1 John

For matters of the unity of 1 John, see http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/dohertyjnlet.html

1:1That which was from the beginning, 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; 2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

Scholars unanimously see here a parallel structure like that which begins John's Gospel, which would point to the same authorship. But some dispute this point and only see a relationship in which a different author used (and "adulterated") John's Prologue. Brown [178f] argues that the same author would not so awkwardly rework his Prologue. I disagree. There is first to consdier the difference between the Gospel -- a project for which John likely had the leisure of planning and note-taking -- and the Epistle, which was written for an urgent purpose. Second, Brown acknowledges that the Prologue was rewritten specifically to answer those who distorted what the Prologue said. But it would certainly result in an awkward, more clumsy product to have to rewrite something for another purpose. Imagine for example having to rewrite The Star Spangled Banner to answer charges from those who say America is an imperialist tyranny. The awkwardness of the 1J prologue simply is not a valid argument against common authorship with John's Gospel.

5This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Because God is both light and in the light the meaning is not that this is what God's nature is [Gra.JE, 47] but must be read in view of the contrast made between light and darkness, and thus indicating what "side" God is on.

As in John's Gospel, there was a past effort to read John's light-dark dualism in terms of Gnostic thought, and Bultmann was a prime force behind this view. However, even his student Strecker [26f] has admitted the difficulties of this view. Strecker rejects a comparison to Qumran sources on the grounds that the Qumran documents nowhere identify God with "light" or offer an idea of a broker of access to God. However, the latter idea was an integral part of Judaism already and would be implied (Moses!), while concerning the former, the point is not that John borrowed from Qumran texts, but that there is no need to wander around to Gnostic texts, or as Strecker does to syncretistic texts, to find dualistic ideas; they are present in Judaism, and it is not a large step from "light is good" to "God is light." Strecker has also rejected and refuted Bultmann's contrived arguments [31] that the reference to the blood of Jesus was interpolated.

8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Here John seems to be beginning to address a point of view held by opponents, who regarded themselves as having no sin (and so no need to confess sins). This would fit in with the idea that they were adoptionists, for they would say that Jesus was a normal guy (a sinner!) before the spirit descended on him. They may have gotten the idea that once they received the Spirit, they became sinless like Jesus. Brown confirms this idea [234], suggesting that their stance was that upon becoming a Christian, the believer was "rendered free from the guilt of sin" and that "this condition automatically remained after belief no matter what one did," perhaps appealing to John 3:18/5:24. Brown also [206] adds that there is no need to suppose that the opponents were full-fledged libertines, but need only have minimized what sins they normally committed.

Griffith [120] proposes an alternative view. Rather than taking "if we say" statements as summations of what opponents hold true, Griffith appeals to parallel uses of the phrase "if we say" in other literature, in which the author "brings the reader (or hearer) into association with his own action" [121] though John does this in a negative way as well as part of his dualistic expression. But the natural assumption is that there is indeed someone who holds the view that John encapsulates. The same assumption is just as natural for the parallels Griffith provides.

2:1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Jesus is portrayed here in terms of the broker who mediates between ourselves as clients and God as faithful patron. 2:1 may be written as a way of John anticipating an objection to what he has said in earlier verses, that would be the same one Paul areticulated: "Shall we go on sinning, so that grace may increase?" [Mar.EJ, 116]

3And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

There could be little clearer an example of the expression of Semitic Totality wherein belief is followed upon naturally by action. For more on this idea see http://www.tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.html John will repeat this point several times in different ways, and in so doing is using a specific rhetorical technique, as noted in Watson's thorough study identifying the use of Greco-Roman rhetorical technique within the epistle. [Wats.AT] In particular, Watson identifies the use of weightier affirmation as a key to the rhetorical style of 1J, of the sort recommended by Longinus and Cicero. Another writer in rhetoric, Pseudo-Longinus, wrote: "...(A)mplification always goes with quality and a certain degree of redundance." [ibid., 103] Watson also identifies in 1J the specific tactic of expolitio, or "dwelling on the same topic and yet seeming to say something ever new" - along with a host of other rhetorical tactics, such as strong words, augmentation, comparison, and accumulation.

"He" is ekeinos, "that one," a phrase used in the Gospel of John to refer to God (5:19, 6:29, 8:42), the Paraclete (14:26, 15:26, 16:8, 13, 14), and Jesus himself (1:18, 2:21, 3:28-30, 9:37) - and by the Pythagoreans to refer to their own dead master, and to Jesus again (disparagingly!) in later Judaism. [BrowR.JE, 261] This usage is honorific for the followers of Christ.

7Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. 8Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth. 9He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. 10He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. 11But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

"Brother" is used in terms of the Christian ingroup and is not some "universal brotherhood of mankind" indication. Nevertheless universality is derived from the command to "love thy neighbor" in the Gospels. John's references to hatred of brothers may mean that his opponents held themselves aloof from those who they considered unenlightened.

"Again" (v. 8) should be understood in the sense of, "on the other hand" [Str.JE, 49] or "on second thought" [Bro.EJ, 266], as if John is saying, "The commandment I write is not new; but then again, in a way you could say that it is."

12I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake. 13I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. 14I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. 15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

"Little children" is not John addressing toddlers but using a designation that is likely "a homely Jewish story-telling idiom" similar to that found in Tobit; it simply refers to "members of the community" [Gra.JE, 70].

18Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

For the preterist, Nero was the primary figure in mind here, but he is but the "big name" out of many who are anti-christ in John's day. Grayston [82] makes the interesting suggestion that "last time" is to be taken in the sense of John saying, "that's the final straw" as a response to dissidents he is refuting in the letter, as if to say in a shocking way, "Because of this dissension, are we still a community?"

20But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 22Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 24Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. 25And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. 26These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

An "affirmation" which repeats the essence of the relation of faith and works. The "unction" or anointing may be a case of John polemically using the language of his opponents, who declared that they had a special "unction" to offer, and applying it to his own tradition [Gra.JE, 89]; as we may say: "Anointing? I got your anointing right here, pal!"

2:22 fits well as a response to an adoptionist heresy, for it would claim not that Jesus is the Christ, but that some "spirit" that descended on Jesus was the "Christ" and that Jesus, in and of himself, was not the Christ. Hence Griffith's claim that no such distinction can be discerned is unwarranted.

2:27 does not turn the Holy Spirit into a gumball machine you can just yank learning out of at any time. Smalley [Small.123J, 125] observes that "this absolute declaration about the dispensibility of earthly teachers appears in the course of a document which is heavily didactic!" One may suggest that 1J here is using a merely polemical absolute in light of the problem of false teachers in the church - in the manner of Pink Floyd's "we don't need no education"! The likely source of the problem is Gnostics who insisted that people needed their own "indwelling pnuema" to teach them all manner of hidden things; John responds by noting the sufficiency of the indwelling Spirit believers already have.

28And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. 29If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

John uses the word parousia here. For the preterist this event took place sometime around 70 AD and constitutes the formal enthronement of Jesus as Son of Man in heaven. For more see series at http://www.tektonics.org/esch/eschatology.html Note that John speaks of being ashamed, which fits in with judgment being associated with shame as described at http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html

3:1Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 5And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. 6Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. 7Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Another affirmation of the relation of faith and works, and further poilemical designation of the opponents as getting their ideas from the wrong source!

9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

The uninformed skeptic will throw this one against all sorts of verses (including 1 John 1:8-10) that say we are all sinners. But look at 3:5-8 first. Verse 9 refers to a time after God takes away our sins. Whether 3:9 means that, in God's eyes, we no longer sin (positionally) because our sins are paid for by Jesus Christ; or, whether it means that someone born of God does not go on habitually sinning (though as Griffith observes, this is grammatically possible, but could have been more strongly expressed if so; 129); or, whether it is no more an absolute than the ancient proverb "a wise man cannot fall" is a matter of discussion; but clearly, this single verse can't be used in opposition to any other which calls us all sinners. Grayston [105] for example reads it in a likely way as a "debater's device" against John's opponents who first made the claim that they were free from sin. Marshall [123] adds the salient point that reading these sorts of points as absolute would result in an absurd conclusion: "It would surely be as unreasonable to say that perfect obedience was the necessary sign of true spiritual knowledge as it would be to say that a person must be totally sunk in sin before we can say that he is ignorant of God." Even the most "liberal" of commentators, like Strecker [96], understands here not a "theology of sinlessness" but "a warning to the community to draw the necessary conclusions from the liberating indicative of the Christ-event."

10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 12Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous. 13Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.

Another affirmation regarding loyalty/belief and works; it is parallel to the proverbial wisdom of Jesus concerning good and bad trees and their fruit. John also plays on the example of Cain to further magnify, perhaps, the indifference shown to others by his opponents (note the parallel as well to "the world," thus hinting at the worldliness of his opponents). In so doing John follows a standard Jewish tradition of polarity between Cain and Abel ]109].

14We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. 15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. 16Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? 18My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. 19And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him

Is 3:16 an interpolation? Houlden does say that the sequence is "surprising" - but he does go on to point out that v. 17 following 16 "may well be a revealing symptom" of the setting of 1J [Hould.JE, 100] - he in no way implies that 3:16 was lacking in the original text at all. In fact, the poor of this day, often living hand-to-mouth, in constant threat of disease, war, starvation, etc., were often at the mercy of those with possessions to allow them to survive within the client-patron relationship. Rather than a "dull thud", this is a quite lofty ideal in the perspective of the first century: And if one is not willing to give of possessions to others after considerable exposure to their need (the verb here indicates prolonged awareness of the situation - Small.123J, 196), then how could they have been expected to be counted on to lay down their lives? We may well have had here, as we had in Corinth, a "rich vs. poor" dichotomy that aggravated the situation; but even if not, the admonitions go hand-in-hand from a first-century social perspective. (Not to mention the principle of Jesus, re being trusted with small things.) Or, as Grayston puts it, while it does seem to be a "sudden drop", it is not an unhappy sequence at all, for, "if each member may be called upon to surrender his life for the benefit of the community, how much more must he be willing to surrender his property to help a needy brother." [Gray.JE, 113-4] Brown [Bro.EJ, 475-6] makes much the same point, adding the idea that the opponents may have been people who were better off and "maliciously hoped that poverty and need would ultimately lead the author's adherents to come out and join them" and cites Acts 6:1-6 as a parallel.

20For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. 21Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. 22And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

Is 3:22 carte blanche? See below on 5:18.

23And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 24And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

In these last verses we see the reciprocal relationship ("a sacramentally grounded exchange between God and the community" -- Str.EJ, 128] explained very well in terms of patronage and the "circle dance" of grace and obligation.

4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

What then of demons in the Gospels who "confess" Jesus? The demons are not "confessing" that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh so much as merely stating this fact. Is stating something the same as confessing? The objection is forcing these two words to be equivalent when there is no reason to. Also, the author of 1 John's exhortation to the readers of the epistle is giving members of the Church a way for them, mere humans that they are, to distinguish between the Spirit of God and lying spirits. The Gospel passages do not deal with anything of the sort. Further, "spirits" here is used in the sense of prophetic utterances {cf. 1 Tim. 4:1), not beings like demons; hence the connection to "false prophets"; and parallel phrases like the one in 1QS 3:6-9 (Dead Sea Scrolls) that refer to the "spirit true of counsel" [Gra.JE, 119].

Adoptionists would be the sort who would deny that Jesus came in the flesh; for they declared that the Messiah "spirit" descended on Jesus later, most likely at his baptism, and also perhaps that that spirit left at his crucifixion.

3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

A clear polemical designation of John's opponents as "not of God".

4Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

John's opponents are "of the world" and an adoptionist teaching fits this well: For adoptionists would follow the idea that no true Messiah would undergo a shameful death by crucifixion. There is thus an echo here, perhaps, of the same theme we find in 1 Cor. 1: To the world, the preaching of the cross is foolishness. John's opponents may also have declared that they had an exclusive "hotline" to God; hence John's replies about the strength of prayer and that God hears us. Of course, "the world" would be far more receptive to the Christian message once the shame of crucifixion had been erased.

7Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. 9In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 10Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. 12No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. 13Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

In light of the adoptionist teaching, John re-asserts the love demonstrated by God sending His Son into the world; this would be a perfect counter to claims that the incarnation and/or crucifixion were demeaning. John also emphasizes the deposit of the Spirit as a pledge by the patron (God) to redeem us.

14And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 15Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 16And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

John appeals to his best evidence: His own experience in seeing that Jesus was sent into the world. He of all people, above the opponents especially, ought to know that Jesus didn't merely take on a Christ-spirit but was divine Wisdom incarnate. Anyone denying this truth that he has confirmed personally obviously does not have God dwelling in them (another polemical strike, perhaps, at the opponents' claim to have some special "hotline").

17Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. 18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

What of where the Bible tells people to "fear" God? In the OT, the word that is overwhelmingly used of "fear" is yare. It does mean "be frightened of" but it also has the meaning of "reverence" or respect, and that is what God requests. 1 John uses the word phobos, which does mean fright or alarm, but also carries a double meaning, like yare, of fear or reverence. Therefore what is at issue in John is a matter of degree. This is shown in that John speaks in the context of the final judgment: "Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world." (1:17) The words must be considered to have a shade of meaning, as understood within the linguistic context of Hebrew, which uses "extreme" words to cover a broad range of reactions.

19We love him, because he first loved us. 20If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 21And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

A minor, exemplary affirmation of the faith-works dichotomy; or otherwise, a repetitive affirmation.

5:1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 4For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

Further rhetorical affirmation of points once made.

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

What of the meaning of this passage? A majority of commentators say without hesitation that "water and blood" refer to "Jesus' baptism and crucifixion," and this is quite agreeable, though a few (such as Witherington [With.WB]) prefer to see "water" as meaning Jesus' birth, in line with general usage in the OT, the ANE, and even in the Gospel of John of the word "water" associated with birth. We may lack knowledge here, but this means little, as Houlden says: "To us the words are enigmatic, but in their original intention they must have been both clear and concrete in their application." [Hould.JE, 125] A solution that has been proposed for interpreting this verse says it refers to the waters of baptism for the believer and to the Eucharist. But this must be rejected for two reasons. First, the use of the aorist here ("one who came") argues that this refers to a past moment, not a continual practice as beliefs and ceremonies of this "community" would be. [Small.123J, 277] Second, as Brown puts it, "the author would be choosing a remarkably obscure way of referring to the sacraments, so that one would have to posit that this was well-known inner-community language." And "how does Christ 'come' through the events of his baptism and crucifixion?" Any answer would necessarily be speculative, but several suggestions are viable: That it means "came" in the sense of having come into power and authority through the events (cf. John 17:1) [Small.123J, 278]; that it is an allusion to the Messiah as one who is the "coming one" [Burd.LJA, 365]; that it is used because it was the word used by the adversaries attacked in 1J [BrowR. EJ, 574].

Opponents of John are obviously resisting the inclusion of "blood", and there is a high likelihood that docetism is not at issue here. However, adoptionists, those who maintained that the Christ/redeemer-spirit came upon Jesus at his baptism but departed from him at the Crucifixion, would affirm a denial of "blood" while they stuck to their guns regarding "water". Griffith's [154f] attempt to reduce the polemical force of this verse is not convincing; a high-context document would not require yet another reference to the "antichrists" as he thinks is needed; the Spirit's testimony is what identifies this, moreover, as a polemic against a position.

5:7 seems like a fairly solid testimony to the Trinity (one we actually don't need) but is it a genuine article?

External evidence. On these grounds the deck is heavily stacked against the Comma [Mar.EJ, 236; Brown, 1 John commentary, 775ff]: