The First Epistle of John

 

 

Rex Banks

 

 

 

Lesson 26

 

Authorship

 

 

Internal Evidence

 

(1)          “Like the Epistle to the Hebrews (1 John) does not name its author nor its original readers, and contains no apostolic blessing at the beginning; and in agreement with that of James it has no formal conclusion, no greetings and salutations at the end” (Berkhof).

 

However,

 

“(it) is beyond reasonable doubt that the Epistle and the (fourth) Gospel are from the same pen” (David Smith: Expositors Greek Testament).

 

In our discussion of the Gospels we cited evidence in support of the traditional view that the fourth Gospel was written by John the apostle.  It may be useful to turn back and review this material at this point.  In the course of discussing authorship of the fourth Gospel, we made the point that “according to Carson et al, ‘by the end of the second century the only people who denied Johannine authorship to the fourth gospel were the so-called Alogoi (meaning) ‘witless ones,’ (a term) used by the orthodox as a pun to refer to those who rejected the Logos (the “Word” of John 1:1)...’”  The fourth Gospel and 1 John are closely linked and it is evident that both are from same hand.

 

(2)          Among the significant similarities of vocabulary, style and thought we find the following:

 

 

Vocabulary

 

“(In) both documents we find the ever-recurring and most distinctive words light, darkness, truth, life, and love” (Catholic Encyclopaedia).  Examples include the following:

 

·        Light:              Jn 1:4-9; 3:19-21; 5:35; 8:12; 1 Jn 1:5-6; 5:13.

 

·        Darkness:       Jn 1:5; 3:19; 8:12; 12:35, 46; 1 Jn 1:5-6; 2:8-9; 2:11.

 

·        Truth:              Jn 3:21; 14:6, 16-17; 15:26;1 Jn 1:6, 8; 2:21; 3:19; 4:6.

 

·        Life:                Jn 1:4; 5:26; 6:33, 35, 48; 8:12; 11:25; 14:6; 1 Jn 1:2; 5:12.

 

·        Love:              Jn 5:42; 8:42; 13:34-35; 14:15; 1 Jn 2:5, 15; 3:1, 10, 11, 14,

                            16-17 (over 30 occurrences).

Other significant words include:

 

·        Word:             Jn 1:1, 14; 1 Jn 1:1 (a reference to Jesus).

 

·        World:            Jn 14:17; 15:18-19; 16:8, 20 (etc) 1 Jn 2:15; 3:13; 4:4-5.

 

In both works, “the writer views almost every subject with an eye that steadfastly beholds radical antagonisms, but is blind to approximations.  Each conception has its fundamental antithesis:  - Light, Darkness; Life, Death; Love, Hate; Truth, Falsehood; the Father, the World; God, the Devil.  There is no shading, no gradation, in the picture” (Robert Law The Tests of Life, a Study of the First Epistle of St. John).  Moreover, “Of the approximately two hundred and ninety-five different words in the vocabulary of the Epistle, only sixty-nine of them do not appear in the Gospel” (Guy N. Woods).

 

 

Style

 

Many commentators draw attention to similarities in phraseology between the fourth Gospel and epistle of 1 John.  For example:

 

·        “…we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen” (Jn 3:11). “…we have seen and testify and proclaim to you” (1 Jn 1:2).

 

·        “…that your joy may be made full” (Jn 16:24).

“…that our joy may be made complete” (1 Jn 1:4).

 

·        “…he who walks in the darkness” (Jn 12:35).

“…walks in the darkness” (1 Jn 2:11).

 

·        “…and you do not have His word abiding in you” (Jn 5:38).

“…and the word of God abides in you” (1 Jn 2:14).

 

·        “…if the world hates you” (Jn 15:18; 1 Jn 3:13).

 

·        “…and my life I lay down for the sheep” (Jn 10:15).

“…He laid down His life for us” (1 Jn 3:16).

 

·        “…for I always do the things that are pleasing things to Him” (Jn 8:29).

“…and do the things that are pleasing things in His sight” (1 Jn 3:23).

 

·        “A new commandment I give to you that you love one another” (Jn 13:34).

“And this is his commandment that we...love one another” (1 Jn 3:23).

 

·        “...has passed out of death into life” (Jn 5:24).

“...we have passed out of death into life” (1 Jn 3:14).

 

·        “He who is of God hears the words of God” (Jn 8:47).

“We are from God; the one who knows God listens to us” (1 Jn 4:6).

Many more examples of such similarities of phraseology could be supplied.

 

 

Thought

 

Particularly noteworthy is the similarity between (what many see as) the Prologue of the fourth Gospel (1:1-18) and the Prologue of 1 John (1:1-4).  In both Prologues, many of the themes are introduced and they are subsequently expanded upon the body of each work.  Too in both cases, the writer states his purpose for writing and follows with what many see as an Epilogue.  Thus in Jn 20:31 we are told “...but these (signs) have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”  This statement of purpose is followed by what is in effect an epilogue (chapter 21).  In 1 Jn 5:13 we read:  “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.”  Again this is followed by what many see as an epilogue (5:14-21).   

 

(3)          Some who deny that the fourth Gospel and 1 John are from the same author point to dissimilarities between the two writings.  For example, we are told that the writer of the fourth Gospel employs significant words which are not found in the Letter such as “glory/glorify,” “fullness,” “resurrection,” “judge,” “peace,” “save,” “work” and such like.  Significant phrases found in the Gospel but not 1 John include the following:  “kingdom of God,” “the Holy Spirit,” “the wrath of God,” “eternal life,” “to have peace,” to have light” and so on.  On the other hand, 1 John contains significant words and phrases not found in the Gospel such as “fellowship,” “message,” “anointing,” “appearance,” “hope,” “atonement,” “love has been made perfect,” “the seed of God,” “spirit of deceit” and such like.  However, this argument is far from compelling and similarities of vocabulary, phraseology and style far outweigh differences.

 

“Both books have the same Hebraistic style, make the same use of parallelism and have the same simplicity of sentence construction” (Thiessen).

 

“There is in both the same strongly Hebraistic style of composition, the same development of ideas by parallelism or antithesis; the same emphatic repetition of key-words like ‘begotten of God,’ ‘abiding,’ ‘keeping His commandments’; the same monotonous simplicity of syntax, with avoidance of relative clauses and a singular parsimony in the use of connecting particles; the same lack of dialectical resource; the same method of implying causal relation by mere juxtaposition of ideas; the same apparently tautological habit of resuming consideration of a subject from a slightly different point of view” (Law).

 

(4)          The writer of 1 John emphasizes that his testimony was that of an eyewitness, and he makes it clear that this distinguishes him from the recipients of this letter.  When testifying he speaks of what “we have...heard...seen...beheld… handled” (1:1), of what was “manifested to us” (1:2), of “what we have seen and heard” etc, clearly differentiating himself and his fellow apostles from his readers whom he addresses as “you” (1:2-3, 5).  This is particularly obvious because generally the writer identifies himself with the recipients (1:6 ff).  As an apostle, John was of course an eyewitness.

Some argue that the use of the first person plural simply suggests that the writer is discussing the general beliefs of all Christians (ie all are convinced that God became flesh).  But while it is true that the writer does make this use of the first person plural in the letter, the fact that he differentiates himself from the addressees in the prologue rules this out.  Too, it is clear that the prologue is designed to remind the recipients of the writer’s credentials and such use of the first person plural would defeat this purpose. 

 

(5)          Throughout the letter the tone is authoritative, and what’s more, it is clear from 2 and 3 John that the writer’s authority is not restricted to a particular congregation in a particular area.  Those whom he addresses are his “little children” (2:1, 12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21) and he is confident that the recipients of his letter know him well enough to recognize it as a communication from him.

 

He has no need to lend weight to his instructions by speaking of his position in the church, and this failure to mention his name or position also characterizes the writer of the fourth Gospel.  What he writes is a “commandment” (2:8), he issues instructions about such things as testing the spirits (4:1 ff) and he boldly and authoritatively labels certain people liars, deceivers and antichrists (eg 2:4, 26; 4:3).  This commanding tone coupled with the fact that the writer expects to be heard beyond the local congregation is understandable if the writer was an apostle.

 

(6)          Some oppose Johannine authorship of 1 John on the grounds that the writer is responding to Gnostic error which did not become a problem until after the apostolic era.  However, as we have seen, the seeds of Gnosticism existed in the first century.  Others claim to detect references to Montanism in the Epistle where the writer says that “No one who abides in him sins” (3:6, 9) but John’s language here does not suggest perfectionism.

 

(7)          The Johannine writings are characterized by “profundity of thought and simplicity of language” (Plummer).

 

“The ideas which he places before us are among the deepest mysteries of revelation:  man’s relation to God, to the evil one, and to the world; the Incarnation; the Atonement; the judgment to come; the Son’s relation to the Father and to the Spirit; the essential characteristics of the Godhead. And all this is stated in propositions, which commonly contain simple words in a very simple construction” (ibid). 

 

This is particularly true of John’s Gospel and 1 John.

 

 

External Evidence

 

(1)          About the middle of the second century Papias makes the first specific reference to John as the author of an epistle.  Eusebius affirms that Papias “uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise” (Church History 3.39.17).  (Since these are the words of Eusebius rather than Papias, the words “first epistle” do not prove that Papias knew of other Johannine epistles).  Eusebius tells us that according to Ireneaus, Papias was “a hearer of John” (3.39.1) but he goes on to say that “Papias himself…by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles” (3.39.2).  Anyway, Papias’ testimony is very early. 

 

(2)          About 180 AD Ireneaus quotes Jn 20:31 as the words of “John, the disciple of the Lord” adding:  “For this reason also he has thus testified to us in his Epistle:  ‘Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that Antichrist doth come, now have many antichrists appeared’” (Against Heresies 3.16.5).  About the same time, Clement of Alexandria affirms that “John, too, manifestly teaches the differences of sins, in his larger Epistle” quoting 1 Jn 5:16-17 in support of his argument (Stromata 2.15).  Several other relevant quotations are to be found in Clements writings (eg Stromata 3.4; 3.5).  1 John is repeatedly quoted by Tertullian.  For example, he speaks of the warnings of “the Apostle John” concerning “the forerunners of the Antichrist” quoting 1 Jn 4:1 (Against Marcion 5.16).  Evidence from then on is plentiful and the works of Origen Jerome, Augustine and others could also be cited.

 

(3)          Although Papias is the first to make specific reference to John as the author of an epistle, it is clear that his contemporary Polycarp knows of 1 John.  In his Letter to the Philippians (7:1) he writes:  “For whosoever confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh is Antichrist” (cf 1 Jn 4:2-3).  Echo of 1 John may be heard in other early writings but these are less obvious.  For example, in the Didache (ca 90-120 AD) we read “Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love” (Didache 10:5 c.f. 1 Jn 2:5; 4:12, 17, 18).  In 10:6 the words “let this world pass away” remind us of 1 Jn 2:7 (“The world is passing away, and also its lusts”).  Earlier still, Clement of Rome says that “In love were all the elect of God made perfect” (1 Clement 49.5).  There are other possible allusions in documents from the last part of the first century and the first part of the second century but they are by no means certain.  

 

(4)          From about 170 AD we have the following from the Muratorian fragment: 

 

“The Letter of Jude and two bearing the name of John are accepted in the universal church.”

 

It is clear that one of these epistles is 1 John since elsewhere we read:

 

“What marvel is it then, if John so consistently mentions these particular points also in his Epistles, saying about himself, ‘What we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears and our hands have handled, these things we have written to you.’”

 

1 John is contained in the Old Syriac Version and clearly, based upon this evidence, Eusebius is quite correct to include this epistle among the works which were universally received.

 

(5)          A much debated passage in Eusebius is cited by some in support of the contention that another John, usually designated John the elder was the author of this epistle, the fourth Gospel and 2 and 3 John.  Eusebius quotes Papias:

“And again, if anyone came who had been a follower of the elders, I used to enquire about the sayings of the elders - what Andrew, or Peter, or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples said  and what Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say.  For I did not think that I could get so much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice.”

 

Now it may well be that “the elder John” is John the apostle, but some argue that Papias refers to a different John, and that this John wrote the epistle.  They cite the fact that the writer of 2 and 3 John introduces himself as the elder.  Of course there is no reason why an apostle could not be an elder (1 Pet 5:1 ff) even if this is the meaning of the term in 2 Jn 1 and 3 Jn 1, but even if Papias does refer to another John, he says nothing about any writings by this individual, and as we have seen above, all the evidence points to the fact that this letter was written by an apostle.

 

“(No) one in antiquity, as far as we can tell, ascribed the Fourth Gospel to this other John rather than to the son of Zebedee.  This other John is referred to by Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (c. AD 130) as ‘John the elder’ (or ‘presbyter’) – ‘elder’ being a designation given especially at that time to Christian leaders of the generation next to the apostles” (F. F Bruce, Gospel and Epistles of John).

 

 

Addressees, Date, Place and Circumstances

 

(1)          1 John does not supply specific details relating to the identity of the recipients, their location and such like, nor does it provide us with concrete clues as to date of the letter, the circumstances of the author etc.  Our conclusions about these matters will therefore be tentative and will be drawn from a consideration of such things as:  the date which we assign to the fourth Gospel; the decisions which we make about relationship of 1 John to that Gospel; clues from 1 John about the circumstances of the recipients; tradition of the early church about John the apostle, early heresies and so on.

 

(2)          It is clear that those whom John addresses as his “little children” (2:1, 12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21) are Christians with whom John is well acquainted.  It is equally clear that these Christians are facing the threat of heretical teaching.  Later we will try to identify the main characteristics of these errorists by looking at John’s response to their dangerous doctrines (see The Letter).  For now we will simply note that the errorists appear to be embracing ideas which later on (well into the second century) developed into full blown Gnosticism.  For this reason most view the heresy connected with 1 John as some kind of incipient Gnosticism.   

 

(3)          The best and the earliest evidence available from history and tradition say that John wrote his Gospel from Ephesus.  Ireneaus (Against Heresies iii 1, 2) affirms that this is the case, while Justin Martyr, Eusebius and others preserve the tradition that John lived and died at Ephesus.  It is likely then that John’s epistles were written from Ephesus and the original recipients (John’s “little children”), were residing in this area.  We recall that Paul had warned certain elders at Ephesus that false teachers would arise from among them (Acts 20:28), and later left Timothy at Ephesus to combat dangerous error which had arisen there.

 

“In all probability the correct opinion respecting the destination of this Epistle is that held by the majority of scholars, as Bleek, Huther, Davidson, Plummer, Westcott, Weiss, Zahn, Alford et al that it was sent to the Christians of Asia Minor generally, for (1) that was John’s special field of labor during the latter part of his life; (2) the heresies referred to and combated were rife in that country; and (3) the Gospel was evidently written for the Christians of that region, and the Epistle presupposes similar circumstances” (Berkhof).

 

The absence of quotations from the Old Testament and references to Jewish concerns suggests that the addressees were mainly Gentiles.

 

(4)          In our discussion of the Gospel of John we said:  “The date of the fourth Gospel has been the subject of much debate, and although manuscript discoveries have ruled out a date well into the second century, ‘almost any date between about 55 and 95 is possible’” (Carson et al).  In fact, some suggest that a date as early as 45 AD is possible.  In my view, a reasonable case can be made for a date in the 80 or 90s of the first century, but we cannot be dogmatic.  Now, it is most reasonable to conclude that the epistles of John were written after the Gospel of John, but before the persecutions of Domitian in 95 AD, so a date in the 80s to mid 90s seems most reasonable.

 

(5)          In our discussion of the Gospel of John we suggested:

 

“It is also ‘quite possible that one of John’s aims was to combat false teaching of a Docetic type’ (Leon Morris). 

 

It does seem likely that John writes with an awareness that there are Christians living in Asia Minor who are being challenged by certain heretical ideas which later on will develop into what is called the Gnostic heresy.  Although the Gospel of John does not provide a systematic refutation of the Gnostic heresy in the same way that the apostle’s first epistle does nevertheless it does seem likely that John has this problem in mind even if it is not his primary emphasis.”

 

(6)          Keeping this in mind, consider the further suggestion by Stephen S. Smalley:

 

“By the time that the Johannine letters were written (say, ten years later...) the situation seems to have developed.  The friction had increased, and a polarization of Christological views was in progress, so that those with a ‘low’ Christology (who thought of Jesus as less than God - Rex) had moved further toward a Jewish (Ebionitic) position (ie Jesus was represented as a mere man - Rex), and those whose Christology was ‘high had become more clearly Gnostic (Docetic) by inclination.”

 

This appears to be as good a suggestion as any other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Letter

 

(1)          1 John contains three statements which help us understand his specific purpose for writing this epistle:

 

·        “These things we write, so that our (your - KJV) joy may be made complete” (1:4).  A full and accurate knowledge of Jesus and fellowship with Him (1 Jn 1-3) would be a great source of joy for these brethren.

 

·        “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin” (2:1).  Although sinless perfection is beyond the Christian, the practice of sin is thoroughly uncharacteristic of the Christian life.

 

·        “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life” (5:13).  

 

These statements of purpose are best understood in light of John’s warnings against false teachers who threaten the joy of his brethren, who fail to appreciate the seriousness of sin and who claim special insights and knowledge.  

 

(2)          Although not everyone agrees, it seems best to view 1 John mainly as a polemic against certain heretical doctrines which, history tells us, subsequently evolved into complex philosophical systems which constituted a real threat to the early church.  Although it is difficult to be certain of the exact nature of the heretical teachings which John opposes, it “seems best to conclude that John is combating proto-Gnosticism, and embryonic Docetism or Cerinthianism that has already divided Christians” (Carson et al).  Just what do these terms mean?

 

 

Proto-Gnosticism

 

Full blown Gnosticism did not exist in the first century, but it seems evident that the seeds of this heretical doctrine were present when John wrote in the last part of the first century.  At the heart of this erroneous teaching was the notion that matter was wholly evil and spirit wholly good.  This being the case, matter was held to be a creation, not of the Supreme God, but rather of an inferior deity, and the result of some primeval disorder.  Man’s spirit, held captive by the physical body yearns to be set free from its prison, and this release can only be attained by means of some special “knowledge” (gnosis).  Thus redemption was a matter of philosophy, and the content of this philosophy was derived from various sources such as tradition (allegedly communicated to a coterie of like minded spirits), portions of the New Testament, “enlightened” members of different sects and such like.

 

Moreover, since matter was evil, God’s becoming flesh was inconceivable, a doctrine which cut the heart out of the gospel.  Some Gnostics advocated overcoming the flesh by indulging it while others advocated overcoming the flesh by ascetic practices.

 

 

Embryonic Docetism

 

Encyclopedia Britannica has:

 

“(from Greek dokein, “to seem”), Christian heresy and one of the earliest Christian sectarian doctrines, affirming that Christ did not have a real or natural body during his life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one.  Though its incipient forms are alluded to in the New Testament, such as in the Letters of John (e.g., 1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 7), Docetism became more fully developed as an important doctrinal position of Gnosticism...

 

More thoroughgoing Docetists asserted that Christ was born without any participation of matter and that all the acts and sufferings of his life, including the Crucifixion, were mere appearances.  They consequently denied Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension into heaven.  Milder Docetists attributed to Christ an ethereal and heavenly body but disagreed on the degree to which it shared the real actions and sufferings of Christ.”

 

 

Cerinthianism

 

On Cerinthus, Britannica has:

 

“Christian heretic whose errors, according to the theologian Irenaeus led the apostle John to write his New Testament Gospel.  Cerinthus was probably born a Jew in Egypt.  Little is known of his life save that he was a teacher and founded a short-lived sect of Jewish Christians with Gnostic tendencies.  He apparently taught that the world was created by angels, from one of whom the Jews received their imperfect Law.  The only New Testament writing that Cerinthus accepted was the Gospel of Matthew.  Cerinthus taught that Jesus, the offspring of Joseph and Mary, received Christ at his baptism as a divine power revealing the unknown Father.  This Christ left Jesus before the Passion and the Resurrection.  Cerinthus admitted circumcision and the Sabbath and held a form of millenarianism.”

 

It does seem clear from 1 John that false teachers were already sowing the seeds which were later to develop into full blown Gnosticism.  However, while the errorists do seem to have held some ideas in common with Cerinthus, they also seem to have differed from him in some important respects.  For this reason, some deny that the false teachers were Cerinthians.  Clearly we cannot be dogmatic about this.

 

(3)          It is impossible to know just which portions of the epistle are responses to some specific, erroneous teaching and which parts of the letter reflect a more general, pastoral concern.  (In fact some commentators claim to find little evidence that John is responding to heretical teaching at all, but surely this is not the case).  Opinion is also divided about whether John is responding to a single group of errorists or two or more groups.  On the assumption that 1 John functions primarily as corrective to error, consider the following points:

 

 

Concerning Christ

 

“John insists that the Christ whom he preached was audible, visible, and tangible (1:1).  (‘What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life...’) He says that whosoever denies the Father and the Son is the antichrist (2:22), and he declares that ‘every spirit that confesseth not Jesus [that he has come in the flesh] is not of God’ (4:2, 3).  Evidently his opponents took the position which approximated closely that of Docetic Gnosticism (ie Christ did not have a real or natural body during his life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one -Rex)” (Tenney).

 

“Can we wonder at the stern, unyielding attitude which St. John adopted in confronting (the errorists)?  ‘Liars,’ ‘seducers,’ ‘false prophets,’ ‘deceivers,’ ‘antichrists,’ seem not too strong appellations to give to the promoters of teaching such as this” (A. Plummer Pulpit Commentary). 

 

John is insistent that true faith involves a correct estimate of Jesus’ person, telling us that “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (5:1), and that the one who “overcomes the world” is the one who “believes that Jesus is the Son of God” (5:5). 

 

 

Concerning sin

 

Evidently some who were influenced by Greek dualism held that since the flesh was evil it needed to be subdued (see comments on Colossians and Pastorals).  Evidently others who were also committed to this view reasoned that since matter was evil and therefore of no positive value, the true self remained unaffected by actions carried out by the body, and this appears to have been the reasoning of some of John’s opponents.  Bruce suggests:

 

“They maintained that they had no sin, not in the sense that they had attained moral perfection but in the sense that what might be sin for people at a less mature stage of inner development was no longer sin for the completely ‘spiritual.’”

 

John’s response is unambiguous and uncompromising:

 

·        “If we say (as the errorists did) that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth” (1:6).

 

·        “If we say (like the errorists) that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and the truth is not in us” (1:10).

 

·        “The one who says (as John’s opponents did) “I have come to know Him, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him’” (2:4). 

 

·        “(The) one who says (like the heretic) he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked” (2:6).

 

Thus, over against the errorists, John affirms that fellowship with God is conditional upon righteous living.  Christ’s blood cleanses us “if (note the condition) we walk in the light” (1:7).  To say “we have no sin” (1:8), perhaps because special illumination made sin a matter of moral irrelevance, is to deceive oneself and to lack the truth.  Love of the world (“lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life” - 2:15-16) cannot co-exist with love of the Father.  The one with his hope fixed upon Jesus “purifies himself” in imitation of Christ (3:3), “practices righteousness” (3:7) and so on.  This is John’s emphatic response to those who claim that sin does not really matter because righteousness and right conduct are unimportant.

 

 

Concerning love

 

“To the Gnostic, knowledge was the sum of attainment.  ‘They give no heed to love’ says Ignatius, ‘caring not for the widow, the orphan or the afflicted, neither for those who are in bonds...’  That a religion which banished or neglected love should call itself ‘Christian’ excites John’s hottest indignation...” (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia).

 

He warns, “If someone says ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (4:20).  The very nature of God makes loveless Christianity an impossibility - “Beloved let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.  The one who does not love does not know God for God is love” (4:7-8). What’s more, “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren” (2:14) with a self sacrificing affection (2:16-17), and the one who fails to possess such love “abides in death” and does not have “eternal life abiding in him” (2:14- 15).  In fact the word “love” and its derivatives occur over 50 times in this epistle.

 

 

The spirit of truth and the spirit of error

 

Evidently the false teachers claimed to be prophets and to speak by the Spirit of God (1 Jn 4:1-6).  John’s language suggests that the errorists are denying apostolic authority.  Having explained that the “world” listens to the errorists because they are “from the world” (4:5), John adds:  “We (likely the apostles and teachers of the apostolic doctrine) are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who does not know God does not listen to us.  By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (4:6).  To reject the apostolic message then is to reject truth and to reject the word of those who were eyewitnesses (1:1-4).

 

The errorists boasted of their knowledge of God (2:4) but it is those who accept Apostolic authority who have real knowledge. 

 

·        “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren” (3:14)

 

·        “We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him” (5:18).  

 

·        “And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true” (5:20).

The secession of the antichrists

 

John’s language suggests that the errorists have withdrawn from the mainstream Christian community.  Speaking of his opponents as “antichrists,” John writes:  “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us” (2:19).  Later he calls them “false prophets (who) have gone out into the world” (4:1).  Smalley comments:  “Secession from the group had begun; and (in our view) this indicates that, between the time when John’s Gospel was written and the period of the composition of the Johannine letters, the theological lines within John’s church had hardened.”  Just how big this group was we do not know, but in 2:18 we are told that “many antichrists have arisen,” so the number of John’s opponents may have been considerable.  (We will see from 2 and 3 John that they appear to have been actively engaged in trying to win converts from among John’s addressees).

 

Toward the end of this very powerful epistle John says:  “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life” (5:13).  Throughout John has emphasized that this assurance of salvation is predicated upon the right kind of belief about Jesus and upon the right kind of response to the Gospel - namely righteous living and loving relationships.  It is likely that the secession has distressed the Christian community and the brethren needed such assurances. 

 

 

Outline

 

Just about everyone recognizes the difficulties involved in outlining 1 John.  James Iverach has:

 

“The word that best describes the author’s mode of thinking is “spiral.”  The course of thought does not move from point to point in a straight line.  It is like a winding staircase - always revolving around the same center, always recurring to the same topics, but at a higher level (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia).

 

In similar vein, F. F. Bruce says:

 

“Attempts to trace a consecutive argument throughout 1 John have never succeeded…  At best we can distinguish three main courses of thought:  the first (1.5-2.27), which has two main themes, ethical (walking in light) and Christological (confessing Jesus as the Christ); the second (2.28-4.6), which repeats the ethical and Christological themes with variations; the third (4.7-5.12) where the same two essential themes are presented as love and faith and shown to be inseparable and indispensable products of life in Christ” (The Epistles of John).