Truth Magazine

By John McCort

“One thing that we may have but which we cannot keep for ourselves is divine love. Love unexpressed will soon be love disposed” (Author unknown). This particular proverb sums up in a nutshell the theme of 1 John 3. 1 John is known as the book of love. Chapter 3 is the chapter that breaks down love into its practical application. Chapter 3 is broken down into three basic expressions of love: (1) The love of God toward man, (2) The love of man toward God, (3) The love of man to his fellow man.

1. The Love of God Toward Man (1 John 3:1, 2, 5, 8)

Chapter three opens with the phrase, “Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God.” The basis of all love that Christians possess should begin with the love that God has shown toward man. By examining God’s love for man, we can better understand the love that we should possess as Christians.

God’s love for mankind was unconditional. God did not love us because we had done anything for Him. “Herein is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4; 10:11). God loved us while we were yet sinners and His enemies (Rom. 5:6-9). Thus, pure love does not depend on that love being returned or appreciated.

Jesus loved the world even though the world did not accept or appreciate Him. “For this cause the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not” (John 1:10-11). We ought to expect people of the world not to accept us. In fact, the Bible teaches that Christians will suffer persecution if they live godly in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 3:2). Christians should even expect fellow Christians to mistreat them occasionally because Jesus came unto His own people and they persecuted and even betrayed Him. In the face of all of this persecution and rejection, Jesus just kept on loving mankind, even those who had betrayed Him to an angry mob to crucify Him.

2. The Love Of Man Toward God (1 John 3:4-10)

Our love toward God is manifested in our repudiation of a life of sin. We cannot continue to commit sin habitually and still claim to love God. “And every one that hath this hope set on him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (3:3). The verb “purifieth” (hagnizei, present active indicative) is a continuous act, i.e. keeps on purifying. This demonstrates the conditional nature of our salvation. Even though God unconditionally gave His love to us, we must continue to purify ourselves. This process of sanctification is a lifelong process. We must continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus.

The child of God must conform himself to the law of God. “Everyone that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness and sin is lawlessness” (3:4). The person who disregards God’s law is guilty of sin. “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9). “Going onward” means going beyond the scope and authority of God’s law. There are those who affirm that the Christian is not under law but under grace. We are not under the Law of Moses but we are most certainly under law (Rom. 8:1; Jas. 1:25; 2:9-10). Thus, the Christian cannot separate righteousness from keeping God’s laws and commandments. “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:23). Iniquity is translated from the same Greek word (anomia) as lawlessness in 1 John 3:4, which indicates the seriousness of practicing lawlessness or iniquity.

The child of God cannot continue to practice sin and claim to love God. “Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him” (3:6). This passage is not teaching that the child of God cannot commit isolated acts of sin but that the Christian cannot continue to lead a life of sin or habitually practice sin. “In the passage under consideration, the verb sinneth not is the translation of ouch hamartanei, third person singular, of the present active indicative, of hamartano. Inasmuch as the chief characteristic of the Greek present tense is to indicate action on progress contemporary with the time of speaking, whereas the English verb does not distinguish between such action in progress, and a single act occurring, the significance of the verb sinneth, as used by the apostle, does not fully appear in the translation. It can be brought to the attention of the English reader only by an expanded translation thus: Whosoever continues to abide in him, does not keep on sinning (i.e. habitually as he did before his conversion.) Had the apostle intended to convey the idea that one who abides in Christ is incapable of committing a single act of sin he would have utilized the aorist tense” (Guy N. Woods, A Commentary On The New Testament, Volume 8, p. 265). “Whosoever sinneth (ho hamartanon). Present (linear) active articular participles …the one who keeps on sinning (lives a life of sin, not mere occasional acts of sin as hamartesas, aorist active participle would mean)” (Robertson, Word Pictures of the New Testament, Vol, 6, p. 222).

“Perfectionists misunderstood this statement and think that it refers to total sanctification, has stopped sinning altogether. They disregard the tense. They ignore 1:8-10; 2:1;2;3:3. In 1 John 1:8-9, John makes confession also of his own sins. `If we keep confessing our sins.’ So in Romans 7: 14-25, Paul deplores the fact of his still sinning, of the sin power trying to make him its war captive (v. 23). Philippians 3:12-13” (Lenski, Interpretation of Peter, Jude, John, p. 459).

Christians must change their lifestyle. Sin can no longer have dominion over us (Romans 6:9-I8). Although we may occasionally commit acts of sin (1 John 2:1-2), we no no longer make it a habit to practice sin. It is doubtful that we will ever reach a state of total perfection but we must attempt to purge our lives from habitual sin.

There are those who affirm that we may continue to habitually sin and still receive forgiveness of sins without repenting of those sins or confessing them. John earlier stated, “But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Forgiveness of sin is predicated upon us continuing to walk in the light. If we habitually walk in darkness, then we cannot expect to receive forgiveness. John further stated, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). Thus, to receive the forgiveness of sin, we must walk in the light and continue to confess our sins as we commit them.

Instrumental music is a case in point. Instrumental music in worship is not authorized in the New Testament. Thus, instrumental music constitutes going beyond the doctrine or law of Christ. It is lawlessness. There are some who affirm that we can continue to habitually use the instrument of music in worship, refuse to repent of it, refuse to confess the sin, defend the sin, and still receive forgiveness of sin for using it. In other words, they affirm that we can habitually practice sin and lawlessness and still obtain forgiveness. This is exactly what John is teaching against. Paul said, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid! We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein?” (Rom. 6:1-2).

God has never promised to forgive sin unconditionally. Forgiveness of sin has always been predicated upon our confessing the sin and repenting of it. The alien sinner is taught that his sins are conditionally forgiven when he repents of his sin and is baptized (Acts 2:38). The Christian is taught that his sins are conditionally forgiven when he repents of his sin (Acts 8:19-23), confesses his sin (1 John 1:9) and prays to God to forgive him of that sin (Acts 8:19-23; Rom. 8:26-27; 1 John 2:1). Where does the Bible teach that God will unconditionally forgive the sin of using instrumental music or any other sin for that matter? Sin cannot be separated from the law of God and neither can righteousness. We cannot ignore the law of God and still be counted righteous in the eyes of God.

“Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him; and he cannot sin because he is begotten of God” (3:9). There are two words that we need to concentrate on – seed and begotten. Luke 8:11 explains what the sed of God is. “The seed is the word of God.” When the word of God abides in us, then we will not continue to practice sin. This again emphasizes the fact that sin cannot be separated from the law of God. How are we begotten of God? “Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently: having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible through the word of God which liveth and abideth” (1 Pet. 1:22-23 cf. Jas. 1:18; 1 Cor. 4:15).

“In 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” (3:10). Character cannot be separated from conduct. Faith cannot be separated from works (Jas. 2:12-26). Neither can man’s love for God be separated from keeping God’s commandments. “And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily hath the love of God been perfected” (1 John 2:3-4). “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For therein is revealed the righteousness of God from faith unto faith” (Rom. 1:16-17).

3. The Love Of Man For His Fellow Man (3:11-24)

“For this is the message which ye heard from the beginning that we should love one another.” Jesus was asked, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus answered, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all of thy heart, with all of thy soul, with all of thy mind, and with all of thy strength. And the second like unto it is, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments the whole law hangeth and the phophets” (Matt. 22:26-40).

Our love for the brethren is based upon an unselfish attitude toward them. We are to love them unconditionally as Jesus loved us. Our active good will toward them should not be based upon their love for us nor should it be based upon them reciprocating that love toward us. Regardless of how we are treated, we are commanded to keep on loving.

A case in point is Cain and Abel. “Not as Cain was of the evil one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his works were evil, and his brother’s righteous” (3:12). Murder is the supreme act of selfishness. Cain was enraged with jealousy. Cain considered his feelings and had no consideration for the wants and needs of Abel. All hate is an expression of total selfishness. Conversely, all love is an expression of selflessness. It is also interesting to note that the method of Abel’s murder is possibly alluded to in this passage. The word for “slew” in the Greek language literally means, “to butcher, to cut the throat like an ox in the shambles,” Thus, Cain did not accidentally kill Abel if the inference from the Greek langauge is correct.

One of the true tests of our Christianity is our attitude and action toward brethren. We cannot claim to be the children of God is we harbor hate and malice toward the brethren. Constant bickering, squabbling, and feuding within a congregation is evidence that the congregation is filled with sin and hypocrisy. Love of the brethren, though, is not a pre-requisite of salvation but is an evidence of salvation. It is one of the fruits of the Spirit which demonstrate our fellowship with Jesus. “But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another” (Gal. 5:15). Literally, this passage means that we should not commit spiritual cannibalism.

Our love for the brethren is demonstrated not only in attitude but in action. Many brethren can speak eloquently of love and end up demonstrating their lack of love by their lack of deeds or works. “But whoso hath the world’s goods, and beholdeth his brother in need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how doth the love of God abide in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue: but in deed and truth” (3:17-18). The term “shutteth up his compassion” literally means, “graphic slamming the door of his compassion” (Robertson, Word Pictures of the New Testament, p. 226).

Authentic love is truly a case where actions speak louder than words. “If a brother or a sister be naked and in lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled? and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body? what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself” (Jas. 2:14-15). Love embodies more than warm feelings and kind words. Love is the very emodiment of unselfish action toward another. The opposite of love is hate. Hate embodies more than just bitter feelings toward another. I can demonstrate my hate for someone by merely ignoring their needs. I don’t need to feel bitterness or antipathy for someone to hate them.

Summary

John summarizes the chapter in verse 22. “And whatsoever we ask we receive of him, because we keep his commandments and do the things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another even as he gave us commandment. And he that keepeth his commandments abideth in him, and he in him.” Character and conduct, faith and works, love and action, righteousness and the Word of God – none of these can be separated.

QUESTIONS

1. Define sin.
2. All who have their hope set on Jesus do what?
3. Can the child of God habitually commit sin?
4. Will God unconditionally forgive sin that has not been repented of or confessed?
5. What is love?
6. How was the love of God manifested toward mankind?
7. Who abides in Christ?
8. How can we identify true love?
9. Does burning emotion always indicate the presence of true love?
10. From this chapter what passages indicate that faith without works is dead?

Guardian of Truth XXV: 13, pp. 203-205
March 26, 1981

By Donald P. Ames

Having to battle the false doctrine of the Gnostics, John here stresses an area that was vital to Christianity – the brief in both a final judgment and a life hereafter – both of which the Gnostics denied. He warns that this world, with all its sinful pleasures (Heb. 11:25), was not the end, but rather was passing away, and that only he who does the will of God abides forever (1 Jn. 2:17).

The term “world” is used in several different senses. Sometimes it means the created planet (Acts 17:24) and sometimes it refers to humanity as a whole (Jn. 3:16). However, in this context, John is using it in the sense of the evil ways of society. In 1 Jn. 5:19, he points out that “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” Again in James 4:4 we find that “friendship with the world is hostility toward God”; and “having loved this present world,” Demas deserted Paul in 2 Tim. 4:10. In John 15:19, Jesus said, “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.”

The evil ways of the world are broken down into three main categories by John: (1) the lust of the flesh, (2) the lust of the eyes, and (3) the boastful pride of life. Basically, all of the temptations of mankind can be placed within these classifications; Satan has not hesitated to use them upon us – beginning in the Garden of Eden (where Eve saw that the forbidden fruit was good for food, a delight to the eyes, and desirable to make one wise – Gen. 3:6) clear on down to, and including, the Son of God (stones to bread, the kingdoms of the world, and the challenge as to whether or not God would actually back up Christ as being the Son of God – Matt. 4). Since Christ was tempted in all ways as we are (Heb. 4:15), we should not expect Satan to deal any differently with us today, nor to be any less desirous of seeing our downfall through his snares.

If the doctrines of the Gnostics were so, John realized some brethren would cease to be concerned about living as the word of God directs. So, over and over again John stressed that they knew better than to fall for such a trap. Even the new born babe in Christ was aware of the fact that his sins had recently been forgiven (1 Jn. 2:12), and should not seek to again turn back to the ways of the world and their short-comings (see also 2 Pet. 2:20-21). While more mature Christians had overcome the evil one (1 Jn. 2:13), John does not affirm other trials may not yet await them in the future. The older brethren knew the word of God (1 Jn. 2:14) and surely would not yield to such deceptive ways.

Again, if we profess to know Him, John adds, then we cannot be followers of the ways of the world. “The one who says, `I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 Jn. 2:4). If we hate our brother, we are following the ways of the world with its passions, and again such are not the ways of God (1 Jn. 2:9-11). We are called upon to make a choice which will really be our true love. “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments,” Jesus had said earlier (Jn. 14:15). Now John adds that “whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected” (1 Jn. 2:5). He further adds that the only way one can truly be born of Him is to “practice righteousness” (1 Jn. 2:29 – in Psa. 119:172 David tells us “all Thy commandments are righteousness”). Thus John challenges them to leave the world, and turn their backs upon it, and “let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning” (1 Jn. 2:24).

But John knew the world was full of deceivers and false workers. He cautioned the brethren saying, “even now many anti-Christs have arisen” (I Jn. 2:18). First and foremost, he applies such a term to the Gnostics, who denied that the fleshly man Jesus was also the Christ (1 Jn. 2:22). He does not stipulate that there is but one anti-christ, but says “many” have arisen. We need to remember that any doctrine that is contrary to that which we have received is a reflection upon Christ Himself, and those advocating such are thus placing themselves against (or anti) Christ. Today this may manifest itself in rebellion against the word of God as well as claims of modern revelations, etc. contrary to that preached by the apostles (Gal. 1:6-9).

Being aware of all these things, John wrote, “that you may not sin” (1 Jn. 2:1). “The aorist, or point, tense in `that ye may not sin’ shows that each act of sin is to be avoided” (W. E. Vine, The Epistles of John, p. 20). Clearly it would be useless to write to them if they could not sin, and a waste of effort if it made no difference (i.e., if there were no judgment). John knew the dangers inherent in every act of sin, and thus wrote to warn the brethren not to be lulled into complacency by the ways of the world. Too many today are yet crying, “God is too merciful,” and “Just one little sin is not going to send you to hell.” But John urged them against any sin. Yet, even in this, he reassured them if one did sin (and this is not by way of permission, since he was writing against such), all was not then lost to the world, but Christ was indeed our advocate (“one called alongside to help”) and there to plead our case as we complied with His terms (Heb. 2:17-18; 4:15-16; 1 Jn. 1:9).

And, so, John then focuses on the ever-present dangers that confront the child of God in a love for the world. Being forewarned, we may be forearmed, and recognize and quench the “flaming missiles” of the evil one (Eph. 6:16). The lust of the flesh (1 Jn. 2:15-17) is mentioned first, and refers to the body and its various animal appetites. It refers to all the fleshly pleasures, indulgences, and physical cravings that appeal to mankind. Gal. 5:19-21 lists many such sinful cravings, as does also 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Col. 3:5, and Eph. 5:3-7. It is interesting to note that sexual immorality heads nearly every such listing of the lusts of the flesh, showing the grave danger it poses for the Christian. It refers to our former manner of life (Eph. 2:3) which we ignorantly followed (not realizing the consequences thereof, or perhaps not caring – 1 Pet. 1:14), and things of which we now ought to be ashamed (Rom. 6:21). Unfortunately, now as then, too many would prefer the Gnostic doctrine of no judgment and have not really put the worldly lusts of the flesh behind them when they obey the gospel. The lust of the eyes continuously serves as a temptation for man. All the glitter and splendor of the world can be appealing – whether it be material things as jewelry, beautiful homes, commercials for liquor and other such sins or baser things such as the lustful cravings unlawful for us to pursue (Matt. 5:27-28). Some, while outspoken on adultery, etc., raise no objections to filthy magazines, vulgar TV programs, R and X rated shows being attended. Yet the eye is the “lamp of the body” and “if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness” (Mat. 6:22-23). Such sources of filth entering the mind pollute the heart and mind, and turn it from God back to the ways of the world and its lusts. The boastful pride of life is also mentioned in James 4:16, where the NASB translates it “arrogance.” Such may be manifested in a pride that will not let us humble ourselves in obedience to the will of God (Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8-9), or perhaps even from admitting there is a God to whom we must be subject. It may be the pride that hinders us from confessing our sins and seeking His forgiveness. Proverbs reminds us, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before stumbling” (16:18). The haughty look is one of the items mentioned as an abomination to God (Prov. 6:17). Again we are reminded, “A man who hardens his neck after much reproof will suddenly be broken beyond remedy” (Prov. 29:1). Such boastful pride may also manifest itself in the pursuit of worldly acclaim, honors, titles and offices for which one boasts of his great achievements. Truly such pride is a trap wisely laid by Satan.

