1 John

INTRODUCTION

The letters of John are foundational to what is known in the NT as Johannine Christianity. Even as his gospel account is distinct from the others in content, structure, and theological emphasis, so John’s letters differ in style and content from the other NT letters. These letters are not concerned with the problem of institutionalizing the Christian Movement, nor do they fit easily into any historical reconstruction of the growth and development of the Christian church in the world.

If John’s letters address the problem of heresy, they do so in unconventional terms. They insist that true Christian faith requires knowing that Jesus the Christ came in human flesh, lived a human life, and died in the flesh. But the evidence of that faith is measured more by the genuineness of one’s Christian lifestyle, rather than by what one “knows.” The knowledge that God is light is tested by whether one walks in that light and obeys God’s commands. The knowledge that God is righteous is tested by whether one lives righteously as befits one born of God. The knowledge that God is love is tested by whether one loves fellow believers even as one loves God. The single but radical requirement for love and obedience in these letters recalls the simplicity of Jesus’ own teaching and the response he required of those who would follow him. These letters have a special place preserved for them in the life and devotion of the church.

1. Background

Establishing the background for the three letters of John is at best speculative. Whereas for Paul’s letters we have the book of Acts with its treatment of the origin of the church, the conversion of the apostle, and a record of his subsequent journeys to provide background for understanding his letters, we have nothing similar for the Johannine material. While Paul’s letters fairly bristle with historical allusions that we can readily identify from other sources, those of John contain almost no references to known persons or places. Nonetheless, traditions relating to the origin of these writings did develop in the church. And since there are no alternatives, it is these traditions that have been largely responsible for providing the historical background for interpreting these letters. These traditions have connected them and the fourth gospel with the apostle John (see “Authorship”), recognized Asia as the place of their publication, and identified Cerinthianism as the heresy troubling the churches addressed.

Asia as the place of the letter’s publication finds support from two lines of tradition. Irenaeus (c. A.D. 175–200) stated explicitly that John wrote his material while living at Ephesus in Asia. The earliest-known references to 1 John are by church leaders from Asia. Polycarp of Smyrna (mid-second century) appears to have been depending on 1 John when he asserted that whoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist. He also urges a return to the message handed down from the beginning (cf. 1Jn 1:1, 3). Moreover, comparison of the problems presented in 1 John with the more complete description of the heresies of the second century provides additional support for Asia as the place where 1 John originated.

The tradition identifying Cerinthus as the opponent of 1 John also depends on Irenaeus. He preserved a description from Polycarp of an encounter between the apostle and Cerinthus in a public bathhouse, which John hurriedly left so that he would not have to bathe in the same place with such an enemy of the truth. Irenaeus also described in some detail the heresy of Cerinthus. Cerinthus, he said, denied the virgin birth of Jesus. After his baptism, Christ descended on Jesus in the form of a dove from God in heaven, and he began his ministry of preaching and miracles. Christ departed from Jesus on the cross, and it was only Jesus who suffered and rose again.

It is not absolutely certain, however, that Cerinthus was the opponent of John or that the heresy in view in the letter resulted from a Gnostic theological movement that had infiltrated the church. First John itself strongly suggests that the heresy arose within the church and was propagated by respected and able teachers in the community who had defected from the true faith and fellowship (2:19). Indeed, the seriousness of the situation probably derived from the fact that past leaders had become “false prophets,” teaching untruths and becoming embodiments of Antichrist. That they were able to lead the community astray (2:26; 3:7) gives strong support to the idea they were secessionists, not intruders. Moreover, it is clear that the views expressed in 1 John also differed from Cerinthus in significant ways. There is no reflection, for example, of Cerinthus’s distinctions between the supreme God and the series of divine emanations proceeding downward to the aeon who was Christ and who created the material universe. Furthermore, the false teachers in 1 John appear to draw theological conclusions that have no parallels in Cerinthian Gnosticism. The espousal of sinlessness (1:8, 10), their claim to know God through inspiration (2:4; 4:1–3), their loss of “fellowship” with God (1:6), and their life in the light (2:9) seem to be independent of Cerinthus’s teaching. The attempt to identify the false teachers with Cerinthus or his followers is therefore dubious.

Alternate suggestions for the identity of the false teachers have lacked scholarly consensus. Perhaps the best suggestion is the one that sees the root of the problem in the confrontation of Christianity with the evangelistic and pietistic religious movements developing especially in Asia. When missionaries of the Christian faith first came into contact with the representatives of these movements, they undoubtedly received, at least initially, a warm welcome. Their willingness to accept any new religious movement made sure that they were prepared to adopt Christianity, just as they had already tried to adopt Judaism. Since the Johannine community was already reflecting some of the language of this religious world, they were presumably unusually successful in their missionary effort among such persons. But these converts inevitably brought philosophical and religious verbiage with them into the community that required an extensive theological response by the teachers. The gospel of John may in itself represent not only a missionary document for these persons but a response to the questions raised by the converts. Inevitably, however, a significant number of the faithful proved vulnerable to a pagan reinterpretation that borrowed from Christian categories.

In his first letter John seems to recognize this pull and seeks to help those trying not to fall back into non-Christian speculation. On the other hand, the community inevitably contained some enthusiastic but ill-informed converts to Christianity, who were eager to reinterpret their new-found faith. The false teachers who previously had been in the community and had then departed, proving that they had not really belonged to the community, may well have been representatives of such a movement. They would be presenting themselves as preserving the best of both traditions.

The false teachers’ motive, at least at first, may have been prompted only by the desire to translate the Gospel into the terms of another culture. Their enthusiasm likely blinded them to the fact that their reinterpretation would ultimately lead to the dissolution of what was central to the Christian faith: Jesus as the Son of God through whose death the bonds of sin had finally been destroyed. If this reconstruction is valid, it helps explain why these new “false teachers” had such a strong position in the community. Originally they had belonged to those who were most involved in the missionary activity of the community. That they no longer were true to the faith and were to be classed as antichrists would certainly be hard for some to accept.

2. Occasion and Purpose

It is clear from the internal evidence of 1 John that a developing schism within the Christian community led to its writing. The difficulty had already reached a point where some members, including teachers, had separated themselves from the others and were in the process of setting up their own community (2:19). Although the breach was complete, the dissidents continued to keep in touch with the rest of the membership and were actively trying to entice them to join the new group (2:26). The breach of fellowship also led to a breach in understanding the faith. What earlier may have been hypothetical questions now became tenets of the rival community, identified in John’s letters primarily by what the false teachers denied. They denied: Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God (2:22; 5:1, 5); the coming of Christ in the flesh (4:2; 2Jn 7); the authority of Jesus’ commands (2:4); their own sinfulness (1:8, 10); salvation through the work of Christ (2:2); the absolute demand that believers love one another (2:9); righteous conduct as a requirement of fellowship with God (1:6; 2:29; 3:6, 10); the responsibility to live as Jesus had lived (2:4, 6: 3:7); the nature of the company of believers as a community of fellowship with the Father, with his Son, and with one another (1:3; 2:11); and the authority of the writer of the letters as the proclaimer of the message that had been from the beginning (1:5; 3Jn 10).

It is harder to reconstruct the points at which the false teachers agreed with the community of faith. Apparently they believed that God is light (1:5); that the truth of the Gospel released them from the power of sin (1:8); that the Christ is a philosophical concept (though they denied his existence in the flesh; 4:2); that they had a mission to the world (2Jn 10); that they have been anointed of the Spirit (2:27); and that the devil is an anti-God (3:8–10; 4:2–3).

The writer responded to the false teachers by recognizing them as a supreme danger threatening the very life and faith of the community. What was called for was a positive reaffirmation of the cardinal doctrines of the faith that had been from the beginning and a clear and explicit exposure of the heresies the dissidents were promoting. He also sensed the need for reassuring the faithful. So he gave his letter a strong pastoral flavor. Its contents are marked by strong affirmations and words of encouragement for the Christian community—namely, that the nature of the fellowship is one of love and righteousness (1:3, 7); that its origin is from the beginning (1:1); that in the community there is genuine forgiveness of sins (1:9) and a walk of obedience not unlike Jesus’ own example (2:6); that walking in the light is living in love (2:10); that members of the community will not be ashamed at Jesus’ coming (2:28); and that they may have complete confidence in his answering their prayers (3:22). Warnings are addressed to the community against the seduction of the world (2:15), against the present antichrist, (2:18), and against false spirits and false prophets (3:22; 4:1–2). Reminders to the members of their anointing (2:20) as being sufficient to enable them to remain in God (4:13) are provided, as well as promises that belong to them as the children of God (3:1). Jesus Christ as the epitome and example of love to the community becomes a critical theme (3:16–18), just as the proclamations that God himself is love (4:16), that love derives from him, and that the Christian life is lived in him (4:12–13) are also critical themes. Again and again the letter returns to the primary confession that Jesus is the Christ, the one who has come in the flesh and has overcome the world. He is the true God and eternal life (5:20).

3. Structure

John follows a somewhat structured approach in this letter without being bound by it. He is quite willing to depart from the structure in order to allow room for the introduction of divergent themes as well as overlapping ones. As the exposition will show, the writer of the letter deals with the problems raised by the schismatic actions of the “false teachers.” He does this within the context of a general exposition that focuses on the nature and life of the community of God. His deepest concern is pastoral. He desires to reassure, protect, alert, and teach the faithful members about their life together as the people of God. To accomplish this he shows that “from the beginning” the basis of the believing community is Jesus Christ. He is the one through whom fellowship with the Father and with the members of the community becomes possible. This fellowship is further defined as life in him and as eternal life.

John goes on to assert that the fellowship of believers draws its character from God, who is light, righteousness, and love. It is these attributes of God, shown by Jesus our example, that in turn become criteria for the standard of conduct expected of the children of God. Obedience to him thus becomes a primary obligation of the community.

The writer also makes clear that the fellowship is exclusive. It consists of those born of God who are committed to obedience to his Son’s commands and example; who confess Jesus as the Christ, the incarnate Son of God; and who depend on him for forgiveness and for overcoming the evil one. So he provides tests by which the false teachers can be exposed and the faithful members of the community reinforced in their own confidence that they truly are the children of God. Over and over he stresses the fact that the test of true faith and practice for those born of God is to love one’s fellow believer. This becomes the final test for walking in the light, living in truth and righteousness, and loving God.

The Gospel of John and the First Letter of John

There is a remarkable similarity of language and theme between the gospel of John and the first letter of John. The following chart outlines where these parallels are.

Theme	1 John	Gospel of John
Word was from the beginning and became flesh, and we saw it	1:1; 2:14	1:1–2, 14
We could touch the “Word of life”	1:1	20:27, 29
The Word was “the life”	1:2; 5:20	1:4; 11:25; 14:6
The Word was “with the Father”	1:2	1:1, 18
We must testify to the Word	1:2	15:27
Complete joy available through Christ	1:4	3:29; 16:24; 17:13
Light from God dispels darkness	1:5–7	1:4–5; 3:19–21
Life through the blood of God’s Son	1:7	6:53–56
The word has no place in unbelievers	1:10	5:38
Jesus as the atoning sacrifice for the sin of the world	2:2; 3:5; 4:10	1:29; 3:16–17; 11:51
Loving God involves obeying his commands	2:3, 5; 3:22; 5:2–3	14:15, 21; 15:10
Jesus as our example	2:6	13:15
Jesus’ command to love one another	2:7; 3:11, 23; 4:7, 11	13:34; 15:12, 17
Jesus as the true shining light	2:8	1:9; 8:12; 9:5
Walking in darkness and stumbling	2:11	11:9–10; 12:35
Word of God living in us	2:14	5:38
Those who do not have the love of God in them	2:15	5:42
Knowledge gained through the Holy Spirit	2:20, 27	14:16
Knowing the truth	2:21	8:32
Knowing the Father involves knowing the Son	2:23	8:19; 14:7
Remaining in the Father and the Son	2:24, 27; 3:24	15:4
God’s love that makes us his children	3:1–2	1:12; 3:16
Those who do not know God	3:1	15:21; 16:3
The Son of God is sinless	3:5	8:46

4. Authorship and Date

The author of 1 John never identifies himself in the letter. Apparently his identity was so well known to his “children” that he knew they would recognize him by what he wrote. We do get an ambiguous clue in 2 John and 3 John when he uses the title “elder” to address them. The fourth gospel is likewise unidentified as to authorship except that in the epilogue there is the enigmatic statement about “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (21:20; cf. 13:23): “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down” (21:24). For those who recognize common authorship for the gospel of John and John’s letters, it is possible through a process of elimination to identify the “beloved” disciple as John the son of Zebedee (see introduction to John).

External evidence for John’s authorship is preserved in the writings of Irenaeus, who quotes copiously irom 1 John and attributes this letter to John. The Muratorian Canon (c. A.D. 200) assumes that 1 John and John’s gospel have a common origin and that they have been received as such by the church.

Theme	1 John	Gospel of John
The devil has been sinning from the beginning	3:8	8:44
Being born of God	3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18	1:13; 3:3, 6
Hatred from the world	3:13	15:18–19; 17:14
Crossing from death to life	3:14	5:24
Jesus laid down his life for us	3:16	10:11
Laying down our lives for others	3:16	15:13
Truth is found in the Son of God	3:19	14:6; 18:37
God knows all things	3:21	21:17
Receiving from God what we ask	3:22; 5:14–15	14:13–14; 15:7, 16; 16:23
The command to believe in God’s Son	3:23	6:29
Jesus has come in the flesh	4:2	1:14
Overcoming the world	4:4; 5:4–5	16:33
The world loves those of the world	4:5	15:19
Those who are not from God do not listen to him	4:6	8:47
The Spirit of truth	4:6; 5:6	14:17; 15:26; 16:13
God sent his one and only Son so we can live	4:9, 14; 5:11–12	1:18; 3:16–17, 36; 20:31
No one has seen God	4:12, 20	1:18
Jesus is the Savior of the world	4:14	3:17; 4:42; 12:47
We are in God and God is in us	4:16	15:4–5; 17:21
Jesus and the water and the blood	5:6–8	19:34–35
Human testimony and divine testimony	5:9–10	5:32–37; 8:14–17
How to know we have eternal life	5:13	20:30–31
Believing on the name of God’s Son	5:13	1:12
Satan as the prince of this world	5:19	12:31; 14:30
Knowing the true God	5:20	17:3
Jesus as true God	5:20	1:1; 20:28

The date for the letters of John is at best problematic. It depends largely on our ability to reconstruct the history of the Johannine community. This community may have begun about the same time as the church at Antioch. Persecution may have finally driven the leaders from Jerusalem, and John may have gathered with some of the Samaritan converts along with the former followers of the Baptist. They probably located somewhere in southern Palestine and continued their mission to the Jews.

Sometime before A.D. 70, perhaps as a result of increased hostility from the Jews, the Johannine community migrated to Asia Minor and initiated what became a very successful mission to those Gentiles whose religious orientation was in the direction of “higher paganism.” The need for a gospel that would double as a missionary document for these converts became evident, and the gospel of John was thus published somewhere around A.D. 70–80. It expresses its own purpose clearly: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (Jn 20:31).

The heretical developments discussed earlier took place during the next ten years and finally resulted in the secession of some members of the community in order to found a rival one. John’s first letter was written in response to this crisis around 80–90. That it was written to reassure the faithful is clear from its author’s own testimony: “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life” (5:13). The letter is addressed to a single community but probably was meant to circulate throughout the geographical area where John’s churches had been established.

John’s second and third letters are brief ones written to member churches in other places. These churches also appear in danger of problems created by the secessionists. So the two letters were apparently written in anticipation of these problems.

The perspective of 1 John is clearly reflected in 2 John. Writing soon after 1 John, “the elder” (v.1) addresses the community that has been faithful to “the truth” (i.e., the Gospel) as he has proclaimed it (v.4). He warns, however, against traveling missionaries whom he expects to visit this locality soon (v.10). Evidently they will present themselves as emissaries of the secessionists and continue to spread their false teaching (v.7). The elder warns the church neither to extend hospitality to such emissaries nor even to welcome them into the community (v.11).

The background of 3 John is more obscure, despite its personal references. It seems best to consider that the situation was the same for 3 John as for 1 and 2 John. If so, still another community is addressed—a community in which there appear to be several groups of Christians in “house” churches as well as one larger group or church led by Diotrephes (v.9). The smaller house churches, one led by Gaius and another apparently led by Demetrius, have remained faithful to the elder. They remain “in the truth” and “in love.” They have received missionaries from the elder’s faithful community and have shown them the proper hospitality (vv.5–8). But the elder complains against Diotrephes, the description of whom shows that he has been affected by the secessionists. He “gossips” maliciously against the elder and refuses to receive his message. He even goes so far as to throw out of the church anyone who welcomes the faithful “brothers” from the elder’s community (v.10).

There would appear to be an interval of time between 2 John and 3 John. The situation has grown decidedly worse in the place where Gaius ministers than in that where the “chosen lady” is. Probably one would do well to think of an interval of a year or more between the two letters (c. A.D. 90).

EXPOSITION

I. Preface (1:1–4)

The first four verses represent a single sentence in Greek. The main verb and subject, “we proclaim” (GK 550), do not actually appear until v.3; instead John opens with the object of the verb, which consists of four relative clauses—“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at”—and is followed by a parenthesis in v.2 enlarging on “the Word of life.” Only then are the subject and main verb introduced, with a restatement of the object, “what we have seen and heard.” Two purpose clauses conclude the preface: “that you also may have fellowship with us” and “to make our joy complete.”

What confronts us here is the intensity of the author’s feeling as he reflects on the nature of the Christian message in the light of its very beginnings. Although the events that the message is founded on occurred many years earlier, the immensity of their implication and the abiding mystery they represent retain the power to overwhelm his thinking and extend his literary skills as he witnesses to them. This first paragraph could be described as the author’s language of ecstasy.

1 The reader is clearly pointed back to Jn 1:1—“In the beginning was the Word”—and from there to Ge 1:1—“In the beginning God”—with this difference: The Gospel deals with the “personal word” of God’s eternity and his entrance into time. The letter centers on the life heard and in turn proclaimed (cf. Ac 5:20; Php 2:16). This message is from the beginning because it is of God. It precedes creation, time, and history. But in God the message of life also draws near to humanity and finds its culmination in Jesus. In him the Word of life becomes incarnated, manifested, and hence can be seen, touched, and even handled.

The author’s stress is twofold. He states what has always been true about the Gospel. His witness, unlike that of his opponents, represented neither innovation nor afterthought. Moreover, his witness was based on the immediate evidence of the senses. It is not a fabricated tale.

The use of the pronoun “we” assures the reader that the message is being proclaimed by those who had heard the Gospel with their own ears and who had touched him with their own hands (perhaps a reference to the Resurrection appearances—Lk 24:39; Jn 20:24–29). Already the writer is mounting his polemic against the heretics who denied that Christ had a human body.

2 Because this is the nub of John’s argument, he takes pains to restate it: The life to which he bears witness, the life that was with the Father, is precisely the life manifested in the historical person of Jesus. That is why John can say he has seen it, can bear personal witness to it, and can make an apostolic declaration concerning it. The three verbs “seen,” “testify,” and “proclaim” present personal experience, responsible affirmation, and authoritative announcement. The phrase “eternal life” underscores the divine character of the life described, not its length.

3 This verse introduces the purpose of the letter: “that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.” The Greek word rendered “fellowship” (koinonia; GK 3126) occurs here and in v.6. It is not easy to translate. Suggestions are “fellowship,” “communion,” “participation,” “share a common life,” and “partnership.” Its root word means “common” or “shared” as opposed to “one’s own” (koinos; GK 3123). The Greeks used this word group to describe partners in business, joint owners of a piece of property, or shareholders in a common enterprise. In the NT it refers to Christians who share a common faith (Phm 6), who share possessions (Ac 2:44; 4:32), or who are partners in the Gospel (Php 1:5).

Koinonia and other words in that word group occur over sixty times in the NT in reference to the supernatural life that Christians share. This supernatural life is disclosed in the incarnate Christ. It is the eternal life that comes from the Father and becomes the life shared individually and corporately by the company of believers. Oneness with God is what causes the oneness of faith. That the words “fellowship with us” precede in the text the words “fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” may be significant. There can be no fellowship with the Father or with the Son that is not based on apostolic witness. So John stresses “fellowship with us” as having priority in time.

4 The author links his concern for his readers to his own standing as an apostolic witness. Their obedience will result in the completion of “joy” (GK 5915) in him, and therefore also in them and in the whole fellowship. This joy is mentioned in his gospel: “I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete” (Jn 15:11; cf. also 16:22–24; 17:13).

Clearly this joy is inseparable from the salvation that is present in the Son, but it is directly bound up with the person of the Son, who is himself present in the fellowship. Joy is a gift of the Father, even as the Son is a gift of the Father; it is present wherever the fellowship truly appears. But joy can never be perfectly known or fully complete because the fellowship itself, though real, is imperfectly realized. The present joy in the fellowship is a token of the ultimate expression of joy, which depends on the final revelation of the Son. In John’s gospel, this final revelation required Jesus’ “going away” so that he may “come again” (cf. Jn 16:16).

II. Requirements for Fellowship With God Who Is Light (1:5–2:28)

A. Walking in the Light (1:5–2:2)

If the readers are to have fellowship with the Father and with the Son (v.3), they must understand what makes this possible. They must know who God is in himself and, consequently, who they are in themselves as creatures of God. So the author first describes the moral character of God in terms of light (v.5) and then goes on to deny three claims made by those who falsely boast of their knowledge and fellowship with God: (1) that moral behavior is a matter of indifference in one’s relationship to God (v.6); (2) that immoral conduct does not issue in sin for one who knows God (v.8); and (3) that the knowledge of God removes sin as even a possibility in the life of the believer (v.10). True evidences for fellowship with God or walking in the light are: (1) fellowship with one another (v.7), followed by cleansing in the blood of Christ; (2) confession of sin, (v.9) which brings both forgiveness and cleansing; and (3) confidence that if we sin we have Jesus Christ as an advocate and sacrifice for our sins (2:2).

5 John begins his exposition by referring to the message heard from Jesus. His allusion is probably not to a specific word of Jesus but to Jesus himself as the Son in whose life and death the Father manifested himself. As in vv.1–4, in contrast to the false teachers he opposes, the author shows the authority that lies behind his own apostolic witness.

The message that “God is light” needs to be compared with declarations elsewhere by John that “God is spirit” (Jn 4:24) and “God is love” (1Jn 4:8). All three stress the immateriality of God and the “Godness” of God—i.e., God in his essence. Light emphasizes especially the splendor and glory of God, the truthfulness of God, and his purity.

Certain OT ideas dominate the Christian concept of “light” as a description of God. Light stresses the self-communicative nature of God and the action of God for human beings and for their salvation. The psalmist catches this with such utterances as “In your light we see light” (Ps 36:9) or “The LORD is my light and my salvation” (Ps 27:1). John expounds this in vv.5–7 (cf. Jn 1:9). Light also accents God’s empowering activity in our lives. God as light not only shines downward for our salvation but enables us to walk in the light. Jesus said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (Jn 8:12; cf. also 12:35). John encourages his readers to walk in the light (v.7; cf. Eph 5:8–14). Light, then, is the presence of God’s grace.

God’s light also has the character of a demand. That is certainly the meaning here in vv.5–6. If people turn from the light or love darkness rather than light, it is because their deeds are evil (Jn 3:19–21). In the world of first-century religious thought, the word “light” described ultimate realities. But there the weight was on the metaphysical implications. John is far removed from that type of speculation. He is concerned with the goodness of God and also the goodness of the human race.

The latter part of v.5 is a negative corollary emphasizing the statement that God is light. As darkness has no place in God, so all that is of the darkness is excluded from having fellowship with God. This idea stands out as the author now discusses the behavior pattern of his opponents.

6 John introduces the first of three tests of Christian faith by the clause “If we claim.” He uses this device to refer to false claims made by the false teachers. The first claim—to have fellowship with God and yet to walk in darkness—probably belongs to early Gnostics who, as John describes them, have no love for one another (v.7), hate their brothers (2:9, 11), claim sinlessness (v.8), and deny that Jesus came in the flesh (2:22). To “walk in the darkness” is the same as “abiding” in darkness or “living in darkness”—i.e., allowing darkness to define one’s life. In the final part of the verse, the author indicates that the test of truth is not one’s belief—though that is not excluded—but one’s action, deeds, and conduct. Speaking the truth is only one part of doing the truth, and not the most important part.

It must not be assumed that the opponents agreed with the author’s claim that they walked in darkness. Far from it! They claimed to walk in the light while they practiced the deeds of darkness. This is what made their actions so pernicious. Inevitably they began to call their “darkness” light and to claim righteousness without doing righteousness. In such situations, the author says, we lie and do not live by the truth.

7 The positive test of knowing God is to live (lit., “walk”; GK 4344) in the light as he himself is in the light. John thus reiterates the fact that light is God’s sphere. It is his nature, and he wills that it should become ours.

One consequence of obeying the command to walk in the light is having fellowship with one another. The author is combating the heresy that boasts of knowledge of and communion with God but neglects fellowship with other Christians. True fellowship with God comes through other people; fellowship with them is the proof of fellowship with God.

A second consequence of walking in the light is that the blood of Jesus keeps on cleansing us from every defilement due to sin. The language reminds us of the sacrificial system of the OT, as well as of the interpretation of Christ’s death given us in the letter to the Hebrews. Without Christ’s ongoing cleansing, enduring fellowship would be impossible, for the guilt resulting from sin destroys fellowship. The results of that cleansing are forgiveness, restoration, and the reestablishment of love. John’s use of the singular “sin” reminds us that the emphasis is not on specific sinful acts but on the work of God in Christ that meets and deals with the sin principle itself.

8 The second false claim by John’s opponents is that a Christian has no sin. The opponents probably did not claim that they had never committed wrongful acts, but they denied that the sin principle had lasting power over them or even had a presence in them, at least in those who had attained superior spiritual enlightenment. They were, after all, already perfect and free from guilt. It is not surprising that Gnostics, whether Christian or otherwise, should have denied sin. No human being, ancient or modern, wishes to understand existence under that rubric.

Others in John’s community may have argued, like some in Corinth, that sin was a matter of the flesh and had nothing to do with the spirit, or that since they possessed the spirit, they were beyond the categories of good and evil and therefore moral principles no longer applied to them.

Whatever the shape of the argument, and regardless of whether it is an affirmation from the ancient world or a modern restatement, it remains true that whenever the principle of sin is denied as an ongoing reality, there follows a denial of responsibility for individual actions. Gossip, defiling of persons, hatred of the brethren, jealousy, and boasting become sanctioned as non-sins; walking in the light is denied; and the fellowship to which we are called is never permitted to exist. Furthermore, when the sin principle is denied, truth as an principle of life cannot exist in us. As a result, in God’s name, we make his presence and power an impossibility.

9 John now confronts us with our second definite test of obedience. Walking in the light is demonstrated not by the denial of sin but by confessing it and abandoning it. This action links us to God’s mercy. Those who confess their sins and condemn them are linked to God. And we can confess our “sins” to God and before other people fearlessly and in confidence because God is both faithful and just.

The plural “sins” makes clear that we affirm our sinfulness by confessing our sins. The forgiveness that comes is related to God’s faithfulness and justice. God is faithful in himself, i.e., to his own nature (cf. 2Ti 2:13), and faithful to his promises (cf. Ro 3:25; 1Co 10:13; Heb 10:23; 11:11). Everywhere he promises forgiveness to his children (e.g., Jer 31:34; Mic 7:19–20). And in keeping this promise, God reveals his faithfulness and justice.

The force of God’s being “just” (GK 1465) points to the Cross, to the covenant, to God’s rule over us, and to the attributes of God from which forgiveness flows. And certainly God’s mercy must not be set against his justice. The phrase “he is faithful and just” includes all those things. It is a corollary of the fact that God is light and love.

The verb used for “forgive” (GK 918) has at its roots the idea of the “cancellation of debts” or the “dismissal of charges.” The verb used for “purifies” (GK 2751) pictures an act of cleansing from the pollution of sin so that a new life of holiness may begin. Sinners are perceived as cleansed from moral imperfections and from the injustices that separate them from God.

10 This verse gives the third and final false claim: “If we claim we have not sinned.” But is this a different assertion from the one in v.8 or just a restatement of the same issue with an even more dramatic conclusion: “We make him [God] out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives”?

In favor of the former possibility is the change in the verbal construction from “we have no sin” to “we have not sinned.” The latter statement is more inclusive. The persons involved could be saying, “Whatever is true about the sin principle in others, we as Gnostic believers have transcended it all. We do not sin! We have not sinned! Sin has gained no foothold in us.” Probably both statements had their adherents among the Gnostic believers. Some may have said it one way, some the other. Some may have claimed that through their “knowledge” derived from the Christian proclamation they were removed from the possibility of sin. Others may have boasted that they had entered a sinless state through “knowledge” before the Gospel had even come to them.

This latter statement, in other words, is far more blatant and defiant. It makes a mockery of the Gospel. It states that the reason God acted in grace and mercy toward us for the sake of our sins is false, that God first deceived us about ourselves and then becomes himself the Deceiver. The statement “his word has no place in our lives” means that the word proclaimed, the tradition received, and the witness from the OT Scriptures have no place in the heart and conscience of those who deny their sin. Consequently the possibility of hearing a redemptive word is also denied, and one can neither live by the Word nor receive forgiveness offered by God.

2:1 As John resumes his discourse on sin and forgiveness, we see a striking change of mood. Whereas earlier he was focusing on his opponents and their false teaching, now he speaks about these things as they affect his followers. The note of endearment—“my dear children”—in no way minimizes the seriousness of the discussion. Lest any conclude from his previous statements that sin must be considered inevitable in the life of the believer and not a matter of urgent concern since God forgives sins through Christ, John hastens to add, “I write this to you so that you will not sin.” There is no question at all in his mind that sin and obedience to God are irreconcilable. Sin is the enemy. It removes the believer from the light, prevents fellowship with God, and destroys fellowship with the children of light. The principle of sin as the power of darkness must be excluded from the believer’s life, and individual acts of sin must be resisted. Where failure occurs, the sin must be confessed before the body and the Lord and then abandoned. And always the intent of the believer remains the same—not to commit sin!

If any of his children should fail and commit sin, the author is anxious that they neither deceive themselves about it nor lie about their action and give up walking in the light. The answer to lapsing into sin is the forgiveness of God made available through Jesus Christ. He has been designated the believer’s advocate, the counsel “who speaks . . . in our defense.” His worthiness to perform this function rests on the fact that even as God is righteous (1:9), so he too merits the title “The Righteous One.”

2 Our advocate does not maintain our innocence but confesses our guilt. Then he enters his plea before the Father on our behalf as the one who has made “the atoning sacrifice [GK 2662] for our sins” (this word also occurs in 4:10; cf. also Lk 18:13; Ro 3:25; Heb 2:17; 9:5). And his sacrifice is not only for our sins, “but also for the sins of the whole world.” This statement asserts two things: Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient for all, and it is necessary for all.

B. Obeying His Commands (2:3–11)

The first section (1:1—2:2) dealt with fellowship, primarily fellowship with God. Three false claims made by the opponents were denied (vv.6, 8, 10), and each false claim was used as an occasion for the presentation of what are true evidences of living in fellowship with God. The second section (2:3–11) is concerned with knowledge of God. Again the false claims to knowledge by the opponents are stated first, this time introduced by the clause “he who says” (cf. vv.4, 6, 9). Each of these claims is again denied and the evidence of the true knowledge of God is set forth: obeying his commands (v.5), walking in his likeness (v.6), and loving one’s brother (v.10).

3 There appears to be a break in subject matter with what precedes as the author now turns to the topic of knowing God. For him to know God is, however, a natural corollary to the idea of walking in the light and of having fellowship with God. It is simply another way of speaking of the reality of God. In this instance the language probably is a response to the opponents for whom knowledge (gnosis; GK 1194) was a key term. To these “Gnostic” opponents, knowledge of God came through “mystical insights” or by a “direct vision of God.” At the same time, they were uninterested in moral conduct and unconcerned about human behavior.

For the Hebrew or Christian mind, however, knowledge of God cannot be separated from the experience of righteousness. Consequently there is no greater claim one can make in knowing God than to obey him. “We can be sure we know him,” the author says, “if we obey his commands.” For John, therefore, the test of knowledge of God is moral conduct (cf. also Tit 1:16). There is no knowledge of God that does not also keep his commandments.

4 Now the author addresses his opponents who claim that they know God but at the same time break his commandments. Since he considers knowledge of God practical and experiential, to claim to know God and at the same time to disobey his commandments is to lie and be devoid of all truth.

5 Next John states the positive side of knowledge. The one who “obeys his word” (a more comprehensive way of speaking of the Gospel, including both promises and commandments) finds God’s love “made complete” (GK 5457) in him. True knowledge of God does not end with speculative ideas, as for the Gnostics, but with obedience to the moral law and with the presence of God’s love in the believer. “Made complete” carries with it the idea of continuous growth and development; it describes both state and process. As obedience is practiced, so God’s love matures in us.

6 “To live in him” (either the Father or the Son, but in the context the Father is more likely) introduces another way the opponents described their relationship to God. What they claimed by this experience we do not know; probably they boasted of mystical experiences, visions of the light, and the like. What they did not claim was any seriousness to live in a godly manner. The author’s comment is direct and forceful: “Whoever claims to live in him must walk [i.e., live] as Jesus did.” Relationship to God requires moral behavior worthy of God. And as the revelation of God in Christ is accepted as the high point of divine self-disclosure, so the human life of Jesus becomes the measuring stick of true moral and ethical behavior. The author is not claiming that the walk of Jesus can be perfectly imitated but that there is a divine imperative—which must be taken seriously—for believers to live according to the way Jesus lived.

7 The affectionate term “dear friends” (lit., “beloved”; GK 28) reminds us that the author is looking in two directions at once: (1) He is setting forth tests that will expose the false teachings and claims of his opponents. (2) He is providing tests by which his own spiritual children will know they are walking in the light.

In addition, John may be dealing with a serious charge against his own teaching. His opponents may have claimed that he has in fact distorted the Gospel by adding to it. For them the knowledge of God available in the Gospel was itself the end of the religious quest. To John, however, the Gospel is fulfilled in the knowledge of God that is revealed in Jesus, and this in turn requires obedience to his commands and results in a new relationship with God expressed in a life of love. The point of view reflects Jesus’ words as recorded in Jn 13:34. The new command that John speaks of here in v.7 sums up what it means to “walk in the light” and to “walk as Jesus did.” Thus it stands at the heart of the Gospel. Moreover, what John was proclaiming was not “a new command but an old one” they had had “since the beginning.” So he denies that there ever was “a message” that did not have this command at its heart.

8 In view of v.7, how can the author assert that this command is also at the same time “a new command”? Its newness lies at the point of its realization and fulfillment. Jesus lived a life of divine love, and he extended this life to his disciples as a new command to be fulfilled in their lives (Jn 15:12ff.). After Jesus’ death and resurrection, they discovered that as they obeyed his commands, his promise did indeed find fulfillment. What had been true in Jesus’ own life now became part of the reality of their lives. They too began to know what it was to “love.” Just as Luke (Ac 2) and Paul (2Co 5:17) wrote about the experience of this realized new life in the present, John expresses the realized fulfillment by simply saying that “the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining” (cf. Eph 5:8–14; 1Th 5:4–8).

9 This verse brings us to the third false claim that the author denies. Whereas obedience to the new command leads to love among the Christian community, among the opponents who claim to “be in the light” there is hate. This hate for one’s fellow believer shows that the light they follow is nothing but darkness.

How does John understand hate? His answer lies primarily in what one does. Hate is the absence of the deeds of love. To walk in the light is to love one’s brother, and God’s love will express itself in concrete actions. If these are missing, it is not because love can be neutral or can exist unexpressed. Love unexpressed is not love at all. When it is absent, hate is present.

In this instance, hate is the failure to deny oneself, the unwillingness to lay down one’s life for a brother (Jn 15:13). One considers one’s own plight first (1Co 13:5); disregards the robbed and afflicted (Lk 10:30–37); despises the little ones (Mt 18:10); withholds the cup of cold water from the thirsty (Mt 25:42); and makes no effort to welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, or help the sick (Mt 25:43). Whenever a brother has need and one does not help him, then one has, in fact, hated his brother.

Does the word “brother” (GK 81) refer here to one’s neighbor or to one who belongs to the community of faith? In this instance it probably refers to a member of the community of faith. It is not that John lacks concern for those outside the faith: rather, in this letter he has the community of believers in view. Moreover, if believers cannot love their fellow believers, it is doubtful that they can truly love their neighbors.

10 The author now gives us a positive test of living in the light. Unlike his opponents, his concern is with deeds, not claims. “Whoever loves,” he says, is “in the light.” Conversely, the one who does not live “in the light” will not manifest God’s love.

The uncertain antecedents of the Greek pronouns leads to some ambiguity in the rest of the sentence. In view of the author’s aim, he is probably saying that the one who loves and abides in the light will never cause the offense the opponents do.

11 Now the author picks up the concept of “darkness” from v.9 and gives it a final elaboration and conclusion. One who “hates his brother” is not simply “in the darkness” but is condemned to spend his life in darkness. Though he has eyes, he can see nothing. And the darkness so blinds his eyes that he has no idea “where he is going.” Life is a search, but for him it is without direction. He never knows whether he is closer to or farther from his destination. The only certainty is that he is without hope of reaching it. So hate destroys any window for light from God. To live without loving one’s brother means to deny oneself the presence of God and the reality of fellowship with the community of faith.

C. Knowing the Father and Abiding Forever (2:12–17)

The first part of the letter (1:5–2:11) involved untrue assertions made by the author’s Gnostic-type opponents and provided “tests” for exposing the false claims as well as for assuring those who walked in the light. The next section is in two parts. The first (2:12–14) contrasts the position of believers who walk in the light with that of the Gnostics who walk in darkness. The second part (2:15–17) warns believers not to fall into the trap of worldliness, as the false teachers did.

The first section is rhythmical, almost lyrical. Two sets of three statements introduced by the words “I write” and “I have written,” or “I wrote” (NIV does not bring out this distinction), are addressed in turn to “children,” “fathers,” and “young men.” We do not know why the author changes tenses, nor do we know the significance of the various forms of address. Possibly John intends to address his entire congregation from two standpoints—that of chronological age (“children,” “young men,” “fathers”) and that of spiritual age (novices in the faith, those whose faith is vigorous and who are responsible for the work of the Gospel, and those whose knowledge and experience in the faith are the foundation on which the community exists).

12 “Dear children” (GK 5448) is the author’s favorite term for the congregation of believers as a whole. Under this rubric he offers the most basic and universal words of assurance he can give: “Your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.” They have confessed their sins (1:9) and, on account of the name of Jesus (cf. Ac 4:12), or by faith in his name (3:23; 5:13), or by faith in him (5:1, 5)—the meaning is the same—they have received forgiveness through the covenant of his blood (1:7). In this knowledge they may stand firm. Because they are forgiven, they may also have fellowship with God and true knowledge of him (v,13c).

13a “Fathers” is an unusual form of address for senior members of a congregation. According to Jewish custom, it would refer to those who had responsibility for authority. Many times it is used to refer to the leaders of the past, such as the patriarchs, etc. If it refers to members of the congregation who were mature both in years and in faith, it was indeed a solemn designation, one implying they had responsibility in the community of believers. The secondary address to the “fathers” in v.14a is particularly appropriate to older members of the community. It stresses the historic origins of the faith and the growth of the personal knowledge of Christ that comes only with experience.

The pronoun “him” is ambiguous, and while it could refer to God, it is more likely here to refer to Christ. In any case, it looks back to 1:1–3, where both God and Christ are equally represented, and it reminds the readers that they have come to know Jesus as the One who is and who was from the beginning. The idea of knowing God reflects a special interest of the prophets (see Isa 9:1–9; 52:6; Jer 31:34).

13b The description of the community as “young men” who “are strong” (v.14b) and “have overcome” adds a new dimension. Believers are to see themselves as not only in conflict with the enemy but as having perceived the victory in Christ’s name and by his power. The victory obviously was gained through Christ’s death, and now his followers have the task under his leadership of establishing his reign over the world and “the evil one” (v.14b—a reference to the devil; see 3:12; 5:18; cf. Jn 17:15; Eph 6:16; 2Th 3:3). This victory does not promise that believers will be removed from the heat and peril of the battlefield. But it does assure them that if they are faithful they will overcome the devil. As Christ has been victorious over Satan, so they too may commit themselves to the conflict without fear of defeat (cf. Jn 16:33; Ro 8:31–39; Col 2:15; 1Jn 3:8).

13c This time the “children” are addressed by a different word (GK 4086). While the word in v.12 emphasizes the relationship of the dependence, the word used here stresses the immaturity of the child and the need to be under instruction or direction. As children who are under teachers in the faith, John’s readers have come to know God as the Father. Second only to forgiveness in importance for the new community of faith is the relationship to God as Father that comes through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

14 After referring again to the “fathers” (see comment on v.13a), the author concludes by addressing the young men as those in whom “the word of God lives.” They were indeed “strong” (GK 2708) as the children of faith, but the author reminds them that their strength ultimately depends on one fact alone—the Word of God abiding or living in them.

15 Having assured the believers of their position before God—i.e., their sins are forgiven, they know the Father, and they have overcome the evil one—John moves to application. He warns them not to love the world and gives two reasons: Love for the world precludes love for the Father, and the investment of love in the world is without meaning because the world is passing away (v.17). The love of the world versus the love of the Father provides yet another “test” of walking in the light.

“World” (GK 3180) occurs six times in vv.15–17. It obviously means something quite different here than in Jn 3:16. There the Father’s love of the world is apparently based on his having willed the world into existence. It is his creation; he created it to be good, beautiful, and worthy of giving glory to him. Likewise those who live in the world are his creatures, whom he loves; even in their desperate state of living in darkness and the shadow of death, he remains constant in desiring to rescue them from eternal death. Here, however, the world is presented as the evil system under the grip of the devil (cf. 1Jn5:19; Jn 12:31; 14:30).

Love also means something different in this passage. Here it is not the selfless love for one’s brother (cf. 2:10) but the love that entices by an evil desire or a forbidden appetite (Jn 3:19; 12:43). It is the world’s ability to seduce believers, to draw them away from love of the Father, that concerns John.

16 What love for the world or worldliness entails is now spelled out by John in a memorable triad: “the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does.” The phrase “the cravings of sinful man” (lit., “the desire of the flesh [GK 4922]”) describes the principle of worldliness from which love of the world flows. “Flesh” refers to a selfish outlook that pursues its own ends, independent of God and independent of one’s fellowman. The “flesh” not only becomes the basis for rebellion against God and for despising his law but also connotes all that is materialistic, egocentric, exploitative, and selfish. It is at the root of racism, sexism, love of injustice, despising the poor, neglecting the weak and helpless, and every unrighteous practice.

The “lust of the eyes” can refer especially to sexual lust, but can also mean everything that entices the eyes. It is a tendency to be captivated by outward show, and especially indicates greed and a desire for things aroused by seeing them (cf. Eve in Ge 3; Achan in Jos 7; David in 2Sa 11).

The key term in the third phrase is “pride” (NIV, “boasting”; GK 224); it occurs only here and in Jas 4:16 (cf. GK 225 in Ro 1:30; 2Ti 3:2). It describes a pretentious hypocrite who glories in himself or in his possessions. If one’s public image means more than the glory of God or the well-being of one’s fellow human beings, such pretentiousness of life has become a form of idol-worship. “Pride of life” will be reflected in whatever status symbol is important to me or seems to define my identity. When I define myself to others in terms of my honorary degrees, the reputation of the church I serve, my annual income, the size of my library, my expensive car or house, and if in doing this I misrepresent the truth and in my boasting show myself to be only a pompous fool who has deceived no one, then I have succumbed to the pride of life.

17 All the vanity of this evil world with its devices is passing away. It has already begun to putrefy. It is a corpse not yet buried. But the person who really does the will of God has the breath of eternal life.

D. Warnings Against Antichrists (2:18–28)

In the first three sections of his letter, the author has been directly presenting his followers with “tests” by which they could know they were truly in union with the Father. At the same time, he was dealing with his opponents by showing that they failed each of these tests of discipleship. In this section he reverses his method. He is no longer using indirection against his opponents, but now confronts them and their teaching by openly labeling them for what they are: antichrists (vv.18–19). He exposes their method: they lie and deny Jesus as Christ (vv.20, 23). He teaches his followers how to cope with this: they are to remain in what they were taught (vv.24–26). Finally, he assures his followers of their power to overcome: “His anointing teaches you” (vv.27–28).

18 The reference to the transitoriness of the world in v.17 provides the link to what has preceded. One sign of the end of this transitory world is the appearance of false teaching and of the Antichrist. What the apostles warned of is now being fulfilled. The spirit of “antichrist” (GK 532) is present in the world, evidenced by the many “antichrists” who have already appeared. This is no surprise, however, but only further confirmation that the company of believers are living in the last hour.

The term “last hour” occurs only here in the NT. Like the similar terms “the last days” and “the last times,” it owes much to OT expectations (cf. Joel 2:28; Mic 4:1) and to later Jewish ideas. Jesus called the present age an evil age and looked forward to the age to come, which would be ushered in by God’s own intervention. The NT writers thought of the “last days” in two ways. (1) Theologically, they connected this period to the new age associated with the coming of Jesus. In the gospel of John this new age is designated by the statement “the hour is come” and is marked by Jesus’ death and resurrection (Jn 4:23; 5:25). In Acts the new age is referred to as the “days to come” and is signaled by the pouring forth of the Spirit (Ac 2:17) and salvation through calling on the name of the Lord (Ac 2:21). But the NT writers did not believe this new age had completely come. They recognized it as being present provisionally in Christ and in the Holy Spirit. But because of this dawning of the new age, they saw the present age as already doomed and passing away.

(2) Eschatologically, the term “last days” designates the last days before Christ’s return (cf. 2Ti 3:1ff.; 2Pe 3:3). In the gospel of John, the last day refers to the last resurrection and judgment (cf. Jn 6:39–40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48).

Should the term “last hour” here be understood theologically or eschatologically? More likely the former. Since the Greek literally translates “it is a last hour,” the term seems to describe the general character of the period rather than its specific time in history. In addition, the words used here involve no chronological or temporal assertions. Also, in his gospel, John uses “hour” (GK 6052) theologically to indicate the fulfillment of time—the time of redemption and salvation (Jn 2:4; 4:21; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23).

19 The departure of the opponents may have had a greater effect on the congregation than the reason for it. The early church obviously had severe debates, with significant differences of opinion being expressed. Yet as far as we know, no one thought that “separation from the congregation” was an option for anyone professing faith in Jesus. Departure, like Judas’s going out from the community of disciples, pointed to betrayal, denial of faith, and separation from God’s grace. That is why John acknowledges that those false teachers, whom he now designates as antichrists, had been regular members of the congregation. “They went out from us,” he says, but hastens to add, “they did not really belong to us.” Like Judas, they had been nominal members of the community and had never truly shared its fellowship.

John goes on to teach the significance and abiding nature of life in the community. “If they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us.” Those who have actually been a part of the divine life will without fail persevere in the community. But in order that the true nature of the false teachers might be exposed, “they went out from us,” so that the community might know that “none of them belonged to us” (cf. Mt 24:24).

Expulsion from the Christian community for misdeeds was and is a serious act, and hopefully it lasts only long enough to allow for repentance and restoration (cf. 1Co 5:2–5; 2Co 2:5–11). The case at hand is unique; the departure of the opponents was not expulsion or excommunication but a voluntary departure. It shows that they were never truly members of the community.

20 The author now returns to the heretical claims of his opponents. They probably claimed superior knowledge because they had received an exclusive ritual anointing that gave them knowledge. Their attitude may have been similar to that of the later “Gnostic” sect known as Naassenes, who claimed a special sacrament of anointing. John combats his opponents’ claim by reminding his readers: “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know [because all of you received it] the truth.” This is probably an allusion to the coming of the Holy Spirit as prophesied by Jesus in John’s gospel: “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth” (Jn 16:13; cf. also 14:17; 15:26). The early Christians connected this with their baptism. Although “anointing” is used only infrequently in the NT, both Luke and Paul do use it with reference to the Holy Spirit (Lk 4:18; Ac 10:38; 2Co 1:21–22).

The messengers of God proclaimed the Gospel, but God himself by his Spirit taught the heart, from which true knowledge was then manifested. When this divine teaching was truly recognized, Christians were genuinely protected against false teaching or unbelief (cf. 1Th 4:9; Ro 15:14).

21 Lest there be any doubt among the faithful as to John’s perception of their understanding and orthodoxy, he says that he has not written because they did not know the truth—he himself is not providing any new information or teaching—but because they know it so certainly. They know the character of truth, and therefore they know that “no lie comes from truth.” John aims his remarks precisely at the innate knowledge of the Gospel that he knows his followers possess. Lies cannot come from God. The antichrists and their followers, the false teachers, are liars. So they do not come—in fact, they cannot come—from God, who is the truth.

22 “Who is the liar?” v.22 asks and then rhetorically answers by pointing to those antichrists who promulgate the particularly pernicious falsehood that Jesus is not the Christ. This falsehood should not be linked to the Jewish opponents who denied that Jesus was the Messiah but rather to the Gnostic opponents who denied that Christ came in the flesh (see also 4:2–3; 2 Jn 7).

The exact kind of Gnostic denial in view is uncertain. It probably included the ideas that the true Christ, who was preexistent, merely appeared in human form to bring eternal life, that his human existence was without real significance, and that his human presence was not essential to his true being. The revelations he brought came not through any of his actions as Jesus of Nazareth or through any events connected to his life—especially not through his sufferings or his death on the cross. To the opponents, eternal life came in Jesus’ divine glory as the preexistent and eternal Christ.

Obviously such a denial of Jesus’ humanity struck at the very heart of the Incarnation. By denying Jesus’ true sonship, these opponents of John denied the Father as well. Because they denied Jesus’ human life, they rejected the community of love he established. Most likely the false teachers mocked the commands of Jesus as taught by the apostles. Little wonder that John designates them “antichrists.” They rejected Jesus. They rejected their own sinfulness and need of forgiveness (1:8–10), the life of love (2:4, 6, 8), and their “fellowship” with the Father and the Son (1:1–4, 6–7).

23 The statement “No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also” makes clear the singular dependence of the Christian faith on the reality of God available through the Son. Those who claim they have a Father but exclude the Son have neither the Father nor the Son. Consequently, when Jesus is acknowledged as the Son and as the eternal Christ, the Father has also truly been lifted up, known and honored, confessed and possessed. John is not talking here about having a creed but about possessing a person by accepting or acknowledging our relationship to him. So also we deny God by denying him his proper relationship with us.

24 At this point John shifts his attention to his readers. They, in contrast to the antichrists, are exhorted to make certain that what they heard “from the beginning”—i.e., the true apostolic declaration concerning Jesus as Son and Christ—“remains” (GK 3531) in them. If it does, they may be assured that they will also “remain” in the Son and in the Father. The use of “remain” gives weight to the warning. The word of the Gospel must not only be heard but be given a vital place in one’s life. The message must continue to be active in the lives of all who have heard it. They must reflect on it and let it affect their lives.

While John’s exhortation here is clearly to faithfulness to the Word, it is also an exhortation with an assured promise of fulfillment. Where the Word abides, there also the Son and Father abide in intimate fellowship. The Word is not the goal of the fellowship but rather a means to the goal of fellowship. The listing of the Son before the Father may emphasize the fact that access to the Father becomes possible only through the Son (Jn 10:10; 17:2; 20:31).

25 What is promised in the Gospel is the everlasting knowledge of Father and Son (Jn 17:3). It is a promise the community has already received. Eternal life has begun, but its eschatological fulfillment is also promised. What dimension this fellowship with the Son and the Father will assume in the “life to come” is yet unknown (3:2). But the hope is certain. All that is now known about it is only a foretaste of the glory that will be revealed.

26–27 The author concludes his attack on the false teachers with a warning and a word of encouragement for his followers. He has identified the heretical beliefs of those who have deserted the community of believers (v.22). He has properly labeled his opponents antichrists (v.18) and has described them as “those trying to lead you astray” (cf. 4:6; 2Jn 7). This description is more significant because it reveals the actual intent of those who have deserted the community. Not only have they forsaken the true faith, but they intend to lead many of the faithful astray. Their aim is to assume leadership over the community. They are enemies who are not content to spread new teaching but “invaders” and “deceivers” who seek to win the whole community over to their position.

Against their threat, John once more expresses his supreme confidence in the power of the divine anointing. The Son’s gift of the Spirit, who accompanied the apostolic word “from the beginning,” abides in them (cf. Jn 14:16). If they abide in the teaching and in the anointing, they need neither new teaching nor new teachers. Since they have received their “teaching” from the Son through those who were his witnesses from the beginning and have his “anointing,” they have in fact no need for anyone more to teach them, not even John himself. Does he think of this letter as further “teaching”? Probably not. He is simply reminding them to keep to the teaching they received from the beginning. Any teaching in the church should only be what was received from the beginning (cf. Gal 1:6; 1Ti 6:3; 2Ti 1:13; 4:3–5; Tit 1:9; 2Pe 3:2).

The last part of v.27 summarizes the threefold reason to trust the anointing already received from Jesus (2:20). (1) His anointing teaches all things necessary for them to know concerning the Word of Life. He does not advance the idea, perhaps favored by some of his opponents, that the Spirit will add new revelation to what has already been given. (2) This anointing is “real, not counterfeit” (cf. Jn 15:26; 16:3)—a reference to the gnosticizing opponents who claim as the source of their teaching a special anointing not commonly received by the company of believers. But the test of the anointing is its fidelity to that which is from the beginning. Since the opponents’ teaching fails precisely at this point, their anointing is exposed as false. (3) The community has in its history experienced the teaching from the anointing—i.e., they have known the confirming work of the Spirit in their lives. The Gospel has taken root in them and has brought forth its fruit (cf. 2:12–14). Therefore, John concludes with his most important word to them: “Remain [abide] in him [Christ].”

28 This verse makes the transition from con cern about false teachers to concern for the children of God. It joins the admonition developed in the previous paragraph to the “confidence” (GK 4244) and unashamedness that should belong to God’s children when Christ appears. “Confidence” is one of John’s favorite words to describe the freedom and boldness that belong to the Christian before God in prayer (3:21; 5:14; cf. Heb 4:16; 10:19) and at Christ’s coming.

“Coming” (parousia; GK 4242; see comment on 1Th 2:19) occurs only here in 1 John and not at all in John’s gospel. Combined with “when he appears,” this is a technical term referring to Jesus’ second coming in visible splendor, a teaching that the author held in common with other early Christians. Historically this word was used to describe the festivities attendant on a monarch’s arriving for a state visit. The early Christians anticipated the Lord’s return as being no less joyous and majestic.

III. Requirements for Fellowship With God Who Is Righteous (2:29–4:6)

The dominant theme of this second main division of the letter is to provide assurance that even as the believers “continue in Jesus,” they can know they are the children of God. The “tests” for knowing this are: (1) doing what is right (2:29–3:10), (2) loving one another (3:11–24), and (3) testing the spirits (4:1–6). Obedience will guarantee confidence before Jesus at his coming (2:28) and before God in prayer (3:21).

A. Doing What Is Right (2:29–3:10)

John begins this section with a promise of future likeness to Jesus (2:29–3:3) and follows it by a warning that a life of sin is not compatible with a life of fellowship with God but evidences the presence of the devil. Christ came to destroy the devil’s work, prominent in which is hatred of one’s fellow believer.

29 There is a clear break in thought and a new topic—“tests for knowing the children of God”—introduced here. Attention naturally focuses on the Father (3:1) and the significance of being “born of him.” Since John never speaks of being “born of Jesus,” it makes more sense to conclude that the subject from the beginning of v.29 is the Father and that John depends on his readers to get the meaning from the total context.

Neither God’s righteousness nor that of the Son is disputed between John and his opponents (cf. 1:5; 2:1, 20; 3:7) but rather the significance of this righteousness. For John, to be born of God and to become his child means to accept as the standard for Christian conduct the Father’s righteousness as revealed through the Son (2:6; 3:7; cf. Mt 5:48). Therefore, one must keep Jesus’ commands, especially the command to love, which also becomes the test for distinguishing who are truly born of God. Those who do his righteous will should know that they have been born of him. Righteous conduct is not a condition for rebirth but a consequence of it.

On the other hand, John’s opponents, who presumably also claimed rebirth, apparently thought of it not in ethical or moral terms but in terms of nature. They may have said that because they possessed the divine nature they could not sin (1:8) and were consequently removed from any obligation to the commandments (2:3–4). For them the proof that they were born of God lay in their new teaching, which freed them from commandments; in their knowledge, which enabled them to reject Christ’s coming in the flesh; and in their exclusivism, which allowed them to hate their brothers (3:17–20), forsake the community (2:19), and deny the commandment to love (3:10).

From the tone of the letter, we conclude that the denial of the necessity to keep the commandments had not yet led to flagrant immoral conduct among the dissidents but that the implications of their theological method were seen by John as allowing—if not encouraging—that possibility.

3:1 The phrase “born of him [God]” (2:29) leads the author to marvel at the wonder of God’s redemptive activity. See how great the gift of his love really is! Why, he has identified us as being his very own children! And this is exactly what we have become through his acts. Clearly the author means to encourage his readers by reminding them of the lavishness of God’s grace and love—qualities that are missing from his opponents’ lives. They fail to recognize God’s love and feel no obligation to express it. But apart from love, there would have been no children of God.

Because believers are children of God, John warns them that the world is unable to recognize them or relate to them. That should not surprise them because neither did the world recognize God. The failure of the world to know God is one of the basic themes of the gospel of John (5:37; 7:28; 16:3). Those who belong to the world live in darkness. They cannot come to the light but must inevitably hate it.

The author wants his readers to know that approval by the world is to be feared, not desired. To be hated by the world may be unpleasant, but ultimately it should reassure the members of the community of faith that they are loved by God, which is far more important than the world’s hatred.

2 Though they are now God’s children, the unveiling of their identity or the complete revelation of their nature still lies in the future (probably only at the last time). John does not encourage speculation in these matters. His concern is to reiterate the “tradition” from which the promise comes. He (Jesus) will appear. We will see him as he truly is; his full glory will be revealed (cf. Jn 17:1, 5, 24). And we will become like him. That the author is once more presenting the teaching shared in the church “from the beginning” seems clear from its similarity to Paul’s teaching in Ro 8:29; 1Co 15:49; 2Co 3:18; Col 3:4.

3 All who have their hope in Jesus—i.e., their hope of being like him (3:2) when he appears (2:28)—will also be committed to keeping themselves from sin. They will put away every defilement; they will aim to be like him in purity and righteousness. Once more we have the pattern of the incarnate Jesus being held up as an example to believers (cf. 2:6; 3:7, 16; 4:17). Those who claim likeness to him must be conformed to his earthly life, even as they wait for his coming. To live in sin or disobedience to his commands is to abandon any hope in him. It is the pure in heart who will see God (cf. Mt 5:8).

4 Here John uses two words to describe sin: “sin” (GK 281) and “lawlessness” (GK 490). In both OT and NT, these two words are used frequently as synonyms (cf. Pss 32:1; 51:3; Ro 4:7; Heb 10:17). In John’s community, however, they were used apparently with different meanings. The former word was used to describe transgression of the law, the breaking of God’s commandments. The latter defined sin as rebellion against God and was connected with Satan’s rebellion against God (cf. Mt 7:22; 24:11–13; 2Co 6:14–16; 2Th 2:1–12). Apparently the false teachers and John agreed that “lawlessness” was incompatible with being born of God. What they did not agree on was that sin, defined as transgression of the moral law, was “lawlessness.” Indeed, as those “born of God” they claimed themselves “morally” to be without sin or guilt. Either they believed that they were by nature incapable of violating the law or that sinful deeds done in the flesh were of no concern to God.

John decries such thinking. That his opponents hate their brothers (2:11) shows that their claim to sinlessness is a lie, and their failure to love stems from their lawlessness. Lawlessness, in turn, shows that they do not belong to God but to the devil (3:10). They are part of the evil soon to be revealed (2:18).

5 In this verse John turns again to the teaching received “from the beginning” and raises two additional arguments against sin as a principle of life. (1) Not only is sin lawlessness (v.4), but Jesus appeared in history in order to remove it (cf. Jn 1:29; Heb 9:26). (2) Jesus himself lived a sinless life (cf. 2:1; 3:3; 2Co 5:21). In this latter statement the author probably is looking in two directions. Because Jesus was sinless, the devil had no hold on him (cf. John 14:30), so that Jesus was able to destroy the works of the devil (3:8). In addition, Jesus’ sinlessness reveals the kind of lifestyle required for those who abide in him. John uses the present tense to emphasize that sinlessness is characteristic of Jesus’ eternal nature. He was sinless in his preexistence, in his life in the flesh, and in his eternal position as Son.

6 This verse seems to contradict 1:8, 10. However, as we have reconstructed the situation (see comment on 3:4), the author simultaneously faced two different problems with these precursors of Gnosticism. There were those who apparently claimed to be sinless by nature; i.e., they were unable to sin because they were “born of God.” There were others who claimed a standing with God apart from a life of righteousness. They believed that the commandments had no authority over them and taught that it was a matter of indifference to God whether they sinned or not. Therefore they could hate their brothers without guilt or concern.

In opposition to the latter opponents, the author states that those who “live” in the “sinless one” will, like him, live a life of righteousness. They commit themselves not to sin. And if they sin, they will confess it as lawlessness and abandon it.

John acknowledges that the life of righteousness is possible only in Christ. By “living” in him, in his “sinlessness,” one can expect conformity to his righteousness. On the other hand, those who continue to sin make it certain that they have never had their eyes opened spiritually to see him, nor have they ever known him (cf. Jn 5:37–38; 8:19; 14:7, 9; 3Jn 11).

7 The warning “do not let anyone lead you astray” appears to have been directed against the false teachers in the community. The author, by using the address “dear children” (see comment on 2:1), places his own position in the community on the line.

8 There is clearly a progression in the author’s thought on sin in this section. He begins with the “sinfulness” of sin—i.e., “it is lawlessness,” or rebellion against God (v.4). Next he shows its incompatibility with Christ (v.5) and its incompatibility for anyone who lives in Christ (v.6). Now he shows the diabolic nature of sin—its source is the devil, who “has been sinning from the beginning” (v.8). That the Son of God appeared “to destroy the devil’s work” is an elaboration of what John said in v.5.

John sees the enmity of God against the devil as absolute. It lies at the heart of God’s commitment to rescue the human race from the devil’s clutches. God will destroy the devil and all his works, including those children of the devil who accept sinning as a way of life. The statement “the devil has been sinning from the beginning” probably refers to the Genesis account of the Fall and includes an identification of the devil with the serpent. He was, from the beginning, evil (cf. Jn 8:44). Therefore, the very being of those like the false teachers derives from the devil. His desires become their desires. Like him they become liars and seducers. Those who continue in sin become children of the devil (v.10).

9 John summarizes what he has said. In v.6 he stated that no one who “lives in him” can practice a life of sin. Here he adds that “no one who is born of God” or has “God’s seed” in him can “continue to sin.” Both elements are necessary for understanding John’s theology of community. Believers must “live” in him. The Father in turn must live in the believers (3:24; 4:12; cf. Jn 14:20; 17:21–23). If we do live in him, “we are removed” from life under the dominion of Satan. And if he lives in us, then our life will be his life in us and we will live even as he lived.

10 This verse reveals the heart of the entire section and furnishes a transition to the next one. John is not concerned with a theoretical consideration of the nature of sinfulness or the possibility of sinlessness but the issue of the community. How are the children (community) of God to be recognized and how are the children (community) of the devil to be discerned?

“Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God.” And what is the “right” he does not do? He “does not love his brother.” “Love for one’s brother” is the true test of righteous behavior. This requirement of love helps explain the absolute requirement that those who are born of God “cannot go on sinning” (vv.6, 9). For if God is love, and if he lives in us and we in him, then love for fellow believers will occur as an expression of righteousness without exception.

The author, then, is not stressing absolute moral conformity or “sinless perfection” but the one requirement by which all other requirements are measured—love for one’s fellow Christian. For this there is no substitute, its violation allows for no excuse, its application permits no compromise. Here there are no gray areas, no third possibilities. We either love our fellow believers and prove we are God’s children, or we do not love them and prove we belong to the devil.

B. Loving One Another (3:11–24)

As the knowledge of God is tested by conduct (1:5–2:11), so being “born of God” (2:29) is tested by righteous action and love of fellow believers. The command to love fellow believers was first introduced in 2:9–11 as a test of whether one was walking in light, i.e., had true knowledge. Here it is the sum of the new life in God. In the former instance it was leveled as a charge against the heretics. Here it is addressed to the community of faith for encouragement and admonition. Most likely the disregard for love by the heretics had caused a lessening of an emphasis on love within the Christian community. The author presents the case for love first by the negative example of Cain (vv.12–15), contrasted with the positive example of Jesus (v.16).

11 The admonition that “we should love one another” is highlighted by the return to the critical formula, “This is the message you heard from the beginning,” an almost identical reminiscence of 1:1, 5 (see comments). The command to “love one another” has its origin in the nature of God. The entire goal and aim of the Gospel is to create and strengthen love.

12 The mention of Cain points back to 3:8 and reminds us that hatred is also from the beginning. The choice between the children of God and the children of the devil, between hatred and love or life and death, stems from the earliest moment of human existence. It also points to Jn 8:37–47, where some Jewish opponents of Jesus had exhibited the same kind of hatred toward Jesus that Cain expressed toward Abel (Jn 8:59). There Jesus labels his enemies as people who “belong to your father, the devil . . . [who was] a murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:42).

The sequence of thought in this section is significant. It is not that Cain by murdering his brother became the child of the devil; but, being a child of the devil, his actions were evil and culminated in the murder of his brother. The reason why he “murdered” (lit., “butchered”; GK 5377) him was that his brother’s acts were righteous. Righteousness draws hatred from the devil and hatred from the children of the devil. Darkness cannot tolerate light; immorality, morality; hatred, love; or greed, sacrifice. This is the only direct reference to the OT in this letter.

13 The hatred of the “world” (GK 3180) for the community of faith must not surprise the believers. The author does not say that the world always hates believers; it did not always hate Jesus. But whenever the community of faith acts so as to expose the greed, avarice, hatred, and wickedness of the world, it must expect rejection; and if it should go so far as to interfere with its evil practices, as Jesus did in the temple, it may expect suffering and brutal death (cf. Jn 15:18–19, 25; 17:14).

“Brothers” (GK 81) occurs only here in 1 John as an address. At this most critical point, the author steps past his relationship to them as “little children” (see comment on 2:1) and openly proclaims them his peers. Perhaps they have already experienced persecution with him. Or perhaps he knows that if they receive his letter and obey it, persecution will soon come because they have identified themselves with him rather than with his opponents.

14 John looks back to v.10 and answers the question: How do we know those who have been “born of God”? or, Who are the children of God? “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers” (cf. Jn 5:24). This conviction is not based on self-judgment or self-justification but on the certainty that love is the basis for life in the believing community. This is a self-test by which each person can examine himself or herself. Love will not, of course, cause one’s passage to spiritual life but will give evidence of it. Conversely, to be unable to love means that a person is without spiritual life and remains in death.

15 Here John links hatred with murder (cf. Mt 5:21–22). In the heart there is no difference; to hate is to despise, and murder is the fulfillment of that attitude. Cain, by murdering his brother, was cut off from the covenant community. So no murderer is within the community, nor anyone who “hates his brother.” Such a person has no life of God and no fellowship with the faithful.

16 The test of true love is identified as willingness to sacrifice one’s life for one’s brother. The demonstrative “this” that begins the statement points backward to the negative example of Cain and forward to the positive example of Christ. Love is used absolutely and its reference point is Christ’s death. The demand for love thus arises from his command, and the meaning of love is found in his example.

“We know” suggests that the knowledge that is involved belongs to events of Jesus Christ, which they heard from the beginning (cf. 1:1; 3:11). “Love” (agape; GK 27) cannot be derived from some intuitive grasp of an idea but is known in the historical event in which Jesus Christ laid down his life for us (cf. Jn 10:11). His sacrificial death thus distinguishes agape love from all other loves by its costliness, its unconditional acceptance of another, and its accomplishment.

The personal commitment of Christ is expressed in the words of Jn 15:12–13 (cf. 13:1): “Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.” Its accomplishment as a “for us” kind of love is reflected in Jesus’ work. It is clear that Jesus understood his death as an effectual, accomplishing act for giving us eternal life (Jn 10:28); it was the only method open to him to fulfill his Father’s will (cf. Jn 10:11–18, 27–30; 15:9–18; 17:19). Since agape love is grounded in Jesus’ death for us, knowledge of it can be received only where his “death” is appropriated into our experience.

The dramatic conclusion we are irresistibly led to is this: “And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.” We are to do this not simply because that is what Jesus did, but because that is what Jesus revealed to be the demand of agape love. Love is denial of self for another’s gain.

17 Again John’s penchant for providing practical “tests” of the validity of one’s faith comes to the fore. How can we know whether we would sacrifice our life for a fellow believer? We can know by being compassionate toward such a one in his or her present need. If we are unable or unwilling to sacrifice material advantage for the sake of our fellow believers, we know that the love of God is not in us. What are the conditions for our involvement? If we are in a position to see with our own eyes someone’s need (as, for example, the good Samaritan did) and can offer help, then we cannot do otherwise than act. To withhold help in such a situation is to shut off compassionate action and to deny the presence of God’s love in our own heart.

18 Turning back to “little children” (see comment on v.13), John admonishes with the tone of a spiritual father pleading for the heartfelt response of his children. Love requires more than idle talk or exalted theology. It demands simple acts, which anyone can see, in order to meet the needs of brothers and sisters in distress. Any expression of love that fails here is not only empty but blasphemous (cf. Jas 2:15; 1Co 13:1).

19–20 John began this section (2:29–4:6) by addressing the question, How may we be confident and unashamed at Christ’s coming? (cf. 2:28). The answer, expressed in the phrases “continue in Jesus” and “doing what is right” (2:29; 3:7, 10), is tested by our love for our fellow believers. Now the author addresses the question of assurance—i.e., confidence before God. How may “we know that we belong to the truth” (3:19) and how do we deal with our own condemning hearts (3:20–21)? The anxious note in the first part of the question should probably be attributed at least in part to the unrelenting attack of opponents on the “teaching” and “beliefs” of the Christian community. The whole section, however, may also simply be explaining the nature of “fellowship” with the Father (1:3).

This passage allows several translations and interpretations. (1) “This” (v.19) may be taken to point backward to the absolute demand of love introduced in 3:14ff. If we know that we love truly, with actions and not mere words, that knowledge will not only assure us “that we belong to the truth” but will also act to “set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us.” (2) It is also possible to put a period after “presence” and to read v.20 as follows: “If our hearts should condemn us, God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.” (3) The best option is to see the “this” in v.19 as pointing both backward and forward. In other words, there are two ways we know that we “belong to the truth”: (a) because we love in deed (vv.14ff.), and (b) because God himself assures us that we belong to the truth—he “is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything” (v.20b).

What is stressed is agape love, which is always expressed first in deeds and is reassuring evidence that we are of God. Why our hearts should condemn us is not discussed by the author. Apparently it is not important. His readers, like all others, know how easily the conscience can render us ineffective. Doubt, guilt, and failure are never far from any of us. Sometimes our misgivings are the result of our own actions or inactions. Sometimes it is the “accuser” who seizes our weaknesses and shortcomings and so elevates them that we wonder whether we can really be in the truth. What then can we do? We can remember that God understands everything. His word and his truth are greater than our feelings or our conscience. We may rest ourselves in his love for us and live in that love and by that love. We will not excuse ourselves of any sin, but neither will we needlessly accuse ourselves (cf. 1Co 4:3–5).

21 Christians are called to fellowship with God (1:3; 2:24). But if they are guilt-ridden and conscience-stricken, rather than seeking that fellowship or enjoying it, they will flee the presence of God and will not dare seek answers to prayer that he alone can provide. On the other hand, those who have his peace in their hearts will have “confidence” (GK 4244) not only at his appearing but in the ordinary here-and-now relationship to the Father.

22 The fruit of this boldness is God’s own openness to his children. He never withholds any good thing from those who ask. The author does not give the basis for his assurance, but his words “because we obey his commands and do what pleases him” point directly to Jesus’ own words in Jn 8:28–29. As one who always did his Father’s will, Jesus knew that his Father heard him (Jn 11:42). Jesus also gave similar assurances to his disciples (Jn 16:26–27).

23 This verse specifies what command it is that the children must obey in order to receive whatever they ask of him (v.22). It is “to believe [GK 4409] in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another.” The idea of believing, which occurs here for the first time in this letter, will be seen more and more as the issue between John and the “false teachers.” They do not love—that is clear—but the reason for that is that God’s love is not in them, since they have not truly believed in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. To believe in Jesus Christ means in this context to believe the Gospel about Jesus—that he is God’s Son, that he came to save men and women from their sins, and that by believing in him they can have eternal life (Jn 3:16–18). Joining belief and love in a single command shows how inextricably connected the two are in John’s mind. Belief comes first because it is the basis for love (cf. Jn 3:16), but love is the only expression of true faith.

The end of this command—“to love one another as he commanded us”—recalls Jesus’ own command in Jn 13:34; 15:12, 17. John’s practice of not distinguishing the subjects of verbs such as “he commanded” is characteristic both of his writing and of his theology. God the Father is revealed in Christ Jesus. To see the Son is to see the Father; to know the Father is to know the Son. The deeds of the one are the deeds of the other. So completely are their wills joined that it is many times a matter of indifference as to which one is in view.

24 In this summary verse the author states for the first time the mutual reciprocity involved in “living” in God. Obedience issues in the perfection of the “fellowship” between God and us. We “live” in him; he “lives” in us. We come to our “fellowship” with the Father through the “fellowship” the Son has with the Father (Jn 14:20; 17:21–23). The Son also enters into fellowship with us (Jn 15:4–5); and through him we have fellowship with the Father and with one another, just as the sign of our fellowship with the Father and with the Son is our love for them (cf. Jn 17:23–26).

The latter part of v.24 characteristically furnishes a transition to the next section. The evidence that we abide in him is our obedience to his commands. The evidence that he abides in us is the presence of his Spirit, whom he gave to us (cf. Ro 5:5; 8:14–16). This is the first mention of the Spirit in 1 John. The author presupposes knowledge about the Spirit in his readers and applies it to the problem at hand—distinguishing the true Spirit from false spirits (4:1–3) and receiving the Spirit’s witness (5:6–7). Referring to the Spirit as the one “he gave us” is not an appeal to their existential experience of the Spirit but to their knowledge of the Gospel as it had come to them from the eyewitnesses. The Father’s giving or the Son’s sending the Spirit to the disciples (Jn 14–16; 20:22) was a well-known event in the church (cf. Ac 1–2; Ro 8; Gal 4:6).

C. Warning Against the False Spirits (4:1–6)

This passage parallels 2:18–27, where the author warned against the presence of antichrists among those who had “gone out” from them. Now he has a second warning, this time against the “spirit” of antichrist, who even now inspires the false prophets (v.1). The false spirit can be detected because he will deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh (v.3). The community of faith will overcome the false prophets because believers belong to God, and the Spirit in them is greater than the false spirit (v.4). The world listens to the false prophets (v.5) but the children of God listen to the apostolic declaration. Belief of the Gospel is the true test of the Holy Spirit’s presence and work (v.6).

1 The opponents not only lay claim to God but boast of their inspiration by the “spirit” (GK 4460). Likely they gave evidence of their inspiration through “prophetic utterings” and perhaps even other signs, such as ecstasies and glossolalia. Such “signs” were present in the religious milieu of the Greeks and Romans and most persons took them seriously. That they sometimes caused special problems in the early church is attested by Paul (cf. 1Co 12:3; 14; 1Th 5:21). John’s warning here is not against those who pretend to have the Spirit’s presence but against genuine evil spirits’ inspiring of false prophets. Outwardly these people were no less inspired than members of the faithful community. They were zealous in proclamation (cf. 2Jn 7) and may have been even more successful than the faithful community in making converts from the world (4:5). Likely John saw in them the fulfillment of Jesus’ warnings (cf. Mk 13:22) against false prophets in the “end times” (cf. 2:18). His readers needed some test to discern the presence of false prophets.

2 The test itself appears to hinge on the words “that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.” The false prophets may well have believed that Christ was the Savior of the world, but they denied the connection between the divine Christ and Jesus of Nazareth. At least they clearly denied that “the Christ” ever had come “in the flesh.” The clause “that Jesus Christ has come” reflects the author’s clear view of the preexistence of the Son, who came from the Father and from the moment of his historical birth was Jesus Christ in the flesh.

How does this confession give evidence of the Spirit? For John, as for Paul, the truth of the Christian Gospel is hidden from the world (cf. 1Co 2:7–16). Only because there is a divine intervention and the darkness is removed can the light of the Gospel be recognized (cf. 4:6).

3 Here a negative confession gives the counterpart of that in v.2, and the source of this denial is seen as “the spirit of the antichrist.” John reminds his followers that Jesus had warned that the Antichrist would come. It is now John’s painful duty to announce that in the false teachers (cf. 2:18ff.) the spirit of antichrist is already present. By this the community was warned that the conflict between the false teachers and John was not a “leadership” or “personality” one. The Gospel itself was at stake. The struggle they were facing was not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers (Eph 6:12). Hence, whatever success the opponents had had within the community resulted from satanic inspiration.

4 Once again the author addresses the community with “dear children” (see comment on 2:1). They have overcome the false prophets, because they resisted their teaching (v.5). Thus they are “from God”—i.e., “born of him” (2:29)—and the one who is in them is “greater than the one who is in the world” (v.4). The false teachers do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them because “living” involves “fellowship,” which is possible between God and his children only by the Holy Spirit. The false teachers are without this fellowship. Therefore they do not love because they do not know love. The antichrist can be “in the world” and evil spirits can be “in the false teachers,” but “living in God” is possible only for the children of God.

Biblical Evidence for the Trinity

According to the Bible, there is only one God (Dt 6:4; Isa 45:21; 1Ti 2:5; Jas 2:19). But this one God has revealed himself in three person: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The word used to express this doctrine is “Trinity”—“tri-unity,” “three-in-oneness.” While this word is not used in the Bible, it adequately expresses biblical teaching. There is little difficulty acknowledging the Father as God. Regarding the deity of Jesus the Son, see the chart on “Passages Indicating the Deity of Christ” on p. 000. As to the Holy Spirit being specifically called God, see Lk 1:32, 35 and Act 5:3–4.

Hints in the OT of the Trinity
God speaks of himself as “us” rather than “me”	Ge 1:26–27; 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8
God promises to send someone who is God	Isa 7:14; 9:6
The “angel of the LORD” speaks as if he is the Lord	Ge 16:10; 22:15–17; Ex 3:6; 23:20–23; Jdg 6:14

The Trinity in the NT
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have one name	Mt 28:19
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were present at Jesus’ baptism	Mt 3:16–17; Lk 3:21–22
The Spirit is sent by the Father through the Son	Jn 15:26
The Spirit testifies that we are God’s children and co-heirs with Christ	Ro 8:16–17; Gal 4:4–6
One Spirit, one Lord Jesus, and one God	1Co 12:4–6
A blessing from Father, Son, and Holy Spirit	2Co 13:14
Chosen by the Father, sprinkled with Jesus’ blood, and sanctified by the Spirit	1Pe 1:2
The Spirit testifies that Jesus came from the Father	1Jn 4:2
Other places in the NT where Father, Son, and Holy Spirit appear together	Ro 5:5–6; 1Th 1:2–5; 2Th 2:13; Tit 3:4–6; Jude 20–21
Holiness is ascribed to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit	Jn 17:11; Ro 1:4; 1Co 1:30
Eternity is ascribed to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit	1Ti 1:17; Heb 1:2–3, 8; 9:14
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each know everything	Mt 6:8, 32; Jn 2:24–25; 1Co 2:10–11
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each all-powerful	Ps 135:5–7; Mt 28:18; Ro 15:13, 17; 1Co 15:24–27
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each everywhere present	Ps 139:7–10; Jer 23:24; Mt 28:20
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all involved in creation	Ge 1:1–2; Ps 104:30; Jn 1:3
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all involved in giving spiritual life	Eze 37:14; Jn 10:10; Eph 2:4–5
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all involved in miracles	1Ki 18:38; Mt 4:23–24; Ro 15:19
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all involved in teaching	Ps 71:17; Isa 48:17; Jn 13:13; 14:26
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all experience grief because of sin	Ge 6:6; Lk 19:41–44; Eph 4:30

5 In contrast to the “dear children” who “are from God” are the false teachers who “are from the world.” The false teachers are successful “in the world” because their thinking is accommodated to the world’s beliefs. Naturally the world hears such teachers gladly. The term “world” (GK 3180) is probably to be understood in two ways: as a system of thought antithetical to Christian belief and as a description of those members of the community who were led astray by the false teachers. That some members of the community were easily persuaded to forsake the truth of the Gospel should not bewilder the faithful. Although these members appeared to belong to the community, their willingness to hear and follow the false teachers showed their true colors.

6 The author repeats the description of the true followers as “we [who] are from God.” The “we” includes all the faithful but has particular reference to the true teachers. Whoever has knowledge of God through fellowship with him by loving him and abiding in him and his Word “listens to us” (cf. Jn 8:47; 10:4–5; 18:37), for the teachers proclaim the word heard “from the beginning” (cf. 1Jn 1:1). Thus a second test for discerning the presence of the Spirit of God has been added to the one developed in v.2. When people confess that Jesus came in the flesh, then the “Spirit of truth” has been present and active. When people deny the Gospel and will not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, then “the spirit of falsehood” has been at work.

IV. Requirements for Fellowship With God Who Is Love (4:7–5:12)

The third main division of the letter has as its major thesis an analysis of love. Love of one’s brother was first introduced as a test of living in God who is light (2:9–11). The command to love received an even more significant treatment as a test of being born of God (3:10–24). Here love of fellow believers finds its most complete representation in the Father’s own being and activity.

A. Brotherly Love (4:7–12)

7 The address “dear friends” (lit., “beloved”; cf. 2:7; 4:1) and the imperative force of the verb make clear that the author is speaking primarily to the community itself. His intention is to provide final assurance that the community’s commitment to mutual love is the explicit requirement of the Gospel as revealed in God himself. Love for one’s brother “comes from God.” It is evidence of our being “born of God” that is as important as righteous behavior is (2:29). It is not a virtue innate in us nor is it learned behavior. It is “from God.” He is the originator—the giver of love. Furthermore, whoever truly loves “his brother” not only is born of God (2:28; 3:24) but also “knows God.”

8 Conversely, whoever does not love does not “know” God at all, for God in his very nature is love. To the statements, then, that God is light (1:5) and God is righteous (2:29), John adds the supreme statement “God is love [GK 27]” (4:8, 16). Love here is not to be understood as one of God’s many activities; rather, every activity of his is loving activity. Since this is true of God, our failure to love can only mean that we have no true knowledge of God, we have not really been born of him, and we do not have his nature.

9 The simple but profound statement “God is love” is explained by what God did. “He sent his one and only Son into the world” (cf. Jn 3:16–17). The author makes clear that the love he speaks of involves concrete actions. God’s love required him to send his Son. God’s love in us requires deeds by which we show our love for one another. The purpose of God’s act is “that we might live through him.” Death is our present condition (cf. 3:14); God intended that we might find life in him so that we might live in love as he works in and through us.

10 The author now distinguishes agape love from any love claimed by the false teachers. It is not that “we loved God” (3:17; 4:20), as his opponents claimed, but that “he loved us.” Agape love can be given to God only when it has first been received from God. It exists only as response to his initial love for us. Moreover, God’s love for us defines what true love requires—the commitment to sacrifice one’s most beloved possession for another’s gain. So for God, love required that he send “his Son as an atoning sacrifice [see comment on 2:2] for our sins.”

The difference in understanding between John and the false teachers is never greater than in their understanding of love. The false teachers claimed to love God but understood love not in Christian terms but in those of Greek philosophy. Love in the Hellenistic world became a mystical craving for union with the eternal. Two things derive from this understanding of love. First, love for God as expressed by the false teachers becomes primarily an exercise in self-gratification. Second, one can never attribute love to God and say, for example, that God loves us. God as the Absolute is always passionless and unmoved, according to them.

11 The author continues to show that the true nature of love is unselfish and sacrificial. In 3:16 he appealed to Jesus, who laid down his life for believers, as the example for them to follow. Now he directs attention to God’s own example: “Since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.” The nature of John’s argument is not deductive but analogical. Just as God’s children must be holy because he is holy (cf. Lev 11:44–45; 1Pe 1;15ff.) and merciful because he is merciful (Lk 6:36), so they must love because he loves. We must be like him.

12 Here most commentators see a reference to the false teachers who may have claimed “visions” of God—visions through which their own knowledge was mediated to them. John’s response is the blanket rejection: “No one has ever seen God.” But the conclusion he moves toward is different from that expected from the gospel of John. Instead of saying, “God the only Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known” (Jn 1:18), he turns rather to love: “If we love each other,” we know that God is present with us. As God was once present in his Son, so now he is present through the community of faith. And it is in this community that love has its ultimate fulfillment. With this conclusion, we can begin to understand a little better John’s urgent concern for the “fellowship” of the community of believers. It was not an optional “blessing” or “fruit” of belief that so deeply concerned him but the basic question of God’s presence and manifestation in the world through a community that has a love originating in him.

B. Living in God and Living in Love (4:13–16)

In v.12 the author linked living in God to loving one another. In 3:24 he linked living with God to obeying his commands. There, as here, the primary evidence for this relationship with God is the Holy Spirit. And it is the Spirit who enables us to testify that “the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world” (4:14; cf. 4:2). Whoever confesses this also knows that God is present in them and that they live “in God” (v.15). Those who know they live in God know also that they live in his love (v.16).

13 Reciprocal abiding (2:24; 4:13, 15—God in us, we in God) is the final expression of fellowship with God. It is possible only through the gift of his Spirit, by whom the relationship with the Father and with the Son is sealed eternally (cf. Eph 1:13–14). Reciprocal abiding makes possible God’s love for us and our love for him. It is also the reason we can love one another.

14 To whom does the “we” refer in the statement “we have seen and testify”? It certainly refers to all those, especially the apostles, who had direct knowledge of Jesus’ earthly life; but it probably ought not to be limited to them. It is the Spirit working in them and in us who permits us to “see” in the historic event of Jesus’ death God’s act for our salvation. Although “no one has ever seen God” (v.12) at any time, we do “see” (GK 2517) by faith that the cross of Christ was for our sins and for our salvation. We do “see” in Jesus our own Savior and Lord. We do “see” in the fellowship of faith the presence of his love. And because his Spirit in us gives us this “seeing” experience, we are commissioned to bear witness to the event (cf. Jn 15:26). Therefore, since there is such a close connection between seeing and testifying and the gift of the Holy Spirit, it is likely that the author meant his words to include his readers and to be applied to all Christians throughout history.

15 John goes on to state that “anyone” who “acknowledges” (lit., “confesses”; GK 3933) God’s act in his Son is included in the divine fellowship in which the Father is in the believers and the believers in the Father. Initially John connected the fellowship with obedience to the command to love one another (3:24). Then he showed its dependence on the gift of the Spirit (4:13). Here he shows that the fellowship is built on Jesus, who must be acknowledged as being one with the Father (2:23), as the one who came in the flesh (4:2), and as the Son of God who was sent “to be the Savior of the world” (4:14–15).

16 The same combination of knowing and believing is found in Peter’s confession of Jesus in Jn 6:69, except that there the order of “believe” and “know” is reversed. The fact is that faith may lead to knowledge and knowledge may lead to faith. Here knowledge of God’s love necessarily precedes the ability to “rely” on that love. The sequence of thought is this: First, we must know and rely on the fact that God loves us. Second, we come to realize through relying on his love (or having faith in his Son—the meaning is the same) that in his very nature God is love. Third, we discover that to live in God means to live in love. The fellowship we have with the Father and with the Son (1:3) is perceived as nothing other than a fellowship of love.

C. Love Displaces Fear (4:17–18)

17 The perfection or completeness of love brings “confidence” (GK 4244), confidence relating especially to the time of judgment (cf. 2:28), though John probably believed that it was the mark of a believer in every relationship to God (cf. 3:21; 5:14). He may have introduced the judgment theme in the context of the commandment to love because Jesus himself made this command so specific and established love as the basis for judgment. Not to love, therefore, is to disobey Jesus and to spurn the Father’s own love in sending Jesus. To live in love, however, is to live in God, and this results in complete confidence for prayer and judgment.

The meaning of “because in this world, we are like him” is uncertain. In view of the context, it is best to understand these words to mean that just as Jesus “abides” in the love of the Father (cf. Jn 15:10), an abiding that already marked his earthly existence and gave him “confidence” before God in the face of temptation, trial, and death, so “in this world” we also may abide in the Father’s love and share in that same confidence.

18 The other side of confidence is “fear” (GK 5832). If we truly abide in the Father’s love, we will be without fear. That “perfect love drives out fear” should be taken as a Christian truism as well as an allusion to the fear of God in judgment. Love and fear are incompatible. They cannot coexist. For the Christian love is first an experience of the Father’s love for us. That “love” is so powerful and life changing that when we know it, we are forever removed from the “fear” of God.

The fear spoken of here is not to be confused with reverence for God. Reverence will only deepen through the experience of God’s love. The experience of the holiness of God’s love makes us desire to be even more obedient to his commands. But it also removes us from the power of fear. Whatever may take place in this world cannot nullify the power of his love or separate us from it. Similarly, if we experience fear in any portion of our lives, to that extent we deny God’s love and fail to trust him.

D. Love Summarized (4:19–21)

19 In summarizing the command to love one’s brother, John begins with his most important truth. Love must never be conceived of as a “natural” experience of the natural man. There is a “natural” love, but it must not be confused with divine love (agape; GK 27). The love John speaks of originates with the Father, became manifest in and through the Son, and now characterizes the life of the children of God. He thus begins this summary by saying, “We love.” The love with which we love is not our own. It is always God’s love or Jesus’ love in us. But because we abide in the Father and in the Son, the love becomes also our own love. It is not that God reveals his love apart from us or in spite of us, but that he invites us to love even as he loves. So we return to him his own love and love him with the gift of his love. So also we love our fellow believers with the love God has loved us with.

20 The confidence we have in knowing that God loves us delivers us from fear but not from responsible action. In fact, God’s love for us and in us sets us free to love our brother and sister even as God loves them. To fail this test of love proves that one’s claim to love God is a lie—just as the previous claims to have fellowship with God while walking in darkness (1:6), to know him while disobeying his commands (2:4), or to possess the Father while denying his Son were lies (2:22–23). John has a double sense in “liar.” A liar does not speak the truth in that what he claims is false, and his actions show that he has divorced himself from the reality of God.

The second part of the verse is problematic. It most likely means that if one fails the test of loving a visible brother, such a one makes it certain that he or she does not love the invisible God; this proves that such a person has no true love at all.

21 The final warrant of the life of love is obedience to the teaching of Christ. He gave the command that “whoever loves God must also love his brother” (cf. Mk 12:30–31; also Jn 13:34). John makes clear that obedience expresses itself in a single command. Love for God and love for neighbor are inseparable. The one is not possible apart from the other. Those who love God cannot refuse love to the image of God that meets them in their fellow believers. We are to love our neighbors in God, and God in our neighbors; this is what remaining in his love means.

E. Love for the Father and Faith in the Son (5:1–5)

The author now focuses on the relationship of the three fundamental elements so important to him in the knowledge of God: faith, love, and obedience. “To believe, have faith” (GK 4409), first introduced at 3:23, becomes the primary term in this section. In John, faith requires not only that something is held true, but that someone has entered into one’s life. A commitment has been made and a relationship established that one can then only “confess” (cf. 3:23; 4:2, 4, 15).

1 The argument parallels 4:19. Even as we love only because God first loved us, so also our belief is possible only because we have first been “born of God.” The author is not addressing the question of incorporation into the family of God but is rather looking only at its result. “Believing” in Jesus is a direct consequence of our “having been born” of God and therefore becomes a test or proof of that birth. From this the author moves to a truism from nature: whoever loves one’s progenitor will also love those similarly born, even one’s brothers and sisters.

2 This statement troubles commentators because it reverses what is expected. One anticipates a conclusion like this: “And this is how we know that we love God: by loving his children and obeying his commands.” Instead the author concludes: “This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.” Even as one cannot love God without loving his children, so also it is impossible to truly love the children of God without loving God also. Those who claim to love their brothers and not God have not truly recognized their brothers as those born of God and have not offered them the true love that comes from the Father. The author cannot really talk of loving God, however, without also linking his words to obedience to his commands.

3 The connection between love for God and obedience is meant to protect us against thinking of love for God as “emotional feelings” about God. Agape love requires action. In respect to humankind, it means willingness to lay down one’s life. In respect to God, it means a life of willing obedience, a filial relationship with God, and service on behalf of God. It requires laying down one’s life as being one’s own possession and taking up a new life in response to a Lord and Master.

John now qualifies what he has just said by adding, “And his commands are not burdensome.” To the natural man the will of God is strange; the requirement for righteousness, foreign and hard. Even the law of love is a burden. But when God enters into us and we trust God’s Son, then his yoke becomes gentle and the burden light (cf. Mt 11:30). We who have been born of God have within us a desire and a yearning for the Father. Seeking and hungering after righteousness becomes our joy (Mt 5:6). Living the life of love becomes our delight. The commands of God bring us the freedom and the liberty we so ardently long for.

4 “Everyone [lit., everything] born of God overcomes the world.” Our being born of God is God’s act on our behalf, through which he moves to overcome the world. What is in view is the supernatural act by which human beings are being translated out of the kingdom of death into the kingdom of life through the Son.

The victory that overcomes the world is now identified with “our faith.” It is best to interpret this statement as referring to a past event; John is emphasizing that the victory he refers to has already been won. By faith we now have access to what was once accomplished by and through the appearance of Jesus on earth.

5 Observe the progression of thought in what John says about how victory over the world is gained. It begins with the new birth (v.4a). It moves on to the believer’s experience and act of faith (v.4b). It culminates in the confession that “Jesus is the Son of God.” Victory requires the whole process. It assures us that we too can love God and the children of God and that we too can obey his commands (v.3). Belief, love, and obedience are all the marks of the new birth. And the life lived in the new birth is not a burden but a life of celebration. This was the experience of the apostles and of the early church. Paul’s cry that “in all these things we are more than conquerors” (Ro 8:37) echoed throughout the Roman world. Whereas at first the victories were thought of in terms of alien powers on the outside, Christian consciousness soon perceived that the victory included the internal enemies that confront the conscience, assail Christian beliefs and standards, corrupt the soul, and negate the life of love and obedience to God.

The confession with which the victory is linked is again the confession that “Jesus is the Son of God” (cf. 2:2–4:15). This is where the author began; it is also where he will end. Every single tenet of belief in God and of knowledge about him depends on obedient confession and commitment that Jesus is the eternal life that was with the Father (1:2). He is the Son of God. This confession has in view the false teachers who acknowledge Christ the Redeemer but deny his true humanity. Verse 5 makes the transition to the final exposition regarding the Son and provides the base on which the final section develops: the witness of the Father to the Son.

F. The Spirit, the Water, and the Blood (5:6–12)

6a Jesus, the Son of God (v.5) and the Christ (v.1), came not just by water, but “by water and blood.” This enigmatic statement has given rise in the church to many interpretations. Augustine linked the reference to Jn 19:34, where the piercing of Jesus’ side produced water and blood. Calvin and Luther connected it to Jn 4 and 6 and saw in it a reference to the sacraments. Most commentators today see the “water” as referring to Jesus’ baptism and the “blood” to his death on the cross. Even though John’s gospel does not describe the water baptism of Jesus, the Johannine community could not have been ignorant of it.

The purpose of the statement seems clear. The author once more affirms that it is the historical Jesus who is the Christ, the Son of God. Although the false teachers may have acknowledged Christ as the Savior, the divine Son of God, they denied his true human existence. Like Cerinthus, they probably held that the Christ came on the man Jesus at his baptism and remained till the time of the Crucifixion. In this way they could deny that the Christ had ever been truly human and subject to suffering and death. John rightly regards this as a denial of the redemptive activity of God. It was the Son of God who came into the world. It was this same divine Son who was baptized and received the Spirit. It was the Son who, with the Father’s approval and in fulfillment of the Father’s intention, shed his blood on the cross to redeem humanity. God would not be involved in human redemption apart from the Christ’s true humanity, suffering, and dying. Water and blood become, therefore, the key words of the true understanding of the Incarnation.

Once the author had arrived at his primary understanding, he likely saw in the incident of Jn 19:34 a divine confirmation of it. He may also have seen the reference to the water in Jn 4:10, 14 and to drinking his blood in Jn 6:53 as confirmation. But these flow from the facts that are the historic base for them all. Jesus, the Son of God, came through the water of baptism. He came also through the Cross. This coming by water and blood is the basis of our salvation.

6b “And it is the Spirit who testifies” (cf. Jn 14:26; 15:26; 16:8, 12), because the Spirit, as ultimate truth, is the only one capable of so bearing witness (cf. 1Jn 3:24; 4:13). One cannot receive the witness concerning the Son of God by oneself. There are no human categories available through which one can understand it. God’s redemptive act in Christ is not a bit of data humankind can deduce for itself by analogical reasoning. Like the Resurrection, it can only be announced. And this time it is not made known by angels (cf. Lk 24:6) but by the Spirit of God.

The Spirit bore witness historically in Jesus’ baptism by coming down from heaven as a dove and remaining on him (Jn 1:32). At Jesus’ death on the cross, the “blood and water” that flowed from his side bore witness and led to the following statement: “The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe” (Jn 19:35). But here in v.6 the present tense of the verb indicates that John wants to show that the Spirit continues in his witness to the community of believers.

7–8 “For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood.” Does the author mean that the Spirit still witnesses through the biblical Word in which Jesus’ baptism and death are recounted, or that the Spirit gives witness to the community of the efficacy of the historic baptism and death through the rites of water baptism and communion? Probably the author is pointing to the former as having priority but not so as to exclude the latter. The biblical word confirms the prophetic word that the Spirit prophesied (cf. 2Pe 1:20–21).

But how does the Spirit give witness in the living voice of prophecy? Presumably he does it inwardly and supernaturally. The Spirit opens eyes and ears to perceive what God is declaring through his proclaimed word (cf. 1Co 12:3). He does not declare his own words, but through inward conviction he confirms the proclamation as being indeed the truth (cf. Ac 5:32). The Spirit provides what humanity is unable to acquire for itself. This witness of the Spirit accompanies every presentation of the word.The text contained in the NIV footnote made its way into the KJV through the Latin Vulgate. Most scholars agree that it is a later, though orthodox, addition to the text and is not part of John’s reiginal letter.

9 The divine witness is not limited to the Spirit but includes the witness of the Father. His witness is greater than the authenticated witness of a human being because of the nature of the one who gives it and of its greater trustworthiness (cf. Jn 5:36–37; 1Jn 3:20). It was his voice that confirmed that Jesus’ “passion” was an act in which God would glorify himself (Jn 12:28–30). So also it is God’s own voice that is being heard again in the threefold witness.

10a Here the fact that the incarnate and crucified Jesus is God’s own Son is clearly set forth. Those who believe this testimony receive the Father’s own witness in their hearts that they are right to trust in Christ. Faith itself is God’s own gift to the believer to lay hold of the Father. “Believing” becomes a “receiving,” and the work of God in Christ results in forgiveness of sins and inward establishment of the love of God. Faith in the Son immediately becomes faith in the Father (cf. 2:23).

10b The gravity of receiving this witness is now demonstrated by the corollary: “Anyone who does not believe [the witness borne by] God [about the Son] has made him out to be a liar.” To receive the Son is to receive the Father. To deny the Son is to deny the Father. John, then, cannot allow that one can profess belief in God, as did his opponents, and yet reject God’s own testimony to his Son. Such rejection cannot be excused on the basis of ignorance. Rather, it is deliberate unbelief, the character of which in the end impugns the very being and character of God. If Jesus is not God’s own Son in the flesh, then God is no longer the truth. He is the liar.

11–12 That Jesus is God’s Son is established by God’s own witness from the time of Jesus’ baptism up to and including his suffering and death. It is a testimony given through the Spirit and confirmed in the heart of those who believe in the Son. The consequence of accepting this testimony from God is the fulfillment of the promise John made in 1:2 to bear witness and to testify to that “eternal life” that was with the Father and has now appeared to us in the Son. Eternal life (which is nothing less than fellowship with the Father, with the Son, and with his people) is present in his Son. Those who have the Son have this life. Those who are without the Son are without life. It is not an idea or a system of belief or even a fact that is the ultimate object of faith; it is a Person. That Person is Jesus Christ. He is to live in us (3:24). His love is to abide and be made complete in us (4:12). We are to live in him (4:13). And this is life eternal.

V. Concluding Remarks (5:13–21)

13 This verse makes the transition from the main argument to the epilogue. It reminds us of Jn 20:31, where the author said he had written his gospel so that his readers might believe in Jesus and receive eternal life in his name. This first letter of John is addressed to those who have accepted this belief but still need assurance that through this name they have indeed received eternal life. So the author refers six times in vv.15–20 (in addition to v.13) to what we believers know (GK 3857).

The false teachers present a different “knowledge” as well as a different lifestyle. The author counters with a series of tests by which the believers can evaluate the false teachers’ claims and practices. Walking in the light, obeying his commands, loving one’s brother, being steadfast in the community of faith, doing what is right—these serve as tests of whether the life that is from God has been received. When it has been received, it is only because God’s witness to his own Son as the source of that life has been accepted and believed. On this basis, we can expect God to hear us in prayer, free us from the presence and power of sin, and forgive our transgressions. Those who know these things know also that they have received eternal life.

14 The “confidence” (GK 4244) we have in our life with Christ belongs not only in the future time of his coming (2:28) and of judgment (4:17) but also in the present and especially in the fellowship of prayer. We know that we have access to him (3:21) and that “he hears us.” “Hearing” does not mean simply to be listened to but to be heard favorably (cf. Jn 11:41–42). The expectation is, of course, linked to the qualifying clause, “if we ask according to his will” (cf. Mt 6:10; Mk 14:36).

It is not any prayer that is answered but the confident prayer of the disciple who is in fellowship with the Father, who asks in Jesus’ name (Jn 14:13; 15:16), who “remains” in him (Jn 15:7), and who obeys his commands (1Jn 3:22). This is not meant to dampen the expectation we may have in prayer, but the condition for addressing God is to know he will hear and act. Prayer becomes not only a time for petitioning but of yielding one’s life to the will and work of God. Prayer made in these circumstances is always heard because it is God’s will that is being done and his intention for humankind that is being met.

15 John now states that the “confidence” (v.14) for approaching God and asking him anything is absolute. A paraphrase of the text is as follows: “Since we know that he hears us whenever we ask in his will, we may also know with equal certainty that we possess the requests we have made the moment we have prayed.”

That our petition is answered is not dependent on whether or not we have personally observed the answer. Some answers to prayer are recognized immediately, others later, and some are not recognized in our lifetime. But this is not the author’s point. When we pray as Jesus prayed, in full accord with the Father’s will, we can know that we have our requests because God has made them his own and his will must be done. What is required of us is simply the faith to believe that this is so and that his will will be done on earth as it is in heaven, and then decide to live accordingly. The author is exalting faith in the will of God and its relation to our privilege to pray. He is echoing Jesus’ own words in Mk 11:24.

16a The author turns from confidence in prayer to the ministry of prayer. Although he does not give the basis for his statement, what he says about intercessory prayer follows logically from what he has been teaching. If love requires the willingness to lay down one’s life for a member of the community (3:16), then certainly it follows that if one sees a brother commit sin, such a person must intercede for him in prayer. Not to pray for him would be as much a betrayal of God’s love as to withhold material aid from him (3:17). Moreover, when we pray for a brother or a sister who commits sin, we can know that such a prayer is “according to his [God’s] will” because Christ is the atoning sacrifice for sins (2:2); and if we confess our sins, he is committed to forgive us (1:9).

But why should a brother need such intercession? Why does he not pray for himself and make his own confession? We can only speculate as to John’s answer. Perhaps again it is a matter of assurance. The brother may need to be forgiven through intercessory prayer as an expression of the community’s forgiveness. Because the sin was presumably committed after entrance into the Christian community, the need to confess the sin to another and to have received assurance of forgiveness may have had special significance. Also, there might be an allusion here to Jesus’ words in Jn 20:23.

16b The author comments that intercession is not required if it involves a “sin that leads to death.” This is puzzling. We do not know exactly what the author has in mind. Judaism distinguished between deliberate sins—sins of open rebellion against God that were punishable by death—and inadvertent sins that can be atoned for (Lev 4; Nu 15:22, 29). First-century Judaism retained this pattern. In the Johannine community some such distinction was presumably made, hence the limitation “sin that leads to death.” Why does he make such an exception? Presumably because he is speaking of spiritually efficacious prayer—prayer that will lead to eternal life. Such prayer can be made only for those who are rooted in God’s life and love.

Who specifically is excluded from efficacious prayer? The text offers no clues. The sin mentioned might refer to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mk 3:29). But the content of the letter may point to the suggestion that John has in mind the sin of false teaching. For life to be given to those who deny Jesus Christ, hate their brothers, and refuse the witness of God would be a contradiction. Since such persons deny the mercy of God, prayer for them would appear to be limited to asking for their repentance and conversion to God’s truth.

17 Earlier John defined sin as “lawlessness” (3:4). Now he adds “unrighteousness” (NIV, “wrongdoing”; GK 94). Possibly some in the community, knowing that God’s children were not to sin (3:9–10), attempted to deal with the problem of Christians’ sinning by limiting sin to deliberate or lawless acts. If so, John will have none of it. All wrongdoing is sin, even when done by the children of God. But not all sin results in death. John aims first at honesty (cf. 1:8) and only then at resolution. Sin is not dealt with by denial but by confession and by community intercession (v.16). Where this intercession occurs, the divine life of God is present and fellowship with God occurs. Within this life and fellowship, the blood of Jesus Christ purifies believers from all sin (1:7).

18 John concludes by stating three certainties that characterize his position over against the false teachers: (1) We know that anyone born of God does not continue in sin (v.18). (2) We know that we are the children of God (v.19). (3) We know that the Son of God has come and has given us certain, definite knowledge about himself (v.20). John has never wavered from the priority of the ethical requirement, nor does he do so now. Christians must not walk in darkness (1:7). They must not hate their fellow believers (2:10). They must not live a life of sin (3:6).

However noble the sentiments expressed by the false teachers, the test of the truth of God is conduct. A sinful life is totally incompatible with the life received from God. John is not unaware of the difficulties involved in living the new life or of the quality of the opposition from the evil one. He knows the wiles of the evil one and expects them. Nonetheless, he has been adamant in his confidence that the evil one need not prevail, because of the presence of the power of God in the believer.

Already John has shown that if those who live in God do not sin (3:6), no one born of God and possessing the divine life of God will fall victim to the life of sin (3:9). To this he now adds that the Son of God himself (i.e., “the one who was born of God”) will keep him safe from the evil one (see comment on 2:13b). The phrase “keeps safe” (GK 5498) recalls Jesus’ words in Jn 17:12, 15.

19 The second affirmation builds on the first one (v.18), but emphasizes the positive consequence: “We know that we are children of God.” The author now openly identifies himself with the community of faith and stresses the personal quality of the relationships involved in fellowship (cf. 1:3) with the Father. We know we “belong to him.” And how is this known? It is not by boastful claims, like those made by the false teachers, but on the basis of the “tests of eternal life” that are substantiated by life and action. As we exhibit the marks of God’s family, we demonstrate that we belong to the Father. In contrast to the true community that belongs to God (cf. Jn 8:47) is the rest of the world, which lies under the control of the evil one (cf. 2:15–17). Clearly there is no middle ground for the author. To be born of God is to be safe from the power of the evil one. Not to be born of God is to be wholly under the power of the evil one.

20 John’s third and final affirmation is in fact the summary of the letter. It affirms the point of dispute with the false teachers. Christian faith has to do with Jesus Christ. He is the “Word of life” (1:1), “the eternal life” (v.2), which was with the Father and through the Incarnation came into human history. By his coming, we can know the true God and have fellowship with him. But the false teachers said that this relationship was apart from the Son. Fellowship with God as they taught it came through divine “knowledge” of the subject. From the beginning John denied this teaching. The reality of God can be known only through apprehending the reality that is in the Son. This comes through revelation that is grounded in the facts of history. It requires that we know Jesus Christ as God’s Son and that we live our lives entirely in him. We know by this experiential life in the Son that we are also in the Father and that the Son is indeed the true God, the author of eternal life.

“He” in v.20b is translates “this one”; grammatically it most naturally refers to Jesus Christ (though some refer it to God as “him who is true”). Here at the climax of the letter John ascribes full deity to Jesus. After all, this is the crux of his argument and the basis for his statement that he who is in Jesus is in the Father. For Jesus Christ as the author of eternal life, see v.11; also Jn 11:25; 14:6.

21 John closes on an affectionate note and with a final admonition. “Dear children” (cf. 3:7; 4:4) reminds his readers of his genuine commitment to them. The exhortation “keep yourselves from idols” at first glance seems out of place. Idolatry has not so much as been mentioned in the letter. Although the warning may be understood as a general admonition to avoid any contact with paganism, it is more likely that the warning represents a final characterization of the “heresy” represented by the false teachers. False teaching is ultimately “apostasy from the true faith.” To follow after it is to become nothing better than an idol worshiper, especially if it is a matter of the truth of one’s conception of God. The author is blunt. The false teachers propose not the worship of the true God, made known in his Son Jesus, but a false god—an idol they have invented.