By James M. Rochford

John was likely quite young when he started following Christ. Craig Keener[1] holds that most of the disciples were likely teenagers when they met Christ. Moreover, John lives into the 90’s AD to write the book of Revelation (see “Date of Revelation”, which would make more sense if he was young in Jesus’ day (AD 30’s).

John seems like a boisterous personality. For one, Jesus gave him the nickname “Son of Thunder” (Mk. 3:17). This sounds like the nickname you’d give to a gang of bikers—not a teenager! But it seems warranted in John’s case. From the pages of the NT we discover a very bold and sometimes foolish young man, even asking to be Jesus’ right-hand man in the kingdom (Mk. 10:35ff). His writing style is very black and white: love and hate, light and darkness, etc. He seems like the kind of man that meant what he said and said what he meant.

Jesus called John alongside his friends and family: James (his brother), Peter, and Andrew. John owned a fishing business with his brother James and Peter, and Jesus called all three of these men into ministry at the same time (Lk. 5:10). Since these three men had a friendship as business partners, it is interesting to watch them serve together in ministry as well.

John endured much suffering. He endured the death of his brother by King Herod in roughly AD 44 (Acts 12:2, AD 44), and he went on to live at least another 50 years serving Christ. It’s difficult to know which historical traditions have credibility, but from what we read from extrabiblical history, John served and suffering for Christ for decades on end. Toward the end of his life, tradition states that he was boiled in oil and exiled to the Island of Patmos (Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics 36.3.).

As a Galilean fisherman, John was not initially well-educated, but he underwent a dramatic life change after the resurrection (Acts 4:13). He stood up to the authorities with tremendous courage (Acts 4:19), and he led various churches throughout Asia Minor.

Jesus must have really loved and trusted John in a unique way. Jesus included John in his “inner three” best friends (Mk. 5:37), who witnessed the Transfiguration (Mt. 17:1) and prayed with him on the night before he died (Mk. 14:32-34). Moreover, it was to John that Jesus chose to appear to reveal the end of human history (Rev. 1:9; 22:8). Finally, in a very tender moment, Jesus entrusted the care of his mother to John as he hung from the Cross (Jn. 19:26). Surely John was right to call himself “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”

Table of Contents

Authorship. 2

Date. 8

Why does John use such black and white language?. 9

How Does Proto-Gnosticism Relate to Interpreting this Letter?. 10

Does 1 John support Lordship or Free Grace Theology?. 13

How to use this commentary well 17

Consulted Commentaries. 18

Commentary on 1 John. 19

1 John 1 19

1 John 2. 27

1 John 3. 42

1 John 4. 54

1 John 5. 60

2 John. 68

3 John. 73

Authorship

We reject the view of scholars like I. Howard Marshall^[2] and C.K. Barrett[3] who believe that the so-called Johannine school wrote these letters. We hold the longstanding historical view that John of Zebedee (Mk. 1:19-20) wrote these three letters, as well as the gospel of John and the book of Revelation. Several lines of evidence support this view:

First, the author claims to be an eyewitness of Jesus’ earthly ministry. John writes, “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—² and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—³ what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ” (1 Jn. 1:1-3). This claim doesn’t make the author an eyewitness. However, we shoulder the burden of proof if we deny the claim of the author.

Second, these letters are similar to the gospel of John. Our case for understanding the authorship of these letters hangs together with the gospel of John and the book of Revelation (see “Introduction to John” and “Authorship of Revelation”). Since there is good evidence for believing John wrote the gospel of John and Revelation, we should hold to John’s authorship for these three letters as well. One author[4] records 51 literary parallels between the gospel according to John and 1 John. Other words are unique to this author as well (e.g. paraklētos, monogenēs). This internal evidence argues strongly in favor of the same author. For example, even Marshall[5] agrees with the literary similarly between the Gospel of John and the letters of John—even though he rejects Johannine authorship.

Third, these three letters are similar to one another.^[6] When letters disagree with one another, critics claim that this is inductive evidence against similar authorship. Yet when they’re too similar, they claim that this is too suspicious. For instance, C.H. Dodd holds that all three letters of John are too similar to have been written by the same author!^[7] This shows inconsistency at a very deep level. Hence, we hold that this is good evidence for similar authorship.

Fourth, the manuscript evidence shows that these letters were in circulation very early. Our earliest sources cite from these letters:

• The oldest Greek manuscripts contain all three letters together. Stott writes, “The first letter is also included in the most ancient versions of the church of the East and the West, namely the Syriac and Latin, although the second and third letters are not found in the Syriac.”^[8]
• Papias (AD 110-130) refers to 1 John as already being in circulation. Eusebius records that Papias “used testimonies drawn from the former Epistle of John” (Church History39.17).
• Polycarp of Smyrna (AD 130) quotes from the letters of John. Indeed, he cited 2 and 3 John (To the Philippians1-2; cf. 1 John 2:24; 3:8; 4:2-3).

Fifth, early sources affirm that John was the author. Consider a few key texts:

• The Muratorian Canon (AD 180) identifies John the apostle as the author. The Muratorian Canon states, “The fourth of the Gospels, that of John, [one] of the disciples. When his fellow disciple and bishops urged him, he said Fast with me from today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us relate to one another. In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that whilst all were to go over [it], John in his own name should write everything down.… For so he confesses [himself] [in 1 John 1:1] not merely an eye and ear witness, but also a writer of all the marvels of the Lord in order.”
• Irenaeus (AD 180) held that John the apostle was the author of the gospel according to John. He wrote, “Afterward John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, himself published his gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia” (Against Heresies1.1). Later, Irenaeus attributes 1 John to the apostle (Against Heresies 3.16.5, 8).
• Tertullian (AD 200) attributes 1 John to John the apostle. He cites John among the “apostles” and cites 1 John 1:1-4 (Tertullian, Against Praxeas 15). Elsewhere, he cites John among Paul and Peter, and he cites 1 John 4:18 and Revelation 2:10 and Revelation 21:8 (Tertullian, Antidote for the Scorpion’s Sting 12).
• Clement of Alexandria (AD 215) held that John wrote 1 John. He writes, “John, too, manifestly teaches the differences of sins, in his larger Epistle” (citing 1 John 5:16-17, Stromata15.66).
• Hippolytus (AD 235) accepted 1 and 2 John.^[9]
• Dionysisus of Alexandria (AD 263) mentions 2 and 3 John as Scripture (Eusebius, Church History25.6-11).
• Origen (AD 250) had a complicated relationship with these letters. Kruger writes, “Although Origen recognized that some had doubts about 2 and 3 John, it appears most in his day regarded the two letters as genuine—including Origen himself.”^[10]

It’s true that 2 and 3 John were slowly received by the broader church. However, Akin makes the important observation that “no one ever attributed 2 John and 3 John to anyone other than the apostle John.”^[11] Moreover, these are the shortest writings in the NT—being only 245 and 219 words long. Thus, it is quite likely that these books were overlooked “in view of their brevity and comparative unimportance.”^[12]

At the same time, the fact that such small letters were even considered at all seems to demonstrate their importance to the early church. As Kruse observes, “The fact that two such brief letters by the elder (2 John and 3 John) have been incorporated in the NT canon is strong evidence for the importance of the author, and possibly indicates that he was ‘the principal authority’ in his circle.”^[13]

Why does 2 and 3 John claim to be written by “the elder” or “the presbyter,” rather than by the apostle?

Some scholars hold that there were two John’s in the early church: John the apostle and John the elder. This concept comes from Eusebius, the church historian (AD 340). Eusebius notes that Papias mentions both John the apostle and “John the elder” (Church History, 3.39.4). Eusebius writes,

Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, attests in writing in the fourth of his books, for five books were composed by him…

If ever anyone came who had carefully followed the presbyters, I inquired as to the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what Aristion and the presbyter [elder] John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not suppose that information from books helped me so much as that from a living and abiding voice. His mentioning the name of John twice is worth noting here. The first of these he reckons along with Peter and James and Matthew and the other Apostles, meaning clearly the Evangelist, but the other John, after expanding his statement, he places outside the number of the Apostles, placing Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter. Thus, by these words is proved the truth of the story of those who have said that two persons in Asia bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus and each of these even today is said to be John’s. We must give attention to this, for it is probable that the second (unless you would prefer the first) saw the Revelation which passes under the name of John. And Papias, who is now being explained by us, confesses that he had received the words of the Apostles from their followers, but says that he himself was a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John.

Were these letters written by another John called “the elder” or “the presbyter”? We think not for several reasons:

For one, while this citation is based on early historical tradition (i.e. Papias), it doesn’t appear until Eusebius (AD 340). How could “John the elder” be such an important man in the early church—even writing Scripture—but he isn’t mentioned in any source for the first 300 years of church history? Such a conspicuous silence is difficult to believe.

Second, Eusebius had a very low view of Papias’ testimony and may have misinterpreted him. Eusebius had a very low view of Papias, claiming that he “was a man of exceedingly small intelligence” (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.13). This could explain why Eusebius thought that another John discipled Papias. After all, Irenaeus claimed that Papias was “a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp” (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.1). But Eusebius wrote, “[Papias] was in no sense a hearer and eyewitness of the holy Apostles’, but only learnt from ‘their pupils’” (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.2). This could explain why Eusebius posits another John.

Third, the Greek grammar doesn’t require that two separate people named John existed. Some scholars argue that the anaphoric article refers to two separate Johns. Not true. Greek expert Daniel Wallace writes, “The anaphoric article is the article denoting previous reference… Practically speaking, labeling an article as anaphoric requires that it have been introduced at most in the same book, preferably in a context not too far removed.”^[14]

Fourth, Papias’ two lists of people could have overlap. Papias mentions two groups of people: (1) apostles and (2) disciples. John of Zebedee was both an apostle and a disciple, so it would make sense for Papias to repeat John’s name.

Some ask why John “the presbyter” was singled out with Aristion in the second group if he is the same John from the first group. The most likely explanation is that John was not only (1) an apostle, (2) a disciple, but also (3) still alive.^[15] In other words, Papias wasn’t making a distinction between apostles and elders, but between dead witnesses and living witnesses. Carson writes, “The distinction Papias is making, in his two lists, is not between apostles and elders of the next generation, but between first-generation witnesses who have died (what they said) and first-generation witness who are still alive (what they say). Aristion, then, can be linked with John, not because neither is an apostle, but because both are first-generation disciples of the Lord. And this supports the witness of Irenaeus, who says that Papias, not less than Polycarp, was ‘a hearer of John’.”^[16]

Fifth, the title of “elder” or “presbyter” shouldn’t diminish John’s apostolic authority. After all, the other seven apostles in this context are also called elders—just like John (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.4; cf. 3.39.7). Moreover, even in the NT documents, Peter calls himself a “fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1), even though he also considers himself to be “an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:1).

While John does address himself as “the elder” in 2 John 1 and 3 John 1, these were very short and personal letters written to close friends. Therefore, in 1 John he addresses the audience as an apostle, whereas in 2 and 3 John, he addresses them as their pastor. Something similar could be going on in Paul’s self-identification as “Paul, the aged” in his letter to Philemon (Phile. 9).

Date

Early church history holds that John of Zebedee served in Ephesus toward the end of his life (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.5; 3.3.4; also see Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.31.2; 5.24.3). Irenaeus (AD 180) writes, “The Church in Ephesus… having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles” (Against Heresies, 3.3.4).

It seems likely that John wrote these letters after his gospel which dates to roughly AD 85 (see “Introduction to John”). John seems to be writing as an older man, calling the believers “little children.” If this is correct, then John most likely wrote these three letters sometime between AD 85 and AD 95. Kruse,^[17] Akin,^[18] Barker,^[19] Johnson,^[20] Thompson,^[21] and Smalley^[22] all hold to this dating. Very few would date the letter earlier.^[23] So, while the dating of John’s letters isn’t certain, this is probably pretty close.

Why does John use such black and white language?

We don’t need to take a deep dive into genre analysis to recognize that 1 John is fundamentally different in its form from other NT letters or books. The language is so binary and strong that some of John’s statements feel like a slap in the face. Why is this? And how should we interpret such statements?

Kruse argues that this circular letter was written in a genre (specifically epideictic rhetoric) that used what is called amplification as a way to communicate its message. He lists seven examples that demonstrate amplification in 1 John, but he notes that “virtually every known rhetorical technique for amplification is utilized in 1 John.”^[24]

This helps to explain the unique character of John’s letter. For example, John calls anyone who “hates” his brother a “murderer” (1 Jn. 3:15). This strong word has a jarring effect upon the reader, and it strongly delivers the message that hatred is a serious sin. Yet, John’s use of amplification shouldn’t require us to literally equate hatred with taking someone’s life.

The concept of amplification is nothing new. We see similar forms of amplification in Hebrew poetry—what we call “intensification” (see “Understanding Hebrew Poetry”).

How Does Proto-Gnosticism Relate to Interpreting this Letter?

Grammatical-historical hermeneutics require the interpreter to understand as much as possible about the author, audience, and their cultural setting. This has never been more vital than interpreting a letter like 1 John. Failure to understand what John is arguing against will confuse the interpreter and lead to a skewed interpretation. We wholeheartedly agree with Colin Kruse when he writes, “Anyone seeking to make sense of the Letters of John needs to have a working hypothesis concerning the events that lie behind them.”^[25]

What was the historical and cultural setting for John’s letters? Strong evidence indicates that John was arguing against false teachers who were promoting licentious proto-Gnostic dualism. Both the (1) internal evidence and (2) external evidence support this claim.

(1) Internal evidence

Within the three letters, we see evidence that John was opposing some sort of proto-Gnosticism.

Gnostics denied that Jesus was the Messiah. They divorced the man “Jesus” from the spirit-being called “the Christ.” This would explain why John writes, “Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son” (1 Jn. 2:22).

Gnostics denied the humanity of Jesus and held to Docetism. The Greek word dokeō means “to appear” or “to seem.” Thus, Docetism is the view that God wasn’t truly human in the person of Jesus; rather, He only appeared to be human. This explains why John goes into such detail describing how he “heard” and “saw” and “touched” Jesus (1 Jn. 1:1). He wants his readers to know that Jesus was physical—not a ghost. This also explains why these false teachers were denying that Jesus came “in the flesh” (1 Jn. 4:2).

Gnostics claimed to have secret knowledge. This could explain why John writes, “The anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things” (1 Jn. 2:27). John isn’t rejecting the need for Bible teachers. Rather, he is rejecting the claim that the Gnostics had secret knowledge of Jesus that these believers didn’t know.

Gnostics denied the concept of sin. Because they thought the material world was evil, some Gnostics ran wild with sin. After all, if the physical world is evil, then sin isn’t even a recognizable category. John rejects this view when he writes, “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us… If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us” (1 Jn. 1:8, 10). This could also explain what John means when he describes those who “continue in sin” (1 Jn. 3:4-10).

Gnostics denied the atoning death of Christ. John writes that God gave his testimony about Jesus through his “blood” (1 Jn. 5:6-8). Admittedly, this is a somewhat difficult passage, but most commentators agree that this refers to Jesus’ death on the Cross. Thus, the false teachers must have “denied the importance of Jesus’s atoning death.”^[26] This fits with Gnostic teaching that held that the “Christ” (aeon or “spirit-being”) fled the human Jesus of Nazareth while he hung from the Cross.

(2) External evidence

John most likely wrote to churches in Asia Minor. Both Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1.2) and Eusebius (Church History 3.1.1) confirm this. Moreover, since the earliest references to the book come from Polycarp, Papias, and Irenaeus (all leaders in Asia Minor), this is additional evidence that these letters first circulated there. Barker writes, “Asia continues as the clear choice of modern scholars for the place of publication.”^[27]

John encountered proto-Gnostic teachers in his ministry. Irenaeus (AD 180) records that a false teacher named Cerinthus fiercely combatted John. This false teacher was a Gnostic Jewish-Christian who lived during the same time as John (AD 100) and in the same area (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.26.1). Cerinthus rejected the virginal conception, and he held that Jesus of Nazareth was merely a human being—even though he was “more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men” (1.26.1). Cerinthus also held that an aeon (a spirit-being called the “Christ”) descended on Jesus’ body and possessed him at his baptism, but this spirit-being abandoned Jesus at his crucifixion. Irenaeus writes, “After his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being” (1.26.1; cf. 3.11.1). John battled so fiercely with Cerinthus that he wouldn’t even occupy the same public places (Against Heresies 3.3.4).^[28]

Conclusion

Both the internal and external evidence support the view that John was battling some form of nascent Gnosticism in the church of Ephesus. Hiebert writes, “It is generally agreed that the heresy confronted in 1 John was some form or forms of Gnosticism, but it is unwarranted to identify it with the full-blown Gnosticism of the second century.”^[29]

Implications for interpreting John’s letters

This fact is simply crucial to interpreting this book. Indeed, John tells us that this is one of the reasons for why he is writing: “These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you” (1 Jn. 2:26). We strongly agree with Kruse who writes that these itinerant false teachers “circulated among the churches and propagated their beliefs with a view to winning people over to their understanding of things (1 John 2:26; 4:1-3; 2 John 7).”^[30] Many of these travelling teachers were likely former members of the churches (1 Jn. 2:19), and they likely still had a hearing among these Christians. Consequently, John was writing “criteria they could use to evaluate the false claims being made by the secessionists and with which they could also reassure themselves that they were in the truth (1 John 1:5-2:2; 2:3-11; 3:7-10, 14-15; 4:4-6, 7-8, 13-15; 5:13, 18-20).”^[31] For a robust explanation of the subject of Gnosticism, see “Gnosticism and the New Testament.”

Does 1 John support Lordship or Free Grace Theology?

Lordship theologians argue that the thesis statement of 1 John comes at the end of the letter when John writes, “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 Jn. 5:13). In their view, the entire letter gives a series of tests for discerning one’s salvation. MacArthur, for example, sees eleven tests in this letter:[32]

1. Have you enjoyed fellowship with Christ and the Father?
2. Are you sensitive to sin?
3. Do you obey God’s word?
4. Do you reject this evil world?
5. Do you eagerly await Christ’s return?
6. Do you see a decreasing pattern of sin in your life?
7. Do you love other Christians?
8. Do you experience answered prayer?
9. Do you experience the ministry of the Holy Spirit?
10. Can you discern between spiritual truth and error?
11. Have you suffered rejection because of your faith?

Free Grace theologians argue that the thesis statement of the letter comes at the beginning when John writes, “What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. ⁴ These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete” (1 Jn. 1:3-4). Consequently, the entire letter is about experiencing closeness and intimacy with Christ.

Lordship theologians agree that 1 John 1:3-4 is also a thesis statement for the letter. However, they argue that this refers to our position in Christ—not our condition. Therefore, they see these opening verses as virtually synonymous with 1 John 5:13. Both purpose statements teach about discerning our salvation.

Navigating the Lordship and Free Grace controversy

While we reject the Lordship reading of 1 John, we don’t whole-heartedly agree with the Free Grace perspective either. How then should we interpret this complex letter? If we clearly identify and articulate why John was writing, the message of the letter comes into focus. John isn’t writing to give Christians a battery of tests to gain (or lose!) their assurance of salvation. Rather, he is writing for three central reasons:

(1) John was writing to refute licentious, proto-Gnostic false teachers

There is too much evidence inside and outside these letters to ignore this major theme. John even tells us, “These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you” (1 Jn. 2:26). How can we ignore such a glaring interpretive clue? Unfortunately, both Lordship and Free Grace interpreters tend to minimize this historical background when interpreting key debated texts.

(2) John was writing to promote spiritual growth—not to determine spiritual birth

John indicates at the outset that the point of his letter is to grow close “fellowship” (koinōnia) with other believers and ultimately with God himself (1 Jn. 1:3).[33] Does “fellowship” refer to salvation? No. We hold that this refers to the quality of our relationship with God—not the existence of our relationship with Him.

For one, it is bewildering to think that John would be “proclaiming” (1 Jn. 1:2) spiritual birth to people he simultaneously affirms to be Christians. If there is any question about this, just consider John’s multiple affirmations throughout chapter 2:

“If anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 Jn. 2:1).

“I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven” (1 Jn. 2:12).

“I have written to you, children, because you know the Father” (1 Jn. 2:13).

“I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it” (1 Jn. 2:21).

Second, in his writings, John uses the expression “eternal life” (zōēn aiōnion) to describe salvation 21 times. Why didn’t John use that expression here if that is what he meant? Furthermore, John refers to being “in Christ” to describe salvation. This is usually captured as being “in Him” (Jn. 1:4; 1 Jn. 2:5; 5:20) or “in Me” (Jn. 15:2). Yet, that’s not what we read here. Instead, John refers to being “with the Father” and “with the Son” (1 Jn. 1:3). This is a conspicuous shift in language from John typical usage.

Third, John only uses the term “fellowship” (koinōnia) four times in his writings—all of which occur in this section (1 Jn. 1:3-7).[34] Therefore, the immediate context should govern our interpretation. In context, John uses the term “fellowship” to refer to the quality of our relationships with fellow Christians (“one another”), not the existence or non-existence of these relationships. He writes, “If we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:7). This language of “fellowship” in contrast to John’s description of false believers who “went out from us” and “were not really of us” (1 Jn. 2:19).

Fourth, at the end of this section (1:4-2:2), John gives us his own commentary on what he wrote. He states, “I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin” (1 Jn. 2:1). Once again, this is the language of spiritual growth—not spiritual birth.

Fifth, John further states that the purpose of his letter is for him to have “joy” (1 Jn. 1:4). What does he mean by this? Surely, this refers to the happiness of seeing people growing spiritually. Once again, John’s own words serve as our best interpreter. Elsewhere, John writes, “I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth” (3 Jn. 4; cf. 2 Jn. 12).

(3) John was writing to give these Christians confidence—not tests

Lordship theologians claim that John is giving his readers “tests” by which they can know if they have a true assurance of salvation. But where do we read any language about being “tested” or “testing ourselves” in 1 John? This language simply doesn’t exist. Instead, we read about having “confidence” in our salvation or “knowing” (not doubting) that we possess salvation. For instance, John writes,

“By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. ⁴ The one who says, ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; ⁵ but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him” (1 Jn. 2:3-5).

“Abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming” (1 Jn. 2:28).

“If our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God” (1 Jn. 3:21).

“By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment” (1 Jn. 4:17).

It’s true that John gives ways to discern false teachers (see point number 1 above). But is he encouraging introspection on behalf of people he affirms to be Christians? No. John gives us ways to gain subjective confidence of our salvation—not ways to doubt whether we are true believers. God’s promises are true regardless of our feelings or psychological certainty. But when we love others, God gives us additional subjective confidence that we know Him personally (see 1 Jn. 2:3-5). Yet, this gift of subjective confidence only works in one direction. It shouldn’t be applied to lead toward doubt and uncertainty.

Lordship theologians compare the quality of love in our lives to a “test” that needs to be passed. If we have love, we pass the test and can have confidence in our salvation. However, if we lack love, we fail the test, and we should wonder if we ever came to Christ in the first place. In our view, we’ve already received an A+ on the “test.” That part is settled. However, God wants to give additional “knowledge” and “confidence,” almost like receiving “extra credit” on top of a perfect score. After all, God’s promises to us are 100% infallible and inerrant, and we can anchor our lives on them. However, we experience additional confidence when we love others (1 Jn. 2:3-5).

Consider another illustration. There are two ways to know the temperature outside. One is to look at a thermometer hanging outside your window, and the other is to step outside and feel the sun on your skin. The first way is technological and more objective, while the second is experiential and more subjective. Both are valid ways of knowing the temperature. However, if a person lacked access to the experience of walking outside, they would still know the temperature by reading the thermometer.

Now imagine if someone said, “Since you didn’t go outside and experience the weather, that serves as evidence that you really don’t know the temperature.” Do you see the problem? Experiential evidence works positively to support your knowledge, but it doesn’t work negatively to doubt your clear reading of the thermometer.

Some days we are mean, crabby, and downright selfish. When this happens, we lack the experiential confidence of knowing Christ. Yet just because we lack this experience, we can always fall back on God’s promises which never change. Then, when we repent of our selfishness and begin to love others again, we can look forward to regaining an experiential confidence once again.

When we love others, this adds to our confidence, but the presence of sin and selfishness shouldn’t subtract from our confidence. Lordship theologians err on this crucial point. They think that these ways of building confidence in our salvation are actually ways of testing (or even doubting) our salvation.

Conclusion

These three main contentions will drive our interpretation of this letter. We reached these conclusions through an inductive study of the letter—not through placing a systematic grid over the text. This is likely why we fit into neither the traditional Lordship view nor with the traditional Free Grace view (even though we are very sympathetic to Free Grace theology). We think that explaining our methodology at the outset will help the reader understand our conclusions in our exegesis below.

How to use this commentary well

For personal use. We wrote this material to build up people in their knowledge of the Bible. As the reader, we hope you enjoy reading through the commentary to grow in your interpretation of the text, understand the historical backdrop, gain insight into the original languages, and reflect on our comments to challenge your thinking. As a result, we hope this will give you a deeper love for the word of God.

Teaching preparation. We read through several commentaries in order to study this book, and condensed their scholarship into an easy-to-read format. We hope that this will help those giving public Bible teachings to have a deep grasp of the book as they prepare to teach. As one person has said, “All good public speaking is based on good private thinking.”^[35] We couldn’t agree more. Nothing can replace sound study before you get up to teach, and we hope this will help you in that goal. And before you complain about our work, don’t forget that the price is right: FREE!

Questions for Reflection. Each section or chapter is outfitted with numerous discussion questions or questions for reflection. We think these questions would work best in a small men’s or women’s group—or for personal reading. In general, these questions are designed to prompt participants to explore the text or to stimulate application.

Discussing Bible difficulties. We highlight Bible difficulties with hyperlinks to articles on those subjects. All of these questions could make for dynamic discussion in a small group setting. As a Bible teacher, you could raise the difficulty, allow the small group to wrestle with it, and then give your own perspective.

As a teacher, you might give some key cross references, insights from the Greek, or other relevant tools to help aid the study. This gives students the tools that they need to answer the difficulty. Then, you could ask, “How do these points help answer the difficulty?”

Reading Bible difficulties. Some Bible difficulties are highly complex. For the sake of time, it might simply be better to read the article and ask, “What do you think of this explanation? What are the most persuasive points? Do you have a better explanation than the one being offered?”

Think critically. We would encourage Bible teachers to not allow people to simply read this commentary without exercising discernment and testing the commentary with sound hermeneutics (i.e. interpretation). God gave the church “teachers… to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-12). We would do well to learn from them. Yet, we also need to read their books with critical thinking, and judge what we’re reading (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:21). This, of course, applies to our written commentary as well as any others!

In my small men’s Bible study, I am frequently challenged, corrected, and sharpened in my ability to interpret the word of God. I frequently benefit from even the youngest Christians in the room. I write this with complete honesty—not pseudo-humility. We all have a role in challenging each other as we learn God’s word together. We would do well to learn from Bible teachers, and Bible teachers would do well to learn from their students!

At the same time, we shouldn’t disagree simply for the sake of being disagreeable. This leads to rabbit trails that can actually frustrate discussion. For this reason, we should follow the motto, “The best idea wins.” If people come to different conclusions on unimportant issues, it’s often best to simply acknowledge each other’s different perspectives and simply move on.

Consulted Commentaries

We consulted many commentaries for individual passages, but we read these specific commentaries below thoroughly.

Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020).

Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988).

Stott’s work on the authorship of 1 John was simply excellent! He has good insights into the text—though he comes from a moderately Lordship Theology viewpoint.

Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001).

Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999).

Hodges holds to Free Grace theology which is difficult to find when reading commentaries on 1 John (see “Lordship Theology”). To Hodges, the driving message of the epistle is “fellowship” with God—not justification (1 Jn. 1:3). While this view has some merits, it is too reductionistic to explain many of the difficult passages of this letter from a Free Grace perspective.

David R. Anderson, Ph.D. “Chapter 24: Fellowship with the Father: 1 John.” A Defense of Free Grace Theology: With Respect to Saving Faith, Perseverance, and Assurance (Grace Theology Press, 2017), pp.595ff.

Commentary on 1 John

Unless otherwise stated, all citations are taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).

1 John 1

John will argue against proto-Gnosticism throughout this letter (see “Gnosticism and the New Testament”). Gnostics believed that there was a rift between the physical world (which was evil) and the spiritual world (which was good). Therefore, to a Gnostic, it was absurd that the spiritual God would take on physical flesh at the Incarnation. So, this is precisely what John confronts in these opening verses. He explains, “We touched him, we saw him, we heard him!” Barker comments, “Already the writer is mounting his polemic against the heretics who denied that Christ came in a human body.”^[36] This prologue is one long sentence in Greek^[37] where John explains the implications of encountering “the Word.”

1 John 1:1-4 (Prologue)

(1:1) “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life.”

“What was from the beginning.” Stott^[38] holds that this describes Jesus’ eternality (Jn. 1:1). Of course, we affirm the eternality of Jesus, but we disagree that this verse is teaching that. Instead, when John refers to the “beginning,” we agree with Kruse^[39] that John is referring to the beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry. He is recounting what he heard “concerning the Word.” This means that the “what” at the beginning of the sentence isn’t a pronoun for Jesus; rather, it is describing something about Jesus. Put simply, John doesn’t write about who was from the beginning, but what was from the beginning. He is starting his letter by getting his readers to focus on what they know about the true Jesus and what he taught (1 Jn. 2:7, 24; 3:11; 2 Jn. 5-6; cf. Jn. 15:27; 16:4).

“Heard… seen… looked at… touched.” The proto-Gnostics, of course, denied the corporeality of Jesus—only affirming that he was some sort of spirit-being. Thus, John emphasizes the physicality of Jesus. These terms describe a “definite investigation by the observer,” and this would be a direct attack “against the heretics who were troubling the church.”^[40]

“The Word of Life” is taken by some commentators to refer to the message (“word”) of life (see ESV, NET).^[41] However, the context favors the person of Jesus (cf. Jn. 1:1, 14). Moreover, at the end of his letter, John writes, “[Jesus] is the true God and eternal life” (1 Jn. 5:20).

(1:2) “And the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.”

“Life… eternal life.” When John says that the “life” was manifested, he later specifies that he is referring to “eternal life.” This would be like referring to the Cavaliers, and then specifying the Cleveland Cavaliers.

“Manifested” (phaneroō) refers to how Jesus revealed eternal life through his sacrifice on the Cross. Later, John writes, “By this the love of God was manifested (phaneroō) in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. ¹⁰ In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 Jn. 4:9-10). The Cross is the ultimate “manifestation” of God’s love.

(1:3) “What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.”

Is this the thesis statement of the letter? Free grace theologians like Hodges^[42] understand “fellowship” (koinōnia) to be the main message of the letter. The purpose of 1 John is our fellowship with God—not whether we have a relationship with God.

Lordship theologians argue that the thesis statement of 1 John occurs at the end of the letter: “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 Jn. 5:13). If we pass the many tests that John gives in his letter, then we can “know” that we have eternal life. Throughout this letter, John gives various “tests” to “know” whether one is a true Christian. From a Lordship perspective, it isn’t enough to profess Christ if we do not possess Christ. (Free grace theologians understand “these things” to refer to the immediate context of 1 John 5:11-13, rather than the entire letter.)

There are a number of reasons for holding that “fellowship” is the key to understanding this letter. First, John states that he was writing “so that you too may have fellowship… with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.” John uses a purpose clause to tell his readers why he’s writing. Second, John states, “We proclaim to you.” This doesn’t sound like evangelism to non-Christians, but preaching to Christians. Indeed, later John writes, “I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven… I have written to you, children, because you know the Father” (1 Jn. 2:12-13). Again, he writes, “I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it” (1 Jn. 2:21). Third, John further states that the purpose of his letter is for him to have “joy” (v.4). This refers to the happiness of seeing people following Christ. Indeed, elsewhere he writes, “I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth” (3 Jn. 4). The purpose isn’t to lead these people to Christ, but to see them walking in close fellowship with Christ. Fourth, John only uses the word “fellowship” (koinōnia) four times in all of his writings, and all four of these uses occur in 1 John 1:3-7.^[43] This supports the idea that fellowship is John’s central focus.

The real debate: What does “fellowship” mean? From Akin’s perspective, fellowship with the Father is one and the same as salvation. Thus, this passage and 1 John 5:13 are “practical equivalents.”^[44] Thus, we should all affirm that “fellowship” is the central thesis of 1 John, and this shouldn’t be the crux of the debate between Free Grace and Lordship theology. Rather, the debate should be over what “fellowship” with God means: Does it refer to closeness and intimacy with God (as Free Grace theologians claim), or does it refer to salvation (as Lordship theologians claim)?

(1:4) “These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.”

Manuscripts differ on whether it should be “our joy” or “your joy.” Though, the evidence favors the “our joy” reading. It’s likely that scribes used “your joy” because this fits so well with Jesus’ statements: “These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full… Ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be made full” (Jn. 15:11; 16:24). However, John uses the word “joy” two more times in his letters (2 Jn. 12; 3 Jn. 4). The final use is enlightening: “I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth” (3 Jn. 4). Here, John is writing about the joy he experiences when seeing Christians growing in their relationship with God. This informs our reading of the letter as a whole: John’s purpose in writing is not to test to see whether these people are true Christians, but rather to see them growing closer to God (i.e. “walking in the truth”).

1 John 1:5-2:2 (Walking in the light)

There are two keys to interpreting verses 5-10.

First, as we have already seen, John is correcting and combatting proto-Gnostic teaching. This was one of John’s purposes for writing this letter. Indeed, he tells us, “These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you” (1 Jn. 2:26). This needs to remain at the forefront of our interpretation, and it becomes quite clear in this section below (vv.5-10). In these verses, John alternates back and forth from one verse to the next. Hiebert notes, “The claims indicated in verses 6, 8, and 10 seem clearly to represent views advanced by the false teachers.”^[45] Stott^[46] concurs with this view—namely, John is raising a proto-Gnostic objection and then refuting it. We discover a similar pattern elsewhere in the letter where John writes, “The one who says…” (1 Jn. 2:4, 6, 9) and “If someone says…” (1 Jn. 4:20). Clearly, these statements “reflect the author’s understanding of the claims of the [false teachers].^[47] John uses the word “we” throughout this section, but Stott notes, “[John] is not suggesting that he has ever himself said or thought the errors he is rebutting. He uses the first person plural only because he is stating general principles which are applicable to all people equally.”^[48]

Therefore, John’s focus is between those who practice the truth and those who reject the historical and apostolic Christian faith. This is why there is a back and forth “symmetry”^[49] between the truth and falsehood in these verses. In the alternate verses, John addresses those who “lie and do not practice the truth” (v.6), those who are deceived and do not have “the truth” in them (v.8), and those who “make [God] a liar” (v.10). It is essential to understand this in order to interpret this section accurately.

Second, John’s focus is on spiritual growth—not spiritual death. The context states that John is focusing on “fellowship” with these believers, and ultimately, with God (1 Jn. 1:3). At the end of this section, John tells us the purpose of this section. He writes, “I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin” (1 Jn. 2:1). This is the language of spiritual growth—not spiritual birth. Indeed, John ends this section focusing on our security with Christ: “And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 Jn. 2:1). John is both assuming that his readers are authentic Christians, and he tells us that he’s writing to help them grow spiritually. Indeed, later John writes, “I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven… I have written to you, children, because you know the Father” (1 Jn. 2:12-13). Again, he writes, “I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it” (1 Jn. 2:21).

How does the looming threat of proto-Gnosticism relate to spiritual growth? If the believers in the Ephesian churches adopt these proto-Gnostic beliefs, they will be utterly inconsistent with the truth they learned about how to have fellowship with God (1 Jn. 1:3) and how to grow from sinful habits and addictions. This inconsistency results in hypocrisy. Adopting proto-Gnostic beliefs results in lying (v.6), not practicing the truth (v.6), personal deception (v.8), and rejecting the truth (v.8, 10).

(1:5) “This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.”

“God is Light.” Jesus said, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life” (Jn. 8:12; cf. Ps. 27:1; 36:9).

Light is a symbol for both truth and moral goodness. By contrast, Akin^[50] argues that “light” refers to “eternal life” in John’s writings. Yet, the immediate context of chapter one and the greater context of 1 John don’t seem to support this claim.

We agree with Stott^[51] who understands “light” to refer to both truth (Prov. 6:23; Ps. 119:105, 130; 2 Pet. 1:19; Isa. 42:6; 49:6; Acts 13:46-47; 26:18, 23) and moral goodness (1 Jn. 2:8-11; Isa. 5:20; Eph. 5:8-14; Rom. 13:11-14; cf. 1 Thess. 5:4-8; 1 Cor. 4:5). Indeed, both are interconnected in John’s writings (Jn. 3:19-21; 8:12; 9:4-5; 12:35-36, 46). Stott writes, “The effect of the light is not just to make people see, but to enable them to walk.”^[52] This supports the view that John is writing to help these believers strengthen their walk with Christ—not test them as to whether they are truly regenerate.

Later Gnostic teaching claimed that God contained darkness. Irenaeus (AD 140-200) argued that the Gnostics held that the “Pleroma” (or “fullness of God”) created out of both “shadow and vacuity.” Irenaeus asks, “For if they hold that the light of their Father is such that it fills all things which are inside of Him, and illuminates them all, how can any vacuum or shadow possibly exist within that territory which is contained by the Pleroma, and by the light of the Father?” Irenaeus draws a logical conclusion that the Pleroma (God) must be evil. He continues, “Within the Pleroma, or within the Father of whom they speak, they should conceive of some place, void, formless, and full of darkness… When they maintain that these things were the fruit of defect and the work of error, they do moreover introduce defect and error within the Pleroma, and into the bosom of the Father” (Against Heresies 2.4.3). In contrast to this, John writes, “In Him there is no darkness at all.”

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

“Fellowship with Him.” Hodges^[53] takes this to refer to our spiritual growth. Under this view, fellowship refers to our condition—not our position. Of course, it would be utterly inconsistent to claim that we have close fellowship with God if we are walking in darkness.

“Walk in the darkness.” This refers to a moral quality of evil or wickedness. If our Christian “walk” rejects truth and moral goodness (i.e. “Light”), this is a “lie” and shows that we are not “practicing the truth” that we profess. Proto-Gnostics would see no issue with rejecting the truth and moral goodness of Christ, but this is not Jesus’ way.

“We lie and do not practice the truth.” To repeat, this language stops short of saying that the person is a non-Christian who is going to hell. Rather the language speaks of inconsistency and hypocrisy (e.g. “lie” and “do not practice… truth”). Later, John reiterates this point: “I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth” (1 Jn. 2:21). These are believers in Jesus who “know the truth.” The issue at stake is whether they will be consistent with the truth and faithful to it.

(1:7) “But if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.”

“If we walk in the Light.” This cannot refer to sinless perfection (v.8). Rather, it refers to practicing the truth and moral goodness of the Christian faith, rather than living in hypocrisy and inconsistency. When we are “in the Light,” we are having fellowship with God who also “is Light” (v.5) and is “in the Light” (v.7). This implies

“We have fellowship with one another.” This is the final use of the term “fellowship” (koinōnia), and it demonstrates that John is not using the term in verses 3-7 to refer to salvation. In this verse, John uses the term to refer to the quality of relationships with fellow Christians (“one another”). Likewise, in verse 3, the “fellowship” with God must also refer to the quality of our relationship with God—not the existence of the relationship. When we “walk in the Light,” we enjoy strong fellowship with other believers. The initial focus is horizontal with regard to fellow Christians—not vertical with regard to God.

“The blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.” This clause introduces a vertical dimension with God. This raises a question: If we don’t “walk in the Light,” does this mean that Jesus will not “cleanse us from all sin”? There are a number of problems with holding that view:

First, this would introduce a condition to salvation other than faith. According to John, the one condition for salvation is faith in Jesus Christ (Jn. 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 1 Jn. 5:1, 12-13). If walking in the truth and moral goodness of Christ is truly a condition, then this would mean that John is now adding a condition to salvation. To be clear, John doesn’t say that we can recognize a true believer through their works. Rather, he makes the claim that walking in the light is a condition for forgiveness from Jesus. Even Lordship theologians would reject such a claim.

Second, this interpretation commits a logical fallacy of making a negative inference based upon a true proposition. That is, if we don’t confess our sins, does this mean that Jesus won’t forgive us? No, that’s fallacious. That conclusion commits what is called the “negative inference fallacy.”^[54] John is not affirming a negative, but only a positive: Everyone who walks in the light will find forgiveness for their sins. This text simply says nothing about those who don’t walk in the light. Instead, the previous verse tells us the result: John doesn’t say that they go to hell, but that they are inconsistent hypocrites: “We lie and do not practice the truth” (v.6).

Third, the “cleansing” of Jesus seems to refer to subjective cleansing from sin—not justification. The term “cleanse” (katharizō) can also mean to “heal” or “purify” (BDAG, p.488). This would further confirm the view that this is referring to sanctification—not justification. Since the verb is in an ongoing tense, this also confirms the concept of sanctification. While it is true that we have been “cleansed” in the past tense (1 Cor. 6:11), it is also true that Jesus continues to “cleanse” us (Heb. 9:14). When we walk with Christ, we experience ongoing sanctification and growth. But if we walk in the darkness, we do not. Thus, Hodges understands this to refer to our condition, rather than our position. He writes, “Although we are seated in Christ as fully accepted and forgiven people, we live down here on earth, and our ongoing sins must receive the forgiveness of our heavenly Father if we are to be in fellowship with Him.”^[55]

(1:8) “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.”

“If we say that we have no sin.” Once again, walking in the light means that we will continue to sin. This expression (“have no sin”) occurs in John’s writings four other times, and each time, it refers to having guilt for our sins (John 9:41; 15:22, 24; 19:11). Therefore, it’s possible that either these false teachers claimed that (1) they literally had not sin or (2) they weren’t guilty of sin. This effectively denies the core of the Christian message. Of course, proto-Gnostics had no problem rejecting the entire category of sin, and this is what John is targeting (see “Gnosticism and the New Testament”). Practically, Hodges writes, “Someone has humorously suggested that if a man makes this claim, he does not deceive his wife, his children, or his friends—but only himself!”^[56]

“We are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.” This language stops short of saying that we are going to face eternal judgment. Instead, John writes that if we deny the reality of sin, we are “deceived” and do not possess the “truth.” This fits the description of a believer who is far from God. Such a person is deeply deceived. Indeed, John writes that the proto-Gnostic false teachers “are trying to deceive you” (1 Jn. 2:26). John isn’t giving these Christians a series of tests to gain (or lose!) their assurance of salvation. Rather, he is writing against these false teachers. And in doing so, this will guard them against heresy, boost their “confidence” in Christ (1 Jn. 2:28; 3:21; 4:17), result in close fellowship with God (1 Jn. 1:3), and end with them receiving a “full reward” (2 Jn. 7-8).

The “truth” is what has the ability to “set us free” from the slavery of sin (Jn. 8:32, 34). Jesus also said, “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth” (Jn. 17:17). Again, spiritual growth is in view. John is writing these things “so that you may not sin” (1 Jn. 2:1).

(1:9) “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

(1:9) Is forgiveness conditional on continual confession? This is a difficulty for the view that John is referring to spiritual growth throughout this section. After all, John refers to Jesus “forgiving” and “cleansing” us from all unrighteous. How does this fit with the concept of sanctification? In our view, John is alternating between the proto-Gnostic view (vv.6, 8, 10) and the Christian view (vv.5, 7, 9). He is not bringing a condition for salvation, nor is he introducing a fear-threat motivation for confession. Rather, he is outright claiming that because Jesus is “faithful and righteous,” he will always forgive our sins. He is also affirming that Jesus’ forgiveness cleanses us from “all unrighteousness.” This speaks of our security with Christ—not threats. And it leads to our desire to make a break from sin (1 Jn. 2:1).

(1:10) “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.”

Instead of agreeing with God (“confessing our sins,” v.9), we are making God a liar by saying that we “have not sinned.” This refers to the mindset of the false teachers who categorically deny sin altogether.

Questions for Reflection

Read verses 1-4. How could you use John’s prologue to refute proto-Gnostic false teaching?

According to the text, what does John mean by “fellowship” with God? (v.3, 6-7)

According to this text, what does John mean by “darkness” and “light”?

Read verses 6-10. Why does John alternate between the truth and the false teaching in this section?

Read verse 8. Stott comments, “John’s affirmation is equally applicable today to those who deny the fact or guilt of sin by seeking to interpret it solely in terms of physiological, psychological or social causes.”^[57] How do we see a rejection of sin in various worldviews today?

1 John 2

(2:1) “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”

“I am writing these things.” John switches pronouns to the first-person singular to personally address his audience.

“So that you may not sin.” Whatever John wrote in 1:5-10, he intended it so that believers could get freedom from sin. This describes spiritual growth—not spiritual birth. Indeed, John assumes that his audience consists of believers (1 Jn. 2:13-14).

“Advocate” (paraklētos) generally refers to “one who is called to someone’s aid” (BDAG, p. 766). Latin writers (like Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary) translated this with the Latin word advocatus. Thus, Marshall^[58] holds that this should be interpreting in light of “a legal context. But the legal use for this word is actually quite rare. Instead, it typically means “one who appears in another’s behalf, mediator, intercessor, helper” (BDAG, p.766). Therefore, while this term doesn’t strictly refer to an attorney, it does refer to “one who speaks on behalf of the accused (not in the professional sense we use today, but as a friend or patron who speaks up in favor of the accused).”^[59] After all, the Holy Spirit is the “Helper” (paraklētos) to convict people of their need for Jesus (Jn. 16:7-11).

Only John uses this term, and in every other instance, he uses it to refer to the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). Here it refers to Jesus who intercedes on our behalf (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25). This interchangeability shouldn’t surprise us, because even Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as “another” Helper (Jn. 14:16).

“Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” The picture here is not that Jesus is trying to persuade God the Father of our merit or our innocence. Rather, the context indicates that Jesus is appealing to justice—his own “righteousness” and “propitiation.” In other words, Jesus is our “advocate” who is insisting that justice has already been served. Since he is the “propitiation for our sins,” the price has already been paid. For God to judge us would be a mockery of justice because his Son already took the penalty upon himself. This is the imagery being described here.

(2:2) “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”

Instead of talking God out of judging us, Jesus offers himself in our place. Barker writes, “The 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 “atoning sacrifice for our sins.”^[60] As the evidence piles up that we’re guilty, Jesus steps in as our “propitiation,” meaning that he pays for our guilt (see comments on propitiation in Romans 3:25). In short, the word means that Jesus took away God’s righteous wrath toward us by being the “righteous” (v.1) sacrifice in our place.

(2:2) Does this passage support unlimited atonement? Five-point Calvinists understand this to refer to all types of people throughout the world, who comprise the elect. But the context of this passage is not ethnicity but universal sin. Moreover, this explanation doesn’t fit with the term “world” (kosmos), which refers to the domain of Satan (1 Jn. 5:19), not the “elect.”

1 John 2:3-11 (Loving others)

Free Grace theologians like Hodges understand the thesis of 1 John to be “fellowship” with God (1 Jn. 1:3). He understands this to refer to experiential closeness with God and spiritual growth. On this view, the unloving believer is experientially in the dark in his condition.

Lordship theologians, by contrast, hold that John is giving a test for knowing whether or not we are truly Christians. On this view, the unloving person is a non-Christian in his position. For instance, Stott writes that John’s “purpose is to supply tests by which the genuine Christian may be discerned from the spurious.”^[61] According to Lordship theologians, we can test the reality of our relationship with God by examining our love for others.

In our view, John is not giving a test for our salvation. In fact, he affirms that his audience consists of authentic believers. Later he writes, “I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven… I have written to you, children, because you know the Father” (1 Jn. 2:12-13). And again, he writes, “I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it” (1 Jn. 2:21). Rather than giving his readers a test for determining their own salvation, John is giving an a way to experience closeness with God while also being able to discern the libertine proto-Gnostic teachers who denied the importance of truth and love. In fact, John himself claims that this is his purpose in writing: “These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you” (1 Jn. 2:26).

(2:3-4) “By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. ⁴ The one who says, ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

Does this teach that we need to keep Jesus’ commandments to prove that we are true believers? There are problems with this popular Lordship interpretation. For one, this hardly sounds like a way to build our confidence in our salvation. Indeed, all of us fall terribly short of Jesus’ command to love others. So, if this is a test of salvation, how many commandments do we need to perform to have assurance?

Free Grace theologians argue that John’s thesis statement is our ability to have “fellowship” with God the Father (1 Jn. 1:3). Thus, Hodges writes, “The test suggested by 1 John 2:3 is not of the saving knowledge of God or of Christ, but of the experiential knowledge of God and His Son.”^[62] Again, to Hodges, the driving message of the epistle is the experience of fellowship—not the existence of our relationship.

We agree with this view. Though, Anderson[63] argues and advances this Free Grace perspective far more rigorously than Hodges. He notes that the language in the text subtly shifts from the present tense to the perfect tense. John writes,

“By this we know (ginōskomen, present tense) that we have come to know (egnōkamen, perfect tense) Him, if we keep His commandments. ⁴ The one who says, ‘I have come to know (egnōka, perfect tense) Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

According to Greek expert Daniel Wallace, the perfect tense “describes an event that, completed in the past… has results existing in the present time.”^[64] Thus, the final two uses of “know” refer to the ongoing results of coming to know God. Moreover, Anderson notes that the word “know” (ginōskō) is a stative verb. That is, it describes a state of being. This means that the word refers to “the sense of an experience,” rather than a test of salvation. Consequently, Anderson states that the word could be rendered “to know intensely,” “to experience deeply,” or “to know fully.”

This reading of the text is not only exegetically faithful, but it also fits with our experience as well. Think about it. When we love others, we experience the truth of our living relationship with Christ. This is not a test for discerning whether or not we are authentic Christians. Rather, it is a way of experiencing closeness with God. When we love others, we draw closer to loving Christ himself. Jesus said, “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him” (Jn. 14:21).

“His commandments.” This refers to the command to love another (see 1 Jn. 3:21-23).

“The one who says, ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” John was not only writing to boost the confidence of believers (1 Jn. 1:3; 5:13), but he was also writing to discern false teachers (1 Jn. 2:26). This final sentence gives a criterion for discerning a false teacher—namely, they reject Jesus’ teaching. John switches from addressing fellow believers (“we,” v.3) to addressing these false teachers (“the one who says”). For the false teacher, John writes that “the truth is not in him.” Earlier, John used this same expression (“the truth is not in us”) to refer to the person who claimed to be without sin (1 Jn. 1:8).

(2:5) “But whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:”

This isn’t a conditional statement (as the NIV renders it). This is simply a truth proposition. Hodges again aligns this language with John 14:21-24. He argues that intimacy and love for God only come from acting in love for others. He writes, “We are thus firmly stationed on what may be called discipleship truth, in contrast to truth about eternal salvation. Love for Christ and obedience to His word are in no way a test of saving faith, despite the repeated claim by many that they are. Instead, they are tests of genuine, heartfelt discipleship to the One who loved us and gave Himself for us (Galatians 2:20).”^[65]

“By this” refers back to experiencing the fullness of God’s love (“the love of God has truly been perfected”). Thus, when we give out love for God, we experience deeper love from God. This gives us a positive confidence that we authentically know God. However, the reverse position isn’t in view. John isn’t saying that a lack of love should make us doubt our salvation. Rather, the presence of loves gives us assurance of salvation—that we “know” God and are “in Him.”

Consider an illustration. There are two ways to know the temperature outside. One is to look at a thermometer hanging outside your window, and the other is to step outside and feel the sun on your skin. The first way is technological and more objective, while the second is experiential and more subjective. Both are valid ways of knowing the temperature. However, if a person lacked access to the experience of walking outside, they would still know the temperature by reading the thermometer.

Now imagine if someone said, “Since you didn’t go outside and experience the weather, that serves as evidence that you really don’t know the temperature.” Do you see the problem? Experiential evidence works positively to support your knowledge, but it doesn’t work negatively to doubt your clear reading of the thermometer.

Some days we are mean, crabby, and downright selfish. When this happens, we lack the experiential confidence of knowing Christ. Yet just because we lack this experience, we can always fall back on God’s promises which never change. Then, when we repent of our selfishness and begin to love others again, we can look forward to regaining an experiential confidence once again.

When we love others, this adds to our confidence, but the presence of sin and selfishness shouldn’t subtract from our confidence. Lordship theologians err on this crucial point. They think that these ways of building confidence in our salvation are actually ways of testing (or even doubting) our salvation.

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

“Abide” (menō) is John’s term for actively following Jesus by drawing close to him and loving others (Jn. 15:4-8). This is at the core of all Christian discipleship.

Lordship theologians argue that John is writing against having a false assurance of salvation. For instance, Stott writes, “We cannot claim to live in him unless we behave like him.”^[66] Stott is an excellent commentator. However, we disagree with him on this point. To “abide” (menō) in Christ doesn’t refer to our position, but our condition. John is revealing the inconsistency of saying that we can walk with Christ and be close to him (“abide in Him”) if we reject his way of love and good deeds.

(2:7) “Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard.”

John is not referring to the Ten Commandments. Instead, he writes that they have heard this “from the beginning.” From the beginning of the Mosaic Covenant? No. The beginning of their introduction to Jesus (1 Jn. 2:24; 3:11; 2 Jn. 6).^[67] In his opening verse, John wrote, “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life” (1 Jn. 1:1). The way of Jesus was always about love. Thus, John “denies that there ever was ‘a message’ that did not have this command at its heart, despite his opponents’ claims.”^[68]

Of course, it’s also true that this focus on love has been true throughout time—long before the ministry of Jesus. Akin writes, “This message can also be characterized as old or from the beginning because it has roots in the law (cf. Lev 19:18; also Rom 13:8-10) and because the love command was an integral part of the exhortation given to all believers at the start of the Christian life (Eph 5:2; Jas 2:8; 1 Pet 2:17).”^[69]

(2:8) “On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true Light is already shining.”

“On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you.” Kruse writes, “The command to love one another was described by Jesus himself as a ‘new command.’”^[70] Akin comments, “The law of love is new in the sense that it is seen in Jesus and established by him through his death and resurrection. This command is also new in that Jesus by his obedience fulfilled the whole of the law and gave it ‘a depth of meaning that it had never known before’ (John 13:34b, 35). Finally, this command is new because for those who believe it makes possible a new and eternal life in which they are motivated by the grace of God to fulfill the law of self-sacrificing, Christlike love.”^[71]

By writing that the “darkness is passing away” (paragō), John means that the evil of the world-system is “passing away” (paragō, 1 Jn. 2:17; cf. 1 Cor. 7:31). People living in the “darkness” of this world will be able to see the “light” of the gospel through our love for one another (Jn. 13:35).

(2:9) “The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now.”

Lordship theologians argue that the hatred of a brother demonstrates that this person was never a true believer in the first place—even if he claims and “says” he is a true believer. However, if a person hates a Christian “brother,” this implies that he is an authentic believer who is in God’s “family.”^[72] Moreover, we have all hated our brother at some point. This would mean that I have never met an authentic Christian before!^[73] Any interpretation that makes the text nonsensical should be rejected.

To avoid such a conclusion, Lordship theologians argue that “those they hated were the author himself [John the apostle] and those who belonged to his group.”^[74] In other words, they hated the apostolic circle. However, how does this fit with the language? John writes, “The one who… hates his brother.” John doesn’t refer to “the one who hates us.” Instead, he uses broad and generic terms for any Christian.

The “darkness” cannot refer to our position unless our position is changing back and forth every time we are overcome with hatred. Instead, this believer is living in the darkness, rather than in the light. In his condition, he is living like the world (“darkness”) and not like God in whom “there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn. 1:5). Such a person is very far from the heart of God, and needs to repent and come back to him to experience true fellowship with God (1 Jn. 1:6).

(2:10) “The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him.”

John is writing so that we can align our condition with our position by loving others. If we are loving fellow believers, we won’t be ensnared or “stumbled” by sin. That is, there is “nothing to cause them to fall into sin.”^[75] This is the language of sanctification and spiritual growth—not spiritual birth.

By contrast, those who harbor hatred in their hearts quickly see this spreading into bitterness that overtakes them (Heb. 12:15). Hodges writes, “Christian experience bears this out. When hostility to a brother rules a Christian’s heart, it leads him readily and rapidly into sinful words and behavior. The spirit of hate toward a brother is a spiritual trap that the hater lays for himself.”^[76] By contrast, when we love our brother, we are not “blinded” by the darkness and do not have a “cause for stumbling” in the dark. Akin writes, “Spiritual darkness is not a passive reality. It goes on the offensive. Darkness attacks those living in it so that they become increasingly trapped in this realm of confusion and blindness. In a real sense what we do is what we become. How we live is who we are.”^[77]

(2:11) “But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.”

This seems to be describing a non-Christian. The person’s position is “in the darkness,” and also his condition is that he “walks in the darkness.” In other words, his position and condition are the same. It’s only when we come to Christ that our position changes, and we can get freedom to love like Christ in our condition.

On the other hand, if John is still describing a believer, then this would mean that spiritual deception occurs when we aren’t living out our faith.^[78] Hodges summarizes, “To live in darkness and hate is to make the Savior a stranger in one’s experience on earth. Though saved, such a Christian has forfeited the vital, intimate knowledge of his God.”^[79] He also lives in “total meaninglessness”^[80] apart from God because the darkness is “passing away” (v.8) and the world is “passing away” (v.17).

1 John 2:12-14 (Affirming their salvation)

If 2:3-11 is a test of salvation, this collides with what John writes here in 2:12-14. The content of this section repeatedly affirms the security and position of these believers. While not contradictory to a Lordship reading of the text, this seems quite odd in view of that perspective.

Do these three titles refer to three stages of spiritual maturity? Perhaps. Stott^[81] and Akin^[82] hold that this refers to believers of different spiritual maturity. But we respectfully disagree. We favor the view of Kruse^[83] and Hodges^[84] who state that John’s language of “little children” (v.12), “fathers” (v.13), and “young men” (v.14) actually describe all of his readers—not three distinct groups. After all, he elsewhere refers to the entire group as “little children” (1 Jn. 2:1, 18, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21). Indeed, the truths written to each group could easily apply to believers of all ages.

(2:12) “I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake.”

John adamantly affirms their salvation here. Later, he uses the language of believing in Jesus’ “name” to assure their salvation (1 Jn. 5:13). This reaffirmation stands in contrast to the false teachers who were denying the salvation of these believers and trying to “deceive” them (1 Jn. 2:25-26).

(2:13) “I am writing to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I have written to you, children, because you know the Father.”

Jesus is the one who has been “from the beginning” (1 Jn. 1:1, “What was from the beginning…”).

“You have overcome the evil one.” They already overcame the evil one. Though Satan blinds the minds of the unbelieving (2 Cor. 4:4), these people overcame him through their faith (1 Jn. 5:4-5).

(2:14) “I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.”

Why does John repeat these affirmations of their conquering of Satan through faith? It may be because they were coming under such fervent attack from the false teachers regarding their salvation that John felt the need to hammer this home (cf. 1 Jn. 2:25-26).

Why are the young men “strong”? This doesn’t come from self-effort, but only because “the word of God” abides in them (cf. Jn. 15:7; cf. Ps. 119:9, 11). As Kruse writes, “The reason they have overcome the evil one is that they are strong, and they are strong because the word of God lives in them.”^[85]

1 John 2:15-17 (The world-system)

John refers to the “world” (kosmos) in this section, which is “an evil organized earthly system controlled by the power of the evil one.”^[86] Regarding the “world” (kosmos), Hodges writes, “The world, conceived of as a moral and spiritual system designed to draw humanity away from the living God, is profoundly seductive (see verse 16) and no Christian, however advanced, is fully immune to its allurements.”^[87] For a full explanation of this concept, see our earlier article “The World-System.”

(2:15) “Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”

Throughout chapter 2, John keeps repeating that we should love our brother. Here, he tells us, “Do not love…” What are we not to love?

Christians often say that they don’t love the world-system, but they continue to love things about the world-system. Yet John is explicit: “Do not love the world or anything in the world.” Hodges writes, “A Christian can easily delude himself into thinking that he does not love the world at all when, in fact, he is deeply attracted to one or another of its sinful aspects. For example, he may deplore the world’s immorality and moral depravity while maintaining a deep drive to acquire material things.”^[88]

“The love of the Father is not in him.” Lordship theologians would argue that this is another test of the believer’s salvation. Yet, if we take these words at face value, it would mean that the believer cannot love the world-system at all. If true, then I have never met an authentic Christian. Again, we should point out that any interpretation of the text that makes it nonsensical should be rejected.

The genitive could be taken as subjective (i.e. our love for God) or objective (i.e. God’s love for us). Kruse,^[89] Marshall,^[90] Akin,^[91] and Hodges^[92] hold to the subjective view that this refers to our love for God. After all, John is drawing a contrast between loving the world versus loving God. Thus, when we are wrapped up in the world-system, we lack love for the Father. Experience only confirms this interpretation: How many people absorbed with materialism have no interest in spiritual things? This doesn’t mean that we lose God’s love for us, but it does mean that we lose our love for God. This reading of the text fits nicely with other passages about materialism (Lk. 16:13; Jas. 4:4).^[93]

(2:16) “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.”

John explains three components of the world-system:

“Lust of the flesh.” The term “lust” (epithymia) comes from the root words “over” (epi) and “desire” (thumia). Thus, this is an “over desire.” We could translate this as a “great desire” or as an “inordinate” desire (BDAG, p.372). This is used to describe a “great desire” for fellowship (1 Thess. 2:17) or a “desire” for heaven (Phil. 1:23). However, in the vast majority of cases, the term is negative.

Here, John uses this as an “over desire” for the “flesh.” That is, the “lust of the flesh” would refer to all forms of immorality, including an over desire for “sensual pleasure, especially sexual desire.”^[94] This could include “anything and any way in which humans improperly fulfill fleshly desires (overeating, drunkenness, etc.).”^[95] Enjoying sensual desire is a gift of God. It becomes evil when this takes over our lives.

“The lust of the eyes.” This could refer to “everything that entices the eyes.’”^[96] Consequently, Kruse,^[97] Marshall,^[98] and Hodges^[99] state that this refers to greed and covetousness.

“The boastful pride of life.” Later, John uses the term rendered “life” (bios) to refer to “material possessions” (1 Jn. 3:17 NIV). Some hold that this “describes a pretentious hypocrite who glories in himself or in his possessions.”^[100] Others understand it to refer to “arrogance or pretentiousness, such as one sees in a person who boasts about self, possessions, or accomplishments.”^[101] We agree with Akin when he writes, “In this area of temptation, individuals make idols of their livelihood, social standing, and any other status symbol that the world determines is important but that matters little to God. Pride, prestige, power, and position count for nothing in the kingdom of God. The value system of this world is turned on its head when God provides the evaluation.”^[102] Marshall describes this as a “timeless warning against materialism.”^[103]

Satan has been using the world-system from the very beginning. The first sin of humanity follows these three themes. Genesis records, “When the woman saw that the tree was [1] good for food, and that it was a [2] delight to the eyes, and that the tree was [3] desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate” (Gen. 3:6).

The proto-Gnostic teachers may have argued that all of these lusts were in the created world, and therefore, they were from the God who created them. John argues in direct opposition to this view, writing that this “is not from the Father, but is from the world.”

(2:17) “The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.”

Since the world is temporary, everything in it will end in nothing. This is the difference between the eternal perspective and the temporal perspective. This is similar to what John had already written—that “the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining” (1 Jn. 2:8).

1 John 2:18-29 (Identifying False Teachers: Deeds and Doctrine)

(2:18) “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.”

“It is the last hour.” Not only is the world “passing away,” but it is happening quickly. In fact, we are living in “the last hour.” By this, John cannot mean a literal 60-minute period. They wouldn’t be able to distribute and read this book that quickly! John uses the term “hour” both literally (Jn. 1:39; 4:6; 11:9) and metaphorically (Jn. 2:4; 4:21, 23; 5:25, 28; 16:25). Here, the use is clearly metaphorical.

While there are many “antichrists” (i.e. false teachers), there is still one singular Antichrist to come (“antichrist is coming”). This might be an allusion to the Olivet Discourse, where Jesus taught that many false teachers would increase, as we reach the end (Mt. 24:4-5, 11, 24). This is could be why John writes that “from this we know that it is the last hour,” because Jesus himself taught this.

(2:19) “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.”

These proto-Gnostic false teachers had belonged to Christian fellowship at one time. Thus, it’s possible for someone to be in fellowship for a while, but not actually be a true believer. In context, it seems that these people who left fellowship were denying Christ (vv.21-23). The language of “went out” also describes Judas when he abandoned Christ (Jn. 13:30; cf. Acts 15:24 in light of Gal. 2:4). Thus, this language seems to refer to rejecting Christ—not just being out of fellowship with other believers.

The anointing

(2:20) “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.”

The “Holy One” is Jesus (Jn. 6:69) who received his “anointing” (chrism) by the Holy Spirit (Lk. 4:18; Acts 4:27; 10:38). As believers, we also get an “anointing” (chrism) from the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 1:21-22). Stott comments, “There seems to be here a deliberate play on words. Protection against the ‘antichrist’ is in the ‘chrism’ they had received.”^[104]

“All of you know the truth.” Since the Holy Spirit taught the apostles “all things” (Jn. 14:26) and “all truth” (Jn. 16:13), John is likely thinking in these terms. Since these believers learned the truth of Christ from the apostles, they also knew “all things.” They had no need to hear the contradictory speculations of the proto-Gnostic teachers.

(2:21) “I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.”

“You do know the truth.” The truth refers to the truth of Jesus. Kruse writes, “The truth to which the author refers in this context is the truth about Jesus Christ, that he is the Christ (Messiah), something the secessionists were denying and thus revealing themselves to be antichrists (2:22-23).”^[105]

This is the reason why they can discern truth from falsehood in this theological battle. Akin comments, “The knowledge that the secessionists have does not make the believers ignorant; it makes the secessionists liars, confirming the assertion of v. 19 that they were never truly a part of the believing community.”^[106]

Could it be that the false teachers were syncretistic, and they were trying to stand alongside the apostle John’s message in some sort of parasitic way? If so, John is saying, “Don’t allow it! You know the truth… How does my teaching about Christ fit with their teaching about him in any meaningful way? Only one message can be true.”

(2:22) “Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.”

Either Jesus is the Christ, or he isn’t. Both cannot be true. One message is true, and the other is false. The way we can identify false teachers, antichrists, or the Antichrist (v.18) is to look at their doctrine—specifically their view of Jesus (cf. 1 Jn. 4:2-3; 2 Jn. 7).

(2:23) “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.”

Hodges (bizarrely!) holds open the possibility that these antichrists could possibly be Christians.^[107] We reject this view. John is describing false teachers and deniers of Christ—even calling them “antichrists.” One wonders what more John would need to write in order to communicate that these people are non-Christians!

“The one who confesses the Son has the Father also.” This fits with John 12:44-45 and John 14:6-11. John is showing the inseparability between the persons of the Trinity (Jn. 5:23; 14:6-7; 15:23).

(2:24) “As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.”

We should stick with what we’ve been taught. If we do “abide” in Christ, we will bear fruit: “He who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing” (Jn. 15:5). We agree with the wit and wisdom of Stott when he writes, “The continuous obsession for ‘the latest ideas’ is a mark of the Athenian not the Christian (Acts 17:21).”^[108]

(2:25) “This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.”

The proto-Gnostic false teachers were denying the gospel. However, John reaffirms the message of the gospel in the strongest possible terms. After all, the gospel is the “promise” of God. Who should these Christians believe: The proto-Gnostic false teachers or God’s “promise”?

(2:26) “These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you.”

Clearly, there were false teachers in this church. This passage serves as an interpretive clue for understanding this book. John isn’t giving the Christians a battery of tests to gain (or lose!) their assurance of salvation. Rather, he is writing against these false teachers, and in doing so, this will guard them against heresy, boost their confidence in Christ (1 Jn. 2:28; 3:21; 4:17), and result in close fellowship with God (1 Jn. 1:3).

(2:27) “As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.”

(2:27) Do we need to be taught or not? The false teachers were distorting the original message of Christ. John is saying that they already know Christ—and have no need of any more teachers like this who contradict that message. They know enough (1 Thess. 4:9; Rom. 15:14).

(2:28) “Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.”

Hodges suggests that believers could experience regret and shame at the bema seat of Christ.^[109] We reject the notion that Jesus will be the one to shame us at the bema seat, but we think we could feel self-inflicted shame (“not shrink away from Him in shame”). The key to avoiding this regret is not moral effort, but rather to currently cling to Christ and “abide in Him.” As we abide in Christ, we gain “confidence” to come boldly into Jesus’ presence at his Second Coming.

1 John 2:29-3:10 (Identifying false teachers by their DEEDS)

(2:29) “If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.”

“If you know (eidete)… you know” (ginōskete). The first word refers to propositional knowledge, while the second term refers to experiential knowledge. John is giving a way to identify authentic believers. The proto-Gnostic false teachers wouldn’t be able to pass this test.

John affirms that Christians practice righteousness, but he doesn’t state that the opposite is true.^[110] That is, he does not write, “Everyone also who does not practice righteousness is not born of Him.” Instead, he is merely affirming one positive way to identify a believer.

Questions for Reflection

Read verse 1. Regarding this verse, Stott writes, “It is possible to be either too lenient or too severe towards sin. Too great a lenience almost encourages sin in the Christian by stressing God’s provision for the sinner. An exaggerated severity, on the other hand, either denies the possibility of a Christian sinning or refuses him forgiveness and restoration if he falls. Both extreme positions are contradicted by John.”^[111] Do you agree with his analysis?

Read verses 1-2. What does it mean that Jesus is our “Advocate” before God? What exactly does he do for us in this role?

Read verses 3-6. What if we subjectively feel unloving toward others? Does this mean that we aren’t a true Christian?

Read verses 7-11. In what way is the command to love others a “new commandment”? Doesn’t this exist in the OT as well? In what way is it “new”?

Read verse 10. According to this verse, what does it mean to live in the light?

Read verses 12-14. John addresses the people with different titles (e.g. little children, children, fathers). Do these titles refer to different groups of people? Or are they different titles that describe all Christians?

Read verses 15-17. Why is John so black-and-white about our love for the world-system versus our love for God?

Read verses 18-29. What can we learn about the false teachers in Ephesus from this section?

1 John 3

In light of identifying false teachers in 1 John 2:18-29, John continues this train of thought in 1 John 2:29-3:10. Therefore, the focus of these verses is on discerning proto-Gnostic false teachers who are trying to “deceive” these people (1 Jn. 3:7).

(3:1) “See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.”

“See” (idete, eidon). John is telling his readers to really look at the love of God. Surely this means to reflect and meditate on the fact that we have been adopted by God into his family.

“How great a love the Father has bestowed on us.” The term “how great” (potapēn) originally meant “of what country.” It refers to a “reference to class or kind” or “of what sort or kind” (BDAG, p.856). Stott writes, “It is as if the Father’s love is so unearthly, so foreign to this world, that John wonders from what country it may come.”^[112] The word occurs seven times in the NT and it “always implies astonishment.”^[113] John is thinking about the love of God, and he asks his readers, “What kind of love is this? It’s out of this world!”

“We would be called children of God.” God expresses his love through adoption (see “From Slaves to Sons”). It’s important to compare God as your Father with non-Christian religions who think of God as a boss, a master, an owner, an impersonal force, a humanoid deity, etc. God wants to relate to us primarily (though not exclusively) as a father does to his son. Not only have we been justified and forgiven (1 Jn. 2:13-14), but we also now possess the status of sons. It’s astounding that we can go an entire day without reflecting on the love of God for each of us.

“For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.” This was what Jesus predicted for his followers (Jn. 15:18-16:4). Barker comments, “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.”^[114]

(3:2) “Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.”

We already are adopted, and yet the depth of this relationship still hasn’t been fully revealed. This fits with Paul’s thought that we already are adopted, and yet we “wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Rom. 8:23). This is “already-not-yet” language.

When Christ returns (or when we die), we will be changed to be like him in becoming sinless in our resurrected bodies.^[115] Paul writes that Christ “will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory” (Phil. 3:21), and we will “bear the likeness of the man from heaven” (1 Cor. 15:49 NIV).

“We will see Him just as He is.” Part of our glorification will be seeing the reality of Christ as he really is. We read about Jesus so much and we pray to him so often. But to see him? That will be a wonder. As Paul writes, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12).

(3:3) “And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.”

The key to sanctification is to constantly reflect on who we are in Christ (and also what we’re going to become). This is similar to Paul’s train of thought in Romans 8:1-18. All of this material on sanctification is in stark contrast to what the proto-Gnostics were teaching about God…

(3:4) “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.”

We’ve already argued that this church in Ephesus was plagued with licentious proto-Gnostic dualism. We might imagine these false teachers saying, “It doesn’t matter what I do with my physical body, because I’m pure in my soul.” Earlier, John recorded their view. They were claiming, “We have no sin” and “We have not sinned” (1 Jn. 1:8, 10). They must’ve been categorically rejecting sin as unimportant or perhaps non-existent—even to the point where they could claim, “We have no sin.” John disagrees! These false teachers were denying that sin was immoral, and John is flatly contradicting this “antinomian” concept.

John is referring to a radical form of sin. The term “lawlessness” (anomia) carries real severity. Regarding this term, Kruse comments, “In some places in the LXX anomia has satanic associations, and in two places it is used to translate Belial (2 Sam 22:5; Ps 17:6 [ET 18:5]).”^[116] Thus, John could be referring to a certain type of sin—namely, sinning like the devil. As John later writes, “One who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn. 3:8). Matthew is the only gospel author to use the term, and he uses it to describe false teachers (Mt. 7:23; 13:41; 23:28; 24:12). Kruse concludes, “All this suggests that when the author of 1 John says ‘sin is lawlessness,’ he does not mean sin is the violation of the Mosaic law, but rather that sin constitutes opposition to and rebellion against God, like the opposition and rebellion of Satan.”^[117]

(3:5) “You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.”

“He appeared in order to take away sins.” If sin is unimportant or non-existent (as the proto-Gnostic teachers claimed), then why did Jesus give his life? This same language (“take away sins”) was used by John the Baptist in John 1:29 (“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”).

Hodges^[118] argues that this could refer to our justification, but could also look forward to our glorification. That is, Jesus will ultimately take away sin when he returns (v.2).

“In Him there is no sin.” There is only one person who truly has no sin, and it isn’t a proto-Gnostic false teacher.

(3:6-9) “No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. ⁷ Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; ⁸ the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. ⁹ No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”

(3:6) “No one who abides in Him sins.” This first portion of the verse is not controversial. It could simply mean that when we abide in Christ, we will not sin. That is, the key to breaking free from sin is not self-effort or moralism, but rather to abide in Christ (Jn. 15).

Does the use of the present tense explain that this is referring to ongoing, habitual sin? Some argue that John’s use of the present tense “sin” (hamartanei) implies “a continual practice of sin” and “a willful, habitual action.”^[119] This means that a “believer will not live a life characterized by sin.”^[120] While Christians will continue to have falls into sin, it is “impossible for sin to become a believer’s pattern of life.”^[121]

Even some translations place a major emphasis on the present tense. For instance, some render this as “keeps on sinning” (ESV) or “continues to sin” (NIV). Likewise, in verse 9, these translations render this as “makes a practice of sin” (ESV) or “keeps on sinning” (NIV). Lordship theologians argue that this can help explain the difficulty of this passage. It isn’t that John is claiming that Christians need sinless perfection. Rather, they cannot routinely practice sin in an ongoing way. Yet, there are a couple of serious problems with this interpretation.

First, the biggest difficulty with this view is that it contradicts John’s earlier statements. In chapter one, John writes, “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 Jn. 1:8). John uses the present tense to describe “having no sin” (hamartia ou echomen). If the perfect tense should be translated in this ongoing way, it would mean, “If we say that we do not continually have sin, we deceive ourselves.” So, which is it? Do believers continually have sin or not?

In chapter two, John writes, “I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 Jn. 2:1). Our author is clearly stating that Christians can and do sin.

Finally, in chapter three, John writes, “In [Jesus] there is no sin” (v.5). If this is true, then how can anyone abide in Christ and still have any sin whatsoever? Hodges writes, “If there can be ‘no sin’ in Christ at all, one cannot take even a little bit of sin into an experience which is specifically said to be in Him.”^[122] Stressing John’s use of the present tense doesn’t explain these contextual difficulties.

Second, placing an emphasis on the present tense does nothing to solve this difficulty. Can anyone honestly say that they do not “make a practice of sin” or that they no longer “keep on sinning”? Do not Christians sin at the very least daily—if not hourly—if not minute by minute? What does it even mean that we do not practice sin any longer?

(3:6-9) Can Christians gain sinless perfection? In our view, John is describing libertine, proto-Gnostic false teachers who reject the category of sin altogether. John’s language is absolute and binary to show the difference between the two groups. We reject the view that John is referring to Christians with a guilty conscience or that he’s threatening someone’s salvation. Nor is this a test of one’s salvation. Instead, John is giving discernment to identify the “obvious” difference between Christians and proto-Gnostics (v.10).

“No one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.” This is the real difficulty of this passage, and it is a difficulty for both Free Grace and Lordship theologians. In our view, this could simply be absolute and binary language used to discern the proto-Gnostic false teachers.

On the other hand, John uses the perfect tense in Greek when he writes “seen” or “known.” The perfect tense is an action that was brought to completion in the past, but has current consequences that are still felt in the present. Hodges suggests this translation: “Whoever sins is in a not-seeing and not-knowing condition with reference to God.”^[123] Hodges compares the use of this Greek tense to be as similar to saying, “I have not finished my homework.” This doesn’t mean that we have never finished homework in the past, but that we haven’t finished our homework for today.^[124] From this, he argues that this passage doesn’t mean that these people have never “seen” or “known” God, but that they are not currently seeing him or knowing him. This would fit with his thesis that John is focusing on spiritual growth and “fellowship” with God (1 Jn. 1:3).

(3:7) “Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous.”

“Little children, make sure no one deceives you.” The false teachers were themselves deceived (1 Jn. 1:8), and they were trying to deceive these Christians (1 Jn. 2:26). The nature of their false teaching was a rejection of God’s moral nature (1 Jn. 1:5) and thus his moral imperatives (1 Jn. 1:8, 10; 3:4).

“Practices righteousness.” Some commentators argue that this passage could be understood to be rendered as “makes a habit of practicing righteousness,” because of the present tense in Greek. Yet again, this simply stretches the meaning of the present tense.^[125] After all, John compares our righteousness to Jesus’ righteousness in the same verse.

In our view, John is arguing that righteous living comes from righteous being (cf. 1 Jn. 2:29). That is, we can identify a person as a believer if they practice righteousness, and it’s impossible to practice righteousness if we are not abiding in Christ. The focus of John’s words is not aimed at a Christian with a guilty conscience, but on the proto-Gnostic false teachers.

(3:8) “The one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.”

It’s interesting that John links the problem of these false teachers back to Satan, and the origin of sin in Genesis 3. Jesus compares false teachers with Satan as well (Jn. 8:44). He uses antithetical parallelism between believers (v.7) and non-believers (v.8). That is, we are either with Jesus practicing righteousness (v.7) or with the devil practicing sin (v.8). John uses strict antitheses to show how “obvious” the difference is between Christians and false teachers (v.10).

(3:9) “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”

“Practices sin.” See comments on verse 6.

Could this refer to the inability to sin in our position? Free grace theologians like Anderson[126] and Hodges^[127] argue that this is referring to the impossibility of sinning in our position in Christ, rather than in our condition. John writes, “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him” (1 Jn. 3:9). Under this view, God’s “seed” refers to the passing on of his perfect nature, giving us a new position in Christ. From his perspective, we cannot sin in our inner man, even though we can sin in our outer man (condition). A good parallel is Romans 7. Paul writes, “I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me” (Rom. 7:20). Later he writes, “I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body” (Rom. 7:22-23). If it’s true that “Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20), then it must also be true that Christ is living a totally sinless life in me. While believers constantly continue to sin, our regenerated sinless nature does not.

The difficulty with this view is how we understand the strong language throughout this passage. John writes, “No one who sins has seen Him or knows Him” (v.6). Anderson and Hodges understand this to refer to experiential knowledge. Later, we read, “Anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God” (v.10). What does it mean to be “of God”? This sounds like our position—not our condition. Moreover, what is John’s point? Why does he bring up our inability to sin in our position, and how does this fit into his train of thought in the letter?

(3:10) “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.”

How do we recognize or identify a false teacher? John says it is “obvious.” Look at their lifestyle. This isn’t the only method, but it’s a valuable one. Akin comments, “The child has the distinguishing marks of his parent. Therefore the child comes to imitate, and even embody, the distinguishing marks of his parent.”^[128]

“The children of the devil.” Hodges^[129] argues that John is simply stating that we show that we are abiding in Christ by practicing righteousness. He even goes so far as to say that the “children of the devil” are not unbelievers, but rather those who simply reject truth (cf. Mt. 13:38; Jn. 8:44; Acts 13:10). He writes, “This is no more strange than that the Lord Jesus could address His own disciple Peter as ‘Satan’ [Mt. 16:23].”^[130] Rather than referring to their justified state, he holds that this refers to their usefulness by God.

We appreciate Hodges’ work in general, but frankly, this is downright bizarre. John is describing false teachers and deniers of Christ—even calling them “children of the devil.” One wonders what more John would need to write in order to communicate that these people are non-Christians! This is a clear example of going overboard in with Free Grace teaching. The language of “manifestation” and “knowing” are replete throughout this section. John is clearly writing about how to tell a true teacher from a false one. Hodges is hesitant to see proto-Gnosticism in the church of Ephesus. In fact, he sees John’s audience as being the Church in Jerusalem instead. He calls these false teachers “revisionists” throughout his commentary, rather than proto-Gnostics. As a consequence, he doesn’t see John’s interlocutors clearly, and consequently, he misses the meaning of the passage.

1 John 3:11-18 (Loving one another)

What does it look like to “practice righteousness,” according to John? In verse 10, he adds that this is all about “loving our brother.” John elaborates on this concept next.

(3:11) “For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.”

The “beginning” doesn’t refer to a cosmic beginning or the beginning of salvation history. Rather, it refers to the “beginning” of their Christian lives,^[131] when they first “heard” this message. Jesus gave this command to believers (Jn. 13:30).

(3:12) “Not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous.”

Why does John allude back to Genesis 4 to build his argument? This is the ultimate example of not loving your brother! (1 Jn. 3:10-11) John is trying to paint a strong and contrasting picture of the followers of God and those of Satan. He’s alluding to this account because everyone would know that Cain was unquestionably the bad guy in the story. Similarly, the false teachers do not love their brothers either; so, it’s just as easy to identify them as antithetical to God (cf. Jn. 8:37-47).

“[Cain] was of the evil one and slew his brother.” Jesus said, “[Satan] was a murderer from the beginning” (Jn. 8:44).

(3:13) “Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you.”

Cain was “of the evil one,” and he hated his brother who was following God. Today, the entire “world” (kosmos) is under the “power of the evil one” (1 Jn. 5:19). Consequently, it shouldn’t surprise us if there is still tension and levels of hostility between believers and non-believers today—just as there has always been since the dawn of humanity (Gen. 4). Jesus warned us, “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you” (Jn. 15:18-19). Of course, Barker comments, “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, the avarice, the hatred, and the wickedness of the world, it must expect rejection.”^[132]

(3:14) “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.”

How does God boost our assurance that we know him? (cf. Jn. 5:24) One way (though not the only way) to know God’s love is to experience it flowing through us into other people’s lives. This is a way of knowing our status before God—not causing our status. The word “because” (hoti) modifies the word “know” (oidamen), not the phrase “we have passed.”^[133] This is similar to how non-Christians can “know” the reality of God through the love of Christians (Jn. 13:34-35).

The word “know” (oida) can refer to gaining propositional knowledge, but it can also refer to being “intimately acquainted” or “experience” (BDAG). When we’re loving others, we never have such a strong confidence in our relationship with God. We never get to the end of a night of pouring out love to others and say to ourselves, “Boy… I’m really not sure if God is real…” Not at chance! When we are giving out love, God feels closer than ever. This passage shouldn’t be used to threaten a believer’s salvation (see comments on 1 John 2:5).

“He who does not love abides in death.” This could refer to being a non-Christian. It could also refer to “death” in the sense of death to our spiritual growth. If “abiding” in Christ refers to closeness with him, then “abiding” in death would be present alienation from him.

(3:15) “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”

(3:15) Are murderers not forgiven by the blood of Christ? Many murderers are forgiven in the Bible (e.g. Moses, David, Paul, etc.). Therefore, one way to take this passage is that of knowing or recognizing a true believer. On this view, hatred for the Body of Christ is a strong sign that a person is not a true believer in Christ. To repeat, this passage is given from the perspective of how we “know” if someone has eternal life.

Another way of taking this passage is to refer to our spiritual growth. John doesn’t write that the “murderer” does not have eternal life. He writes that he does not have eternal life abiding in him. This term “abiding” refers to our relational connection to Jesus, who is our eternal life (1 Jn. 5:20). Jesus taught us to “abide in him” so that he would “abide in us” (Jn. 15:4). This doesn’t mean that we gain and lose our salvation every time we draw near to God or forget about him. It means that we can have the present experience of sanctification as we abide in him.

(3:16) “We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”

Jesus gave us the standard for biblical love. This is the opposite of Cain’s killing of his brother (v.13). Instead of taking our brother’s life through murder, we give our life to our brother through self-sacrifice (Jn. 10:11-18; 15:12-14). Stott writes, “This, then, is the ultimate contrast: Cain’s hatred issued in murder, Christ’s love in self-sacrifice.”^[134]

John explains what he means by “laying down our lives” in the subsequent verses. He gives very practical examples of meeting material needs.

(3:17) “But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?”

We may never have an opportunity to lay down our physical lives for our brother, but we often have the opportunity to meet the needs of those around us on a daily basis.

“Sees his brother in need.” It’s easy to love humanity in general. But it is much harder to love my brother who I know personally. We recently heard the story of a young man who was protesting the evils of racism in the public square downtown, but he refused to love his roommates who were of a different race in his own house. Stott comments, “Loving everybody in general may be an excuse for loving nobody in particular.”^[135]

“How does the love of God abide in him?” Such a person isn’t in touch with God if they have a closed heart like that. If a person really had the love of God in their hearts (“abiding in him”), then why does he “close his heart” to his brother?

(3:18) “Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.”

Since “word” and “tongue” are synonymous, it seems that “deed” and “truth” are also synonymous. John explains that we need to look at the deeds of others to judge if they are telling the truth.

1 John 3:19-24 (The condemning heart)

At this point in the letter, we might feel downcast at the striking nature of what it means to follow Christ. All of us will sense that we fall terribly short of the type of love described here. This is likely why John comforts us in these final verses of chapter 3.

(3:19) “We will know by this that we are of the truth, and will assure our heart before Him.”

Barker^[136] holds that “by this” refers to the greatness of God’s love over our self-condemning hearts (v.20). He writes, “[God’s] word and his truth are greater than our feelings or our conscience.”^[137]

(3:20) “In whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things.”

While love for others can assure us of salvation, it can also condemn. After all, our love for others always falls short. In this case, John writes that our hearts can “condemn” (kataginōskō) us. Yet John writes that “God is greater than our heart and knows all things.” God knows far more than our guilty conscience can ascertain. And yet, he still accepts us! Stott comments, “His omniscience should relieve, not terrify, us.”^[138]

Kruse^[139] takes an interesting interpretation of these verses. He holds that this refers to persuading ourselves that we need to give material goods to the poor. In this way, we will act like God who is far greater than our (selfish) human hearts. He summarizes his view by writing, “If the readers’ hearts do not object to their responding to calls on their generosity so that they actually provide the material assistance needed by their fellow believers, then they will experience confidence (parrēsia) in their relationship with God.”^[140] We’re unsure what to make of his interpretive arguments.

(3:21) “Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God.”

The goal is to get to the place where we aren’t wallowing in guilt feelings or fear. John’s goal is not to get true Christians to doubt their salvation. His goal is actually to bring them confidence and assurance. The word “confidence” (parrēsia) was used earlier in 1 John 2:28. Hodges writes, “There is hope that such present boldness can lead to future boldness at His return.”^[141]

(3:22) “And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight.”

When we’re following Christ, we’re sensitive to his will (cf. Jn. 8:28-29; 11:42), which leads to a deeper prayer life. If we are living licentiously, we wouldn’t know what to ask for that’s even in his will (cf. 1 Jn. 5:14-15; Jn. 16:26-27). Hodges writes, “Since the obedient Christian is seeking to do God’s ‘will’ by keeping His commands, he will naturally make all his prayers subject to that will when he is in doubt about what God truly wishes to do.”^[142] As James writes, “You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures” (Jas. 4:3). To repeat, when we are living for self to “spend it on [our] pleasures,” we petition God for the wrong requests.

(3:23) “This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.”

When we are feeling overwhelmed, it’s important to not over complicate the Christian life. It’s pretty simple: (1) Trust Jesus, (2) love your brother, and (3) repeat steps one and two!

(3:24) “The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.”

What does it mean to “abide” in God? In context, it means (1) to believe in Jesus and (2) to follow his teaching to love one another (see v.23). Jesus taught, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him” (Jn. 14:23). The word “abode” (monē) is from the same word group as “abide” (menō). If we are in a state of unbelief and self-centeredness, we cannot say that we are abiding in Christ.

“We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.” The Holy Spirit gives us personal testimony that we are children of God (Rom. 8:15-16). At the same time, we should be wary of other “spirits” that could be working in the world (1 Jn. 4:1-3). We can discern truth both experientially and doctrinally. It isn’t either/or, but both/and. See comments on 2:5 above.

Questions for Reflection

Read verses 1-10. What are deeply encouraging verses in this section? What are seemingly threatening verses in this section?

Read verses 6-9. How do we know that this passage is not teaching sinless perfection? (HINT: What else does John say in this letter that would demonstrate this?)

Read verses 11-15. Why do you think John brings up the story of Cain and Abel?

Read verses 19-20. In what ways does this passage speak to an overly sensitive conscience?

Read verses 21-22. Does this teach that God will not answer our prayers if we are living in sin?

1 John 4

John just stated that God has given us assurance of our salvation through the Holy Spirit (1 Jn. 3:24). However, this doesn’t mean that we should believe every “spirit” that we encounter—any more than we should believe in every “god” we hear about. John turns to the subject of discerning the truth through doctrine. Here, he addresses the proto-Gnostic dualists who rejected the incarnation of Jesus.

1 John 4:1-6 (Discerning doctrine)

(4:1) “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

“Do not believe every spirit… Many false prophets.” This is in contrast to John’s earlier imperative just a couple of verses earlier that says, “Believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ” (1 Jn. 3:23). Clearly, not all spirituality is real; and even if it is real, it is not all good. John equates false teachers to evil spirits—even Satan himself (cf. 1 Jn. 3:8, 10). Paul also makes this connection by writing that people will pay “attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1; cf. Gal. 1:6-9). This further fits with the thesis that John is specifically writing against false teachers in this letter. John has already given us criteria for judging false teaching in chapters 1-3; now he’s encouraging his readers to use their discernment (cf. Mt. 7:15; 24:11, 24; Mk. 13:21-23; Acts 20:28-30; 2 Pet. 2:1-22; Jude 4-19).

(4:2-3) “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; ³ and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.”

“Every spirit that confesses… Jesus Christ.” Since the Holy Spirit points to Christ (Jn. 15:26; 16:13-15; 1 Cor. 12:3), we can use this as a criterion for determining false teaching and false teachers.

“Confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.” Barker^[143] agrees that the false teachers were proto-Gnostic, and therefore, they didn’t believe that God would enter into a body of blood, skin, and bones. This resulted in the heresy commonly referred to as docetism. The Greek term dokeo means “to appear.” Thus, docetism holds that Jesus merely appeared to be human, but was actually just a spirit-being masquerading as flesh and blood.

“This is the spirit of the antichrist… and now it is already in the world.” Because the world-system belongs to Satan, it is no wonder that the “spirit of the antichrist… is already in the world.”

(4:4) “You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.”

As these believers read about the false prophets, demons, and the spirit of the Antichrist, they probably felt a scared. John reassures them by telling them that the Holy Spirit is more powerful than anything Satan can throw at them. Akin writes, “[John] reminds them of the true source and secret of their victory. They are not necessarily more intelligent or more skilled than the false prophets, but they are possessed and indwelt by one who is, the Holy Spirit.”^[144]

“Have overcome them” (nenikēkate) is in the perfect tense. Thus, it describes a “past victory that continues into the present.”^[145] Later John writes how we battle Satan: “For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. ⁵ Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 Jn. 5:4-5).

(4:5) “They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them.”

“The world listens to them.” We shouldn’t be surprised if false teachers are attractive to people in the world. After all, the apostles were teaching the “backwards wisdom of God,” which will be rejected by people until they surrender to Christ.

(4:6) “We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”

The “we” here likely refers to the apostles according to Stott,^[146] Hodges,^[147] and Barker.^[148] John claims that true Christians “listen” to the apostolic teaching, and non-Christians do “not listen” to the teaching of the apostles. Stott writes, “Prophets, representing spontaneity and freedom, were (and still are) always ‘subordinate to apostles’ and their authority.”^[149] This reading of the text supports the thesis that we can identify false teachers by their doctrine and their deeds.

Akin^[150] holds the view that the “we” refers to all believers because (1) the purpose of the paragraph is to encourage and instruct all Christians, (2) all believers are “from God,” not just the apostles, and (3) all believers have the Holy Spirit. Akin makes a good case for his view. However, we hold that the “we” refers to the apostles on the overriding basis that John is focused on apostolic teaching (cf. 1 Jn. 1:1-4).

1 John 4:7-21 (Christian Love)

(4:7-8) “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. ⁸ The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.”

Christian love is a sign that a person is a true believer (“born of God”) and close with him (“knows God”). Indeed, Jesus taught that we could identify true believers by their love for one another (Jn. 13:34-35).

“Everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God.” In the second sentence, John drops the phrase “born of God.” Instead, he merely states that the unloving person does not “know God.” From this, Hodges^[151] argues that John is making a conspicuous omission: Unloving believers can be true believers (“born of God,” v.7), even if they are not close with him (“does not know God,” v.8). This fits the Free Grace thesis that this entire letter is about spiritual growth.

This view is possible. However, we find it very unlikely. Whatever John means by “know God” in verse 7 seems to be equivalent to what he means by “know God” in verse 8. Moreover, it seems far more likely that John is equating being “born of God” with the person who “knows God.” That being the case, this fits with John’s ongoing argument in the letter that we can identify these proto-Gnostic teachers if they lack love in their lives.

(4:9) “By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.”

This is a powerful and concise explanation of the gospel (cf. Jn. 3:16). God gave his Son, so that we could become sons. Jesus gave his life, so that we could live. How do we know that God loves us? Look at the Cross! God doesn’t just speak about his love for us, but he shows it to us.

“Only begotten Son” (monogenēs) comes from the words “alone” (monos) and “offspring” (genos). When the words are combined, it refers to “the only one of its kind” (BDAG, p.658; cf. Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:18).

(4:10) “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”

“Not that we loved God.” The opponents were focusing on their love for God (1 Jn. 3:17; 4:20). John takes a different view that begins with God’s love for us. Akin comments, “Left to ourselves, we would not love him. We would hate him and oppose him. It took his boundless, sacrificial love to break our hearts of stone and bring us to himself.”^[152]

“Propitiation” refers to God’s wrath being satisfied by the Cross (see comments on propitiation in Romans 3:25). We often wish God would make us healthy, wealthy, and happy. This passage teaches that he took care of our greatest need: the forgiveness of our sins. God doesn’t always give us what we want, but what we need (compare with Mk. 2:3, 5). The focus of his love was revealed at the Cross of Christ. As Stott writes, “Not the incarnation but the atonement is the pre-eminent manifestation of love.”^[153]

(4:11) “Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.”

This switches from the indicative mood (“if God loved us”) to the imperatival mood (“we also ought to love one another”). Akin writes, “Once one begins to understand the incredible price paid for sin and the magnitude of personal sin, he will understand the love of God and demonstrate it himself (John 13:31-35).”^[154]

(4:12) “No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.”

“No one has seen God at any time.” Why does John bring this up in the middle of his discourse on love? The false teachers were probably arguing that they had spiritual superiority because of their alleged visions of God. Indeed, Johnson writes, “They may even have claimed to have had visions of God, as later gnostic enthusiasts did.”^[155] Kruse writes, “While no one can claim to have seen God (apart from God’s one and only Son), believers who love one another demonstrate that the unseen God lives in them. This teaching is meant to reassure the readers that they do really know God, despite what the secessionists might say to the contrary.”^[156] For further comments on the visibility of God, see 1 Timothy 1:17.

“His love is perfected in us.” In his gospel, John writes that God the Father revealed himself through the Son (Jn. 1:18). Here, however, he reveals himself through the love of believers. As Stott comments, “The unseen God, who once revealed himself in his Son, now reveals himself in his people if and when they love one another.”^[157] God’s love comes to completion (“perfection”) through his people. As we love others, God “abides” in us further and further. And as we give his love away, he reveals more and more of it to us.

The assurance of the love of God

(4:13) “By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.”

“By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us.” One of the ways we can experience the love of the Father is through “abiding” in Christ (Jn. 15). But how do we “know” that we are truly “abiding” in him? Sometimes we pray and read his word, but we sense nothing. God the Father doesn’t want us to have an ongoing cold and sterile relationship with him. He gave his Holy Spirit so that we can experience his love to new depths and have assurance of our closeness with him. This is similar to Paul’s view of the ministry of the Holy Spirit: “You have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, ‘Abba! Father!’ ¹⁶ The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:15-16).

“He has given us His Spirit.” The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is taught throughout the NT (1 Cor. 12:13; cf. Rom. 8:9; Gal. 3:27; Eph. 1:13-14; 4:30). He is the engine who drives the love in our Christian lives.

(4:14-15) “We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. ¹⁵ Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.”

“We have seen and testify.” Barker^[158] and Hodges^[159] understand this to refer to all believers. After all, the “us” throughout this section seems to refer to Christians in general. While it’s true that Christians “testify” to others about Christ, this passage is referring to the apostles seeing and testifying about Christ firsthand (cf. 1 Jn. 1:1-3; Jn. 15:26).

“Whoever confesses.” By contrast, the role of all people (“whoever…”) is to agree with the apostolic testimony and come to faith (v.15).

Trusting in the love of God

(4:16-17) