicate in pre-Christian usage?

4. In what sense may the entire Christian era be considered a last hour?

5. What light do Acts 2:16ff and Galatians 3:6-29 throw on John's discussion of a last hour in connection with the Christian's anointing of the Holy Spirit?

6. What is the literal meaning of the word "Christ?"

7. If one is against Christ, is he not opposed to all those who are anointed of God?

8. Who, besides Jesus, may be called "anointed ones?"

9. Does the Bible anywhere identify antichrist with the "Man of Sin?"

10. If the coming of Christ is the beginning of a last hour, is not the coming of those who oppose him and his anointed ones also proof of the same?

11. Are there antichrists in the world today? Explain.

12. What proves that the antichrists were not "of us" ( v. 19)?

13. What is the relationship of the church to the presence of Christ on earth today ( v. 20)?

14. Who receives the anointing of the Holy Spirit?

15. Is "scholarship" to be feared by the uneducated Christian? Explain ( v. 21).

16. What is the decisive proof of falsehood ( vv. 22-23)?

17. Can one claim honestly to know God as Father while denying the deity of Jesus?

18. Who first presented the idea that God is Father?

19. What is the condition of eternal life presented by John in this passage ( vv. 24-25)?

20. What is the standard by which all truth is determined?

21. What is the relationship between knowledge of God and presence of eternal life?

22. How does the awareness of the presence of the Holy Spirit make the denial of Christ less likely?

23. Who has most reason to be afraid and ashamed in the presence of Jesus ( v. 28)?

Consider These as You Read 1 John 2:29

1. The meaning of righteous and righteousness.

2. The relationship of divine sonship to personal righteousness in terms of cause and effect.

3. How righteousness is an unavoidable test of truth for the claim to be a son of God.

Questions for Review of 1 John 2:29

1. In the first cycle of tests presented in 1 John, the author tests fellowship with God as ____________ .

2. In the present cycle of tests, introduced in 1 John 2:29, he tests fellowship with God as _________________ .

3. In testing fellowship as walking in the light, the proof lies in our _____________________ .

4. In testing fellowship as divine sonship, the proof lies in our outward ____________________ .

5. The outward test of personal righteousness corresponds to our attitude toward ______________ .

6. The outward test of behavior toward our brothers corresponds to our inward attitude of ______________ for them.

7. Our open confession of Jesus as the Christ corresponds to our inward _________________ .

8. In 1 John 2:29, the idea of ________________ is introduced for the first time in 1 John.

9. What is the proof presented in 1 John 2:29 as the natural result of having been born of God?

10. What is the meaning of righteousness as used in this verse?

11. What is the difference between the righteousness practiced by the sons of God and the subjective "goodness" of the "new morality?"

Consider These as You Read 1 John 3:1-3

1. What "manner of love" has God shown us?

2. Why does the world not know the sons of God?

3. How will "seeing him as he is" transform us to become like him?

Questions for Review of 1 John 3:1-3

1. Compare 1 John 3:1 with John 3:16.

2. Eternal life, here tested as divine sonship, results from the same _____________________ .

3. Not just Calvary, but the entire _________________ brought God's love to bear upon our need.

4. The contemporary countrymen of Jesus rejected him because they could not accept a ____________________ as God's Son.

5. The Gnostic could accept the humanity of Jesus without rejecting his _________________ .

6. How does the modern "pseudo-intellectual" rejection of the deity of Jesus follow the same pattern as that of the Jews and the Gnostics?

7. What is John's constant reaction to the awareness that he is a son of God?

8. How is this amazement contrasted to the modern philosophy of the "fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man?"

9. Brotherhood results from common ____________________ .

10. To become a child of God one must __________________ (John 1:12).

11. When does eternal life begin?

12. When do we begin to be the sons of God?

13. What light does 1 Corinthians 15:35 shed on 1 John 3:2?

14. How does the awareness of present sonship and future glory affect the lives of the children of God?

15. Is one a child of God because he is righteous, or is righteousness the result of divine sonship?

Consider These as You Read 1 John 3:4-10

1. If we are not under law, how is sin considered lawlessness?

2. Is it impossible for a child of God to sin?

3. How does the "seed" of God remain in the child of God?

4. Who are the children of the devil?

5. What is the basic moral contrast between the life of sin and the life of divine Sonship?

Questions for Review of 1 John 3:4-10

1. All sin is contrary to God's authority. Explain.

2. God's original plan was to have a family of children who were ___________ and without ___________ (Ephesians 1:4).

3. To be without blemish is to be ____________ as a result of holiness.

4. The opposite of holiness is _______________ .

5. Lawlessness always results in _________________ behavior.

6. What is the difference between paternity and fatherhood?

7. The purpose for which Christ came is stated two ways in this passage. What are they?

8. Who was originally responsible for the accomplishment of God's purpose in man?

9. How does the character of Jesus demonstrate the need for righteousness in the lives of God's children?

10. What is the secret of Jesus' sinless life?

11. Total commitment always issues in a ________________ life.

12. What does John mean by "remaining in him?"

13. Righteousness to John is not theory but ________________ .

14. What is the origin of all sin?

15. Does the Bible attempt to prove there is a devil?

16. What is the basis upon which Jesus said some are children of the devil (John 8:44)?

17. What is the origin of righteousness?

Consider These as You Read 1 John 3:11-24

1. What is the relation of command to love (3:11) and to God as light (1:5) since both are presented as summary of the divine message?

2. How does the first murder demonstrate the effect of hate on the one hating?

3. Can a Christian ever be liked by the world? Explain. (Compare 1 John 3:13 and Acts 2:47.)

4. When do Christians pass from death to life?

5. How can one be a murderer without killing anyone?

6. What is the relationship of love to need?

7. How do one's actions prove or disprove one's claim to divine sonship?

8. Should a Christian ever feel guilty to the point of self-condemnation?

9. Why are so many prayers seemingly unanswered?

10. What is Christian behavior in matters where there is no express command from God?

11. How does the experience of answered prayer have any bearing on John's argument that Jesus is indeed the Christ?

12. How does the habit of believing Christ and loving our brothers affirm the deity of Christ?

13. How does the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives affirm the deity of Christ?

Questions for Review of 1 John 3:11-24

1. The second summary of the message of the incarnation in 1 John 3:11 is ________________________ .

2. It is the nature of the life which we have in Christ to become a source of ____________ to others.

3. This is accomplished when we __________________ .

4. How does the murder of Abel by Cain demonstrate that the world is prone to hate those who practice righteousness?

5. The confrontation of righteousness by unrighteousness normally results in ___________________________ .

6. Because love is obedience to God it is also _____________ .

7. When does a Christian "pass from death to life?"

8. Do we love because we have eternal life, or do we have eternal life because we love?

9. Hate is the absence of ___________ just as ________________ is the absence of light.

10. The word translated "hate" in 1 John 3:15 means ______________ .

11. Failure to love is proof of the absence of _______________ .

12. How does the world become aware of love as we know it in Christ?

13. How do we demonstrate divine love in such a way that it is recognizable?

14. Just as he brought eternal life in the presence of our need, so we are to give in the presence of temporal needs.

15. Does giving what we can afford demonstrate divine love? Explain.

16. Many will be surprised in the judgment, who expect to be saved, because they have not learned to give rather than _________________________ .

17. How may we have assurance before God, even when our hearts condemn us?

18. Explain the statement, "No Christian has any right to a guilt complex."

19. One of the greatest blessings of the Christian life is realized forgiveness. Explain this statement in light of 1 John 3:20.

20. The only basis upon which one's heart can fail to condemn him is ______________________ .

21. The experience of answered prayer is evidence of ________________ according to 1 John 3:22.

22. What conditions must be present in our lives in order to pray effectively?

23. Why does the term "father" not suggest authority to us today?

24. Which is more important, the question, "Who is Jesus?" Or our personal belief in the answer, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God?"

25. _________________________ is still the only hope of healing the divisions caused by false teaching.

26. How does the anointing of the Spirit demonstrate that we are in the Christ?

Consider These as You Read 1 John 4:1-6

1 How does the presence of the Spirit prove we have been born of God?

2. Are there preachers (or prophets) who deliberately and knowingly preach what they know to be false?

3. Are men today as conscious of the "spirit world" as they were in the first century?

4. Is the Spirit not as active in the church today as in John's time?

5. When one denies Jesus as Christ, what is he actually denying?

6. Why will false teachers not listen to truth?

7. If people have a faulty concept of life and reality, are they beyond the preaching of the gospel to them is useless?

Questions for Review of 1 John 4:1-6

1. What is the meaning of the phrase "of God" or "from God" as used in this passage of 1 John ?

2. At what point does Christian tolerance become gullibility?

3. How do you account for the fact that the outward demonstration of the Spirit was more evident in the first century church than today?

4. What is the test by which we are to "prove the spirits to see whether they are of God?"

5. What is the primary work of a prophet?

6. Why do prophets often refer to future events in revealing the present will of God?

7. What does John's test prove about the claim of modern liberals that the Ecumenical Movement is led by the Spirit of God? Explain.

8. Does the fact of spiritual activity prove that the activity originates in God? What is the test of divine origin for such activity?

9. To recognize Jesus as Messiah is to recognize him as ____________ and ____________ .

10. As Prophet, how does the Christ function?

11. As Priest, how does the Christ function?

12. As King, how does the Christ function?

13. What is the difference between confessing that Jesus as Christ came as flesh and confessing simply that Jesus is the Christ?

14. The man, Jesus, whom we confess as Christ, is not of human origin. Explain.

15. John 1:1 teaches three things about Jesus that have a direct bearing on the confession here presented as a test of false teaching. What are those three things?

16. In order to accomplish the purpose of God in man, Jesus _______________ with his own blood.

17. To do this he became flesh, thus _________________ with those he came to redeem.

18. It is in the capacity of divine Redeemer that he voluntarily submitted himself to learn ______________ .

19. To be recognized as originating in God, to be Christian, the message of a prophet must _______________ .

20. Why does John refer to the spirit of antichrist as "it" rather than "he?"

21. What is meant by the statement, "The children of God have the assistance of God himself . . . whereas the false prophets are "on their own?"

Consider These as You Read 1 John 4:7-12

1. How can John say "everyone who loves has been born of God," and then refer to Jesus as "his one and only Son?"

2. How is the practice of loving evidence of knowing God?

3. How can John say "God is light" (1 John 1:5) and then say "God is love" in this passage?

4. How is God's love for us related to our loving one another?

5. What is the end perfection of God's love?

Questions for Review of 1 John 4:7-12

1. Why does John say we are to love one another?

2. What is the source of Christian love?

3. God learned what it is like to be human through ________________________ .

4. The experience by which we get to know "what it is like to be God" is the experience of _______________ .

5. Name experiences that are common to both God and man.

6. Loving your brothers proves that we are _______________ .

7. Does John say that love is God? Explain.

8. What evidence is there in 1 John 4:9-10 that John is familiar with the virgin birth of Jesus?

9. Jesus is God's Son by _____________________________ while we may become God's sons through _______________ .

10. How do you reconcile the claim "Jesus is God as man" with the statement, "Jehovah, he is God, there is none other than he alone?"

11. The term "Son of God" applied to Jesus describes _____________________ .

12. Why did Jesus become a man?

13. What is the only way in which God can become a man and still be God?

14. Our acceptance of God's love for us carries with it the moral obligation to _______________ .

15. One who does not love has no ______________ .

16. The love of God reaches its intended end when God __________________ .

17. Evidence of God in us is that we _______________ .

18. The ultimate knowledge that man can have of God comes from the experience of ________________ .

Consider These as You Read 1 John 4:13-16

1. How the Spirit of God in us is evidence that we are in him and he in us.

2. The significance of John's reference here to his eyewitness experience with Jesus.

3. How confession of Jesus as the Son of God is evidence we are in God and God in us.

4. How love can be the object of belief.

5. Why John repeats here what he has already said in 1 John 4:8, that "God is love."

Questions for Review of 1 John 4:13-16

1. What are two alternatives concerning John's reference in v. 13 to "the Spirit he has given us?"

2. What is the essential testimony of the Spirit?

3. To what does John appeal in v. 14 as the basis of his claim that Jesus is God's Son and the Savior of the world?

4. What are the tests by which phenomena of the past are established as historical?

5. How does the resurrection prove the claim of Jesus to be the Son of God and Savior of the world?

6. Does the resurrection, as recorded in the New Testament, meet the tests of historicity? Explain your answer.

7. Can you suggest other events in the life of Jesus which may be put to the same test?

8. What is meant by "the area where the experience of God and the experience of man merge?"

9. The love which we share with God was first brought to light by ______________________ .

10. In what way is the love of God said to be the object of the Christian's faith?

11. Is John here discussing the means by which we come to salvation? Explain your answer.

12. Can the "steps to salvation" contradict the evidences that we are indeed in a saving relationship to God? Explain.

Consider These as You Read 1 John 4:17-5:3

1. What is the relationship of obedience to righteousness?

2. What is the relationship of righteousness to love?

3. Why do Christians love their brothers in Christ?

4. Who is my brother in Christ?

5. How may I know that I am fulfilling the command to love my brother?

Questions for Review of 1 John 4:17-5:3

1. How is righteousness said to be a demonstration of love?

2. What is the intended end of our love for our brothers?

3. Does one who loves his brother fear death? Explain.

4. Is the preaching of love "soft pedaling" the gospel? Explain.

5. What is the one command of God which cannot be counterfeited?

6. What is the difference between these two statements:

(a) "I love him because he first loved me."

(b) "I love because he first loved me?"

7. How can I identify my Christian brother? Explain.

8. Is there a difference between "being begotten" and "being born," in terms of entrance into the family of God?

9. Explain the meaning of "regeneration."

10. Explain why the teaching that baptism is essential to salvation is not the same as teaching salvation by works.

11. Faith is always ____________________ .

12. Divine love in God's children is not recognized by feeling but by _________________ .

13. If we learn to love our brothers, and practice this love, we may even learn to ____________________ .

14. Explain how God's commands are not burdensome to one who loves him.

Consider These as You Read 1 John 5:4-12

1. What does John mean by "overcome the world?"

2. How does faith that Jesus is the Christ enable one to overcome the world?

3. How does the Spirit testify that Jesus is the Son of God?

4. What should be the Bible believer's attitude toward textual problems such as the one found in some versions of 1 John 5:7b?

5. What has God testified concerning his Son?

6. Is it possible to have eternal life and not believe that Jesus is indeed the Christ, the Son of God? Explain your answer.

7. Is it possible to not call Jesus "Lord" and have eternal life?

Questions for Review of 1 John 5:4-12

1. Why is the statement concerning the three witnesses which is found in the King James Version of 1 John omitted from more recent versions (v. 7)?

2. Why are the commands of God not burdensome to the children of God?

3. What is the source of victorious power in the life of a Christian which is not available to the world?

4. How does the life of the "average church member" today support the doctrine of Karl Marx that "religion is the opiate of the people?"

5. Give a definition of "faith" as John uses it in 1 John 5:4.

6. Explain the statement, "The sons of God are not the victims of circumstance."

7. Is faith just a positive attitude toward life?

8. One form of Gnosticism called Cerenthic claimed that whatever was divine about Jesus came upon him at ________________ and left him at ______________ .

9. What is John's answer to this claim?

10. The Spirit and the water and the blood all testify to one thing. What is the purpose of their testimony?

11. In our day, the testimony of the Spirit includes what?

12. How does the Spirit testify of Jesus' presence in our own lives?

13. In order for rationalism to destroy belief in the deity of Jesus it must first destroy the ______________ of Scripture.

14. The person who does not believe in the deity of Jesus as the incarnate Son of God has made the Spirit a ___________ .

15. Real victory over the world comes from faith which gives us a constant awareness of ____________ .

16. A great deal of our failure to overcome the world comes from our inability to keep to ________________ .

17. To have victory over the world is to make ____________ the master and _________________ the servant.

18. How does our giving to the church aid in our overcoming the world in our personal lives?

Consider These as You Read 1 John 5:13-21

1. How does one remove the "maybes" concerning his hope of eternal life?

2. What is the source of confidence in prayer?

3. If no one who is born of God sins, why does John ask that we pray for a brother when we see him sinning?

4. What is "the sin that leads to death?"

5. Does 1 John 5:18 support the doctrine of "eternal security?"

6. How is idolatry related to the danger of Gnosticism against which this letter was written?

Questions for Review of 1 John 5:13-21

1. In addition to our experience in Christian living, we also may rely upon _____________ to confirm the certainty of eternal life.

2. What is John's reason for writing 1 John, as stated in his own words?

3. How does this reason for writing correspond with his reason for writing the fourth Gospel?

4. Can man ever cease to be created in the image of God? What meaning does this give to eternal life?

5. Eternal life is that kind of life that finds its fullest expression in __________________ .

6. While life identified with this present world produces _____________ , eternal life produces _______________ . (Cf. Galatians 3:20-ff.)

7. Believing "into the name" of the Son of God means ____________ .

8. Name five limitations which John places upon prayer.

9. What is the single exception to the certainty of prayer which meets these limitations?

10. Why does John discuss the certainty of prayer in this letter which deals with the evidences of eternal life?

11. What does the Bible teach about the "unpardonable sin?"

12. What does John mean by "sinning sin toward death?"

13. "Continuing to sin" describes a _____________ rather than a ________________ .

14. List three distinct certainties upon which the child of God can stake his eternal life.

15. What is meant by "understanding" in 1 John 5:20?

16. A Christian not only does his best to avoid sin, he relies upon ________________ to make up the difference between what he does and what he ought to do.

17. How is the danger of idolatry even more dangerous now than when John wrote?

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: 1Jo 5:7

1 JOHN 5:7 —Why is this verse on the Trinity missing in many modern translations?

PROBLEM: John declares that “there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one” ( KJV ). This is the clearest statement on the Trinity in the Bible. However, most modern translations omit this verse. Why?

SOLUTION: The reason is very simple. This verse has virtually no support among the early Greek manuscripts, though it is found in Latin manuscripts. Its appearance in late Greek manuscripts is based on the fact that Erasmus was placed under ecclesiastical pressure to include it in his Greek NT of 1522, having omitted it in his two earlier editions of 1516 and 1519 because he could not find any Greek manuscripts which contained it.

Its inclusion in the Latin Bible probably results from a scribe incorporating a marginal comment (gloss) into the text as he copied the manuscript of 1 John. But including it in the text violates almost every rule of textual criticism. Even the NKJV , which generally retains the longer readings and disputed passages (see Mark 16:9ff and John 7:53-8:11 ), comments in the margin that this is “a passage found in only four or five very late Greek mss.”   

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 5 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

1Jo 5:1, He that loves God loves his children, and keeps his commandments; 1Jo 5:3, which to the faithful are not grievous; 1Jo 5:9, Jesus is the Son of God; 1Jo 5:14, and able to hear our prayers.

Poole: 1 John 5 (Chapter Introduction)

JOHN CHAPTER 5

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 5 (Chapter Introduction)

(1Jo 5:1-5) Brotherly love is the effect of the new birth, which makes obedience to all God's commandments pleasant.

(1Jo 5:6-8) Reference to witnesses agreeing to prove that Jesus, the Son of God, is the true Messiah.

(1Jo 5:9-12) The satisfaction the believer has about Christ, and eternal life through him.

(1Jo 5:13-17) The assurance of God's hearing and answering prayer.

(1Jo 5:18-21) The happy condition of true believers, and a charge to renounce all idolatry.

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 5 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter the apostle asserts, I. The dignity of believers (1Jo 5:1). II. Their obligation to love, and the trial of it (1Jo 5:1-3). III. Their victory (1Jo 5:4, 1Jo 5:5). IV. The credibility and confirmation of their faith (1Jo 5:6-10). V. The advantage of their faith in eternal life (1Jo 5:11-13). VI. The audience of their prayers, unless for those who have sinned unto death (1Jo 5:14-17). VII. The preservation from sin and Satan (1Jo 5:18). VIII. Their happy distinction from the world (1Jo 5:19). IX. Their true knowledge of God (1Jo 5:20), upon which they must depart from idols (1Jo 5:21).

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 5 (Chapter Introduction)

Love Within The Divine Family (2Jo_5:1-2)

The Necessary Obedience (2Jo_5:3-4)

The Conquest Of The World (2Jo_5:4-5)

The Water And The Blood (2Jo_5:6-8)

The Triple Witness (2Jo_5:6-8 Continued)

The Undeniable Witness (2Jo_5:9-10)

The Essence Of The Faith (2Jo_5:11-13)

The Basis And The Principle Of Prayer (2Jo_5:14-15)

Praying For The Brother Who Sins (2Jo_5:16-17)

Sin Whose End Is Death (2Jo_5:16-17 Continued)

The Essence Of Sin (2Jo_5:16-17 Continued)

The Threefold Certainty (2Jo_5:18-20)

The Constant Peril (2Jo_5:21)

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 5 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 1 JOHN 5

In this chapter the apostle treats of the nature of faith and love; of Christ the object of both, and of the witness that is bore to him; of the necessity of believing the testimony concerning him; of the confidence of prayer being heard, and concerning whom it should be made; of the happiness of regenerate persons, and of their duty to keep themselves from idols. Faith in Christ is the evidence of regeneration, and where that is, there will be love to the author of regeneration, and to them that are regenerated; and love to them is known by love to God, and keeping his commandments; and keeping the commandments of God, and which are not grievous, is a proof of love to God, 1Jo 5:1; and whereas every regenerate man overcomes the world, it is by his faith, the evidence of his regeneration, that this victory is obtained; nor can any other man be pointed out that overcomes the world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God, 1Jo 5:4; and Christ, the Son of God, the object of this victorious faith, is described by his coming by water and blood, of which the spirit is witness, who is a true one; and six witnesses of the truth of this and his divine sonship are produced, three in heaven, the Father, Word, and Spirit, who are the one God, and three on earth, the Spirit, water, and blood, who agree in their testimony, 1Jo 5:6; wherefore this testimony concerning the Son of God ought to be received, since it is the testimony of God, which is greater than that of men; besides, he that believes in Christ has a witness of this in himself, and honours God, whereas he that believes not makes God a liar, not giving credit to his record concerning his Son; the sum of which is, that God has made a grant of eternal life to some persons, which is in his Son, which those that believe in the Son of God have, but those that do not believe in him have it not: all which show the necessity of receiving the above testimony; and the ends proposed in writing these things were, to believe in Christ, and that it might be known they had eternal life in him, 1Jo 5:9, and from faith in Christ the apostle passes to confidence in prayer, as a particular effect and fruit of it: as, that whatever is asked according to the will of God is heard; and that such who are satisfied of this, that they are heard, may be assured that they have the petitions they desire to have, 1Jo 5:14, and whereas it is one branch of prayer to pray for others as well as for ourselves, the apostle directs who we should pray for; for the brethren in general, and in particular for such who have sinned, but not unto death, and life shall be given to such: but as for those who have sinned unto death, he does not say prayer should be made for them, for though all unrighteousness in general is sin, yet there is a particular sin which is unto death, and is not to be prayed for, 1Jo 5:16; but happy are those who are born of God, for they do not sin this sin; and through the use of the armour of God, and the power of divine grace, they keep themselves from the evil one, and he cannot come at them, to draw them into this sin; also they know that they are of God, and are distinguished from the world, which lies in wickedness; yea, they know that the Son of God is come in the flesh, and hath given them an understanding of the true God, by which they know that they are in him, and in his Son Jesus Christ, who is with him, and the divine Spirit, the one true God, and the author and giver of eternal life, 1Jo 5:18; and the chapter, and with it the epistle, is concluded with an exhortation to these regenerate ones, as they had kept themselves from Satan, that they would also keep themselves from idols of all sorts, 1Jo 5:21.

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.