These things, John says, do not come from the Father. They do not lead to eternal life nor the betterment of the soul. Anyone who so contends is “trying to deceive you” (I Jn. 2:26). But the thing we must never forget is that they do not last either. Nothing that is related to this world and its sinful pleasures has any real future. “As he had come naked from his mother’s womb, so will he return as he came. He will take nothing from the fruit of his labor that he can carry in his hand” (Eccl. 5:15). Indeed, they are all “vanities of vanity.” “The world is passing away, and also its lusts.” This is a lesson so many never learn and, consequently, find it hard to give up the world and all its lusts. We must remember that we are merely passing through, camping on the road back to heaven. “Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage war against the soul” (1 Pet. 2:11). If we could adopt this attitude, the sinful ways of the world would not carry nearly as much appeal as they do when we focus our sights much lower and concentrate more on the here and now. Not only is the world passing away, but so are all of its lusts, the things that fan these desires into flames. “But the one who does the will of God abides forever” (1 Jn. 2:17). “Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God…” (2 Pet. 3:11-12). Following such pleasures will lead to eternal regret – too late!

QUESTIONS

1. What doctrines did the Gnostics deny?
2. What is meant by the term “world”?
3. To claim to “know God” means one must keep what?
4. What is an anti-christ?
5. Is every sin in our lives important?
6. What three avenues does Satan use to tempt us to follow the world?
7. What sin heads nearly every list of the lusts of the flesh?
8. Are physical sins the only sins we must be concerned about?
9. Would such titles as “Rev.” and “Dr.” for preachers be part of the “pride of life”?
10. Can a man take anything of this world with him when he dies?
11. In order to have anything in the hereafter, when must we plan for it?
12. In this life, we are but what?

Guardian of Truth XXV: 13, pp. 201-202
March 26, 1981

By Irvin Himmel

There is a clear connection between the prologue of the Gospel of John and the keynote of the first epistle of John. In the former, the Word is described in relationship to God, to the creation, and to mankind (John 1: 1-4). That Word (logos) which became flesh and dwelt among men (John 1:14), was in the beginning with God, and was God. All things were created by Him. In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. The statement of John 1:4 provides a text for John’s first epistle.

Life

That 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 (v. 1).

John begins the letter by directing attention to the life which was from the beginning. This explains why he says “That which” rather than “He who.” Of course, that life inheres in the person of the Word, consequently John writes about the life which stood before him in visible, tangible, audible form.

There is a vital relationship between light and life. This is illustrated in the kingdom of nature. Plant life needs sunlight. Our spiritual life depends on Christ, the light of the world.

Note that in verse 1, mention is made of “the life,” and also “eternal life.” We should remember that “the very purpose of Christ’s coming into the world was that man might have life” (Summers). “Life in all its fulness and completeness was in Him” (Hailey). Jesus said, “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself” (John 5:26). “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (John 10:10). “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).

John and the others who were with Jesus during His ministry had (1) heard, (2) seen, (3) looked upon, and (4) handled the Word of life. The Word had come indeed in fleshly form. The humanity of Jesus was real. John was qualified to witness to this important truth. He was an ear-witness and an eye-witness. John had “seen” the Word incarnate; yes, John had “looked upon” or “beheld” Him. The latter signifies “an intent, contemplative gaze.” The Greek word “denotes not the bare handling, but the exploring use of the hands that tests by handling” (Fellowship In The Life Eternal, George G. Findlay, p. 85). The term is used in Lk. 24:39; Acts 17: 27; Heb. 12:18.

Manifested

For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us (v. 2).

This verse is parenthetic and explanatory of verse 1. The word of life had to be manifested in human form to be seen, heard, handled, and therefore witnessed. Think of the magnitude of what John is saying. The Word of life (eternal life) was from the beginning with the father. But that life was manifested to John and others! There was no doubt in John’s mind. He was qualified to speak on this matter, and he was eager to declare to others what he knew to be factual.

“The life,” “that eternal life,” is not physical life. “Here it means that divine life which the Logos was and is” (A.T. Robertson). It is by means of the Word of Life, God’s Son, that the Father communicates and expresses His will. That Son is the Bread of Life (John 6:35). He gives the water of life (Rev. 21:6). To be baptized into Him is to have newness of life (Rev. 3:5). All who follow Him shall have the light of life (John 8: 12). He offers to the faithful a crown of life (Rev. 2:10). By Him we gain access to the tree of life (Rev. 22:14).

Fellowship

That 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” (v. 3).

The apostles felt a sense of urgency in declaring what they had seen and heard. In Jerusalem, when the Jewish authorities threatened them and commanded them not to speak at all in the name of Jesus, Peter and John answered, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19, 20).

What was the grand object in the testimony of the apostles? John answers, “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us..” A divine fellowship for men is derived from the life revealed in Christ, and the apostles proclaimed the truths to establish this sacred sharing.

Our fellowship is not merely with the apostles and other saints, but with the Father and with Christ. Fellowship with deity necessarily includes both the Father and the Son. It was the Son who explained the Father. “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (John 1:18). It was the Father who attested to the Son. “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him” (Matt. 17:5).

Joy

And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full” (v. 4).

Some versions give it as “your joy,” while others render it “our joy.” This minor variation leaves no problem in explaining the sense, for the teacher and the taught share a mutual joy in the Lord.

John’s language in this verse reminds us of Jesus’ statement in John 15:11. He said to the apostles, “These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.” “The joy of Jesus was fulfilled many times over as the first century church turned pagan cities upside down with the Gospel” (Gill).

Joy is a part of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). What a joy it is for one to realize that his sins are forgiven and that he is in communion with the Father and the Son. “Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice” (Phil. 4:4). What a happy privilege to be a child of God – an heir of God and a joint-heir with Christ! John did not write that there might be half-hearted joy, but that joy might be made complete.

God Is Light

This 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 (v. 5).

God is the source and dispenser of all light – physical, moral, and spiritual. James referred to Him as the “Father of Lights” (Jas. 1:17). The heart of the message which John had heard and announced is that “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.”

John expresses truths both positively and negatively. As though it is not enough to say that “God is light,” he adds, “and in him is no darkness at all.” A plain preacher was brother John!

Light signifies purity, truth, and righteousness. These qualities were lacking in the gods of the heathens. “They had gods that could cheat and lie, gods licentious and unchaste, gods spiteful and malignant towards men, quarrelsome and abusive toward each other” (Findlay). What a revelation it was to such people to be told that “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.”

Talk and Walk

If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But 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 (vs. 6-7).

God places around Himself a sphere of light in which all must walk to have fellowship with Him. “This must be plain, and it is in accordance with the doctrine of the gospel, that if God is light and we walk not in the light, the fellowship is broken, we are not in accord, and we must be in accord with the will of God to have fellowship with him” (Caton). To profess communion with God while living in sin (darkness) is to drag God down to the level of pagan deities!

Since fellowship is predicated on our walking in the light, we should take special notice of what that includes. By reading the entire epistle we learn that the following are among the essentials to “walking in the light”:

1. Confessing our sins (1:9).

2. Keeping God’s commandments (2:3-5; 3:24; 5:2,3).

3. Loving our brethren (2:9-11; 3:14; 4:20,21).

4. Not loving the world (2:15-17).

5. Abiding in Christ (2:28).

6. Doing righteousness (2:29; 3:7.10).

7. Hearing the apostles (4:6).

8. Confessing that Jesus came in the flesh (4:2,3).

9. Confessing that Jesus is the Son of God (4:15).

10. Believing that Jesus is the Christ (5:1).

Many people talk about having fellowship with God, but their walk is not according to what John outlines as necessary. Talk alone does not put one in communion with God. We must walk as He directs.

Problem of Sin

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

Sin is the barrier to fellowship with God. As an act of grace and mercy, He sent His Son to redeem us from sin. But the redeemed never reach a sinless level of living on earth. Anyone who supposes that he has risen to a state of absolute perfection, immunity to sin, is selfdeceived, and the truth is not in him.

We are taught to keep on confessing our sins, being assured that God is faithful and just to forgive and to cleanse. The blood of Jesus keeps on cleansing if we keep on walking in the light. As already noted, acknowledging our sins is essential to walking in the light.

Denial that we have sinned does two things: 41) It makes God a liar, for He testifies that “all have sinned” (Ram. 3: 23). (2) It proves that His word is not in us.

The problem of sin must be solved for man to enter into fellowhip with God, and redemption by the blood of Christ is the answer. However, since the redeemed are not immune to sin, there is the need for continued cleansing. John certifies that by our walking in the light, confessing our sins, the blood of Jesus cleanses (a continued process) from all sin. This makes continued fellowship possible.

Entering into fellowship with God and with Christ is conditional. Maintaining that divine sharing is conditional. God is faithful and just. If the fellowship is broken it will be our own fault. God has made every provision to reconcile us to Himself. Knowing our weaknesses and sinful inclinations, He has made available the continued purifying necessary to our remaining in communion with Him.

QUESTIONS

1. What passage in the Gospel of John might be considered as the text for John’s first epistle?
2. What is the connection between light and life?
3. Why was John qualified to bear witness concerning the Word of life?
4. According to verse 3, what was the grand object in the testimony of the apostles?
5. Name some things mentioned by John which are essential to our walking in the light.
6. On what is fellowship predicated?
7. Whose fault is it when fellowship with God is broken?
8. Since sin is a barrier to fellowship, what is the answer to the problem of sin?
9. Is it correct to say that some Christians are immune to sin?
10. How does joy relate to the life of a Christian?

Guardian of Truth XXV: 13, pp. 198-200
March 26, 1981

By Daniel H. Ding

The three letters of John are among the shooter books in the New Testament. In fact, 2nd and 3rd John are the shortest books in the New Testament. This point quite often leads us to gauge them as being of lesser importance and results in neglect on our part. They are deceptive in other ways as well. The Greek of these little letters is the easiest to read in the whole of the New Testament. Someone has reckoned that the total vocabulary of the New Testament is 5.437 words: the number of different words used in 1-3 John is merely 303 and the majority of these are common. Many Greek teachers cause their beginning pupils to undertake the reading of these letters as their first jaunt into the Greek New Testament. The general style and syntax (sentence structure) is also simple and straightforward.

Yet for all of this, one must not be fooled into thinking them simple. They combine profound thoughts with simplicity of expression, as does the gospel of John. Too, they are both practical and reflective, everyday experience being commingled with the deepest metaphysical and theological concepts. Writers have expended boundless energies searching the meanings of John’s simple statements. Christians have spent, and will spend, the greatest moments of their lives meditating upon and attempting to live up to the high standard of ethics vouchsafed by Jesus to John and expressed by him in such matchless style.

The Author of the Letters

External attestation of authorship of the epistles by the apostle John is singularly strong, despite the attack launched in recent years by many liberal scholars. Early church writers used the letters and ascribed them to him. No dispute took place among the first Christians as to whether John wrote them. This by itself is sufficient to establish apostolic integrity, since there existed in the early centuries a mood of sincere suspicion about many works, even in some cases with reference to inspired books which for one reason or another had not come to be generally known and used in the churches. But these letters seem not to have experienced difficulty in gaining recognition. The explanation is most likely the unique and unmistakable features of John’s writing style.

1 John and the Epistle to the Hebrews are the only letters in the New Testament in which no author’s name is given. But in 1 John, unlike Hebrews, the introduction is clearly intended to tell us something about the author. He writes about what he and others, obviously eyewitnesses, had heard, seen, looked upon and touched (1 Jn. 1:1). Other internal features also fit John with undeniable force. There is an air of confident authority about the whole that gives his’ pronouncements an absolute sense of expectation of acceptance by all who hear. The much repeated address to “little children” could have been written only by someone of considerable authority to those who would at once acknowledge his right to address them in this manner; it would seem also to suggest an elderly man who could use more familiar terms without fear of being misunderstood. In 2 and 3 John, he calls himself “the elder,” which is also in full agreement with the traditional picture of the venerable apostle John during his later years of ministry in Ephesus. Irenaeus of Lyons remarked that “John the disciple of the Lord, who leaned on His breast, himself also published the Gospel while he stayed at Ephesus in Asia” (Against Heresies iii. 1. 1,). It appears that he resorted there after the fall of. Jerusalem in 70 A.D., perhaps both before and after his stay on the Isle of Patmos in the Aegian (Rev. 1:9). And though Irenaeus does not refer to his penning of these letters in his curt sentence regarding John’s Gospel, all factors fit perfectly the position which assumes that he did so.

General Situation

The mentality of the people whom Paul and his fellowworkers addressed in the cities of Asia Minor was surcharged with ideas and opinions of the most diverse kind. Ancestral beliefs and practices had fused already with features of more recent mystery cults and philosophical trends. There was an ominous note in Paul’s Miletus address to the elders of the Ephesian church, when they are warned that from their own ranks “will arise men speaking perverse things,’ to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:30). At Colossae a few years later, Epaphras had to call upon the apostle to ` take his side against errorists who were subverting the faith in the Lycus river valley (Col. 1:7, 8), a combination of Judaizing tendencies and esoteric doctrines. Later still things grew more difficult in that region: Paul laments, “You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me” (2 Tim. 1:15).

John’s Revelation offers seven individual letters to churches in Asia Minor, many of which show the strong incursions made by false doctrine there. In all probability, the three letters of John represent missives intended for churches located there also. We cannot with any certainty determine their dates, but know that John was very old when he penned them and that they represent a more advanced stage in the growth and complexity of doctrinal error than is reflected in Paul’s epistles. John is said to have lived to a great age, until the time came when he was the sole survivor of those who had been in close contact with Jesus before His death and resurrection. If this is indeed true, then it is easy to see how eagerly he would be sought out and listened to by people who valued first-hand information about the deeds and words of the Master.

Great difficulty attaches to the topic of the precise form of false teaching which was being combated in the letters. It is sure, however, that it bore no resemblance to the earlier Judaizing element that had wrought such havoc in the Gentile churches largely started by Paul (Galatia, Corinth, Ephesus as reflected in 1 Timothy, Rome, etc.). Although the data from the letters themselves is very limited, there are just enough indications to enable a comparison to be made with the earliest of the Gnostic tendencies, usually referred to as Docetism. The term Gnostic comes from the Greek word gnosis which means “knowledge.” The Gnostic claims special esoteric or secret knowledge. This knowledge was intuitive rather than given through the apostles and prophets by divine revelation for all to share. Their knowledge could be possessed only by that section of humanity which was “spiritual.” This heresy came like a flood into the church of the second century. By the third century, nearly all of the more intellectual congregations in the Roman Empire were markedly affected by it and many had been completely swept away by its deceptions. The aim of Gnostic thinkers was to reduce Christianity to a philosophy and relate it to various pagan teachings as well as to the Old Testament which they distorted to fit their theories. One of the earliest Gnostics was Cerinthus, who was said to have been a contemporary of John at Ephesus. Some have related the specific doctrines treated in John’s letters to this man, but several facts seem to argue against this idea. First, John does not mention him by name. If he were intending to deal only with the views of Cerinthus we would expect for him to do so. Also, Cerinthus was given to Ebionite views similar in many ways to the Judaizing element. The letters do not specifically deal with such matters and, thus, seem to be combating Gnostic learnings wherever and in whomever they could be found.

“Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son” (I Jn. 2:22); “And every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already” (1 Jn. 4:3). The main feature in the form of this heresy was, therefore, a denial of the incarnation or enfleshment of the Son of God. This was true of all Gnostics and so establishes the point that Gnosticism, at least in its earliest stages of doctrinal development, is the error under consideration in the letters. Another easy test for the reader to make for himself is the simple matter of reading 1 John especially and noting the great number of times that the word “know” appears. It will become evident at once that the apostle is attempting a clarification of what “knowledge” truly is and what it is not.

Docetism, from the Greek word dokeo meaning “to seem,” evolved a means of getting over the intellectual difficulty of an incarnate deity by making a distinction between the human Jesus and the heavenly Christ. The heavenly Christ was said to have descended upon Jesus who was the fleshly son of Joseph and Mary (yes, they denied the virgin birth too!) at the time of His baptism in the Jordan. Through the denial of this important component of the gospel, they were able to avoid what to them was the problem of God coming into contact with flesh. Gnostics believed all matter to be evil and God incapable of such contact. The result was an attempt by them to preserve Christ’s deity at the expense of His humanity, and all in the interests of what they considered a higher intellectualism.

The assertion in 1 Jn. 5:5 that Jesus is the Son of God is certainly intended to counter the views of such people, for they would on principle refuse to equate the two. Likewise, the declaration that Jesus Christ came not only by water (His baptism) but by blood (His cross) is likely a thrust at these heretics’ failure to accept Christ’s sacrifice. They claimed that Christ only “seemed” to suffer (hence, the title Docetism), but in reality had departed the body of the man Jesus before He suffered. So, according to their view, it was the man Jesus who suffered and not the heavenly Christ. Rejection of His blood atonement was, therefore, a logical necessity for those who had made bold assumptions of this kind. Too, on account of their belief that matter is evil, they gave up the idea of a bodily resurrection, for if the body was merely the prison-house of the enlightened soul it would not be the desire of the soul to be imprisoned again at some future time.

John simply, yet forcefully, offers opposite these speculative theories his own testimony to the humanity of the Christ: “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life (and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us); that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you . . .” (1 Jn. 1:1-3). In the place of their intuition and speculation John provides empirical proof, real knowledge. With their own eyes they had seen that He was fully human; with their own ears they had heard Him speak and knew that He was completely man; with their own hands they had touched Him and knew that He was at the same time utterly divine and yet one with all of mankind by reason of His flesh. As the last representative of the eyewitnesses (as we suppose John to be at the time of writing), he speaks for them all. With one voice they put to rest these outrageous views of the nature of the Lord. He was truly a man, notwithstanding all these smug “intellectuals” may say. They may know, but we (the apostles as eyewitnesses) really know.

It appears that another result of their absurd metaphysical speculations was in the area of practical Christianity. They seem to have succumbed to an unbelievable pride; apparently the, claim of absolute sinlessness was being made (1 Jn. 1:6, 8, 10). However, they must have preferred a radically different definition for the word sin, since they had an attachment to this world (2:15-17) which John condemns in general rather than specific language. They lacked brotherly love; in fact, it could be said that they hated their brethren (1 Jn. 2:7-11; etc.). Evidently they treated Christians who did not share their false doctrines with malice, withheld compassion and benevolence from those in need, and generally manifested a malevolent, scornful, and insolent attitude indicative of a wicked breed, children of the devil and not of God (1 Jn. 3:10-18). They considered themselves more advanced than others and for that reason despised them and their unenlightened ignorance (1 Jn. 2:20, 27). Yet their advancement was clearly beyond the original teaching of the Savior in all areas (2 Jn. 9). They claimed direct divine guidance where they did not possess it and clearly negated what had been delivered by the apostles (1 Jn. 4:lff).

John’s refutation clarifies their error by impressing the audience of his letters with the two-sided essence of true Christianity: metaphysical and practical. By the term metaphysical we denote what or where Christians are: they are, for example, “in God,” or “in the light”; they have communion with God and one another; they “abide in him”; they are “of God,” or “of the truth”; they are “children of God,” or “born of god”; they “know God” and “have eternal life.” The term practical refers to what Christians do: they love God and one another; they “keep the commandments”; they “walk in the light”; they confess specific beliefs about Jesus Christ; they do not go beyond the teaching of Christ. A remarkably high percentage of the sentences in First John in particular can be bisected into precisely these two divisions. They are both metaphysical and practical, put together in such a way as to show that the two aspects of the Christian life are inseparable. Clear examples appear in the following passages: 2:10; 3:7; 3:8; 3:14; 3:24; 4:15.

Summary of Contents

The situation of 2 and 3 John are somewhat different from 1 John. In a very real sense they represent an earlier stage than 1 John. It appears that John was unable to visit the various congregations within his sphere of influence with any great regularity, whether because of pressing matters elsewhere or through advancing age. In order to keep in touch, he had to rely on his pen and entrust His messages to other men who could make the journeys. Therefore, although John could occasionally visit these churches (2 Jn. 12; 3 Jn. 14), there were times when he felt that he must send them personal letters. Second and Third John fit into this picture.

The writing of 2 John was occasioned by the fact that some traveling teachers of Gnostic persuasion were denying that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh (vs. 7-8). They evidently boasted that theirs was an “advanced” system and they were eminently “progressive” in setting it forth, the “doctrine of tomorrow set forth today,” so to speak. John warned that it was “advanced” alright, but that its advancement was beyond the bounds of truth or the limits of orthodox teaching. The members of this unnamed congregation of saints are ordered by the apostle not to greet them as though they were brethren in good standing, nor to harbor them in their homes. This would afford them a base from which to work and give them opportunity to infect those who were standing fast in the sound doctrine. Moreover it would make those who gave them lodging and encouragement sharers in the destructive and soul destroying business to which they dedicated their time and efforts (vs. 9-11). As he closes he assures them that these are his very own words by a promise to speak them in their presence at some future date (vs. 12-13).

3 John, on the other hand, is addressed to a particular individual called Gaius. He has been ill of late and John expresses his good wishes for his health. Gaius is commended for his faithfulness to the truth and for his love, shown in the way he had opened his home to traveling evangelists (vs. 1-8). But there is trouble in the church: in the person of one Diotrophes, a tyrant who sought to “rule it or ruin it, boss it or bust it.” Diotrophes had somehow suppressed a letter to the congregation, so John sought to influence them through Gaius who apparently had some influence with the people, but whose illness had likely restricted his ability to lay the matter to rest. When John had previously sent preachers to work with them, Diotrophes had refused to receive them and thrown out of the congregation those who did (v. 10). The Apostle commends Demetrius, either the courier of the letter and John’s emissary to oppose Diotrophes or a strong member of the congregation who was already working to unseat the rabid dictator (vs. 11-12). Once more he assures the one to whom his words are directed at the close of the missive that the letter is not spurious but genuine; he will hope to come and both face Diotrophes and rebuke him (v. 10) and repeat the thoughts he has articulated in the letter (vs. 13-14).

1 John was likely written later than 2 John since in the latter he only deals with the problem in a superficial way, whereas in the former it appears that the heresy has grown to such proportions as to deserve a circular letter addressed to all Christians treating it in the strongest possible terms. Several characteristics of the letter may be noted: (1) Repetition. The writer keeps coming back to certain leading ideas and terms, such as light, truth, belief, love, and righteousness. (2) Simplicity. For the most part the sentences are not involved, the vocabulary is easy, and the statements are not complex. (3) Profundity. The simplicity of language and style conceal beneath them a depth of conceptual expression that would challenge the most adept and sophisticated scholar. (4) Bluntness and Severity. It is no time for compromise nor is there room for giving quarter in this letter. The writer puts his propositions in sharp contrast with error. He allows no middle ground between darkness and light, error and truth, righteousness and sin. If one loves the world, he cannot be a lover of God. The man who makes a profession but fails to manifest true Christian character is a liar. (5) Old Testament Quotations Are Completely Absent. The message is grounded in the apostolic witness rather than the prior revelation.

To accomplish the obvious purpose of strengthening Christians everywhere against this complicated heresy, John discusses three criteria for identifying the genuine Christian and thus distinguishing him from the errorist: (1) Righteous Living. And one important facet thereof is the simple admission of sin and dependence upon our sinless Advocate. (2) Love for Brethren and (3) Belief in Jesus as the Incarnated Christ.

Robert Gundry (A Survey of the New Testament, p. 360 has offered an excellent outline of 1 John based upon the theme of criteria of true Christian belief and practice over against Gnosticism:

Prologue: the eye witnessed incarnation of Christ, the word of life, as the basis for fellowship (1:1-4)

I. The Criterion Of Righteous Conduct (1:5-2:6)

II. The Criterion Of Mutual Love (2:7-17)

III. The Criterion Of Belief In Christ’s Incarnation (2:18-29)

IV. The Criterion Of Righteous Conduct (2:29-3:10a)

V. The Criterion Of Mutual Love (3:l0b-24a)

VI. The Criterion Of Belief In Christ’s Incarnation (3:24b-4:6)

VII. The Criterion Of Mutual Love (4:7-5:3)

VIII. The Criterion Of Righteous Conduct (5:4-21)

Conclusion

Though extremely brief and patently simple in form and language, these three letters are of great importance to the church, especially in the present age. John faced a system of teaching which, in many ways, resembles the errors propounded and propagated in our own day. Sophistication marked the claims of those who held them. In a world that then had immense respect for philosophy and secret knowledge, Gnosticism offered both. Some of its teachers provided their followers with occasion to indulge the desires of the flesh while sounding and appearing exceedingly pious. The salve of conscience was the confidential and private knowledge vouchsafed to the few. Obnoxious pride manifested itself as the consequences of feeling so specially blessed, so profoundly different from “the common lot” of men and women. The reader would be blind who could not see the parallels to the deification of science, secret orders, modern cults, esoteric philosophies, and even modernistic religionists, as spiritual children of Gnostic and Docetic heterodoxy. The clock has moved forwards, the scene changed, the names are different, but sin and error do not really have that many faces. Most of them look pretty much alike.

If there is one important lesson that we can learn from John in his treatment of error it is this: treat it gently but firmly; give it no quarter; and make no compromises with it. Let God’s true children know in simple language that they can and will understand that there is a plain difference between it and the truth. Fight it with pen and spoken word, but be not so foolish as to think that by ignoring it you will make it go away.

QUESTIONS

1. Contrast the brevity of these little letters with what you consider their importance. Is the simplicity of style and vocabulary an indicator that the subject and content are simple?
2. Who wrote these books? What makes you think that the author of the first letter is the author of the other two?
3. Discuss the repeated use of the expression “little children” by the author? Why does he refer to himself as “the elder” in 2 and 3 John?
4. Does the false doctrine being fought by John differ from that which Paul opposed in Galatians and elsewhere? If so, in what ways?
5. Point out the meanings of the words “Gnostic” and “Docetism” and show how they relate to the system John is refuting in 1 and 2 John. Discuss 1 Jn. 2:22 and 4:3 in relation to the errors of the Gnostics.
6. What were the results of the Gnostic assumption that all matter is evil? Do false assumptions made by false teachers today lead to false teachings today? Can you think of examples among modern cultists?
7. How did John’s own experience and testimony to the humanity of the Christ show that the teachings of the Gnostics were false?
8. Did the metaphysical errors of the Gnostics lead to problems with practical Christianity? in what way does John connect the two? Cite examples.
9. In a few words, summarize the contents of each of John’s letters. Relate 2 Jn. 9-11 to some modern problems. Describe Diotrophes and point to factors in his life that we should avoid.
10. Give some characteristics of 1 John and try to relate John’s manner of handling false doctrine to the way in which we ought to fight it today. Is it fair to make such a comparison in light of the passage of so many years?

Guardian of Truth XXV: 13, pp. 194-198
March 26, 1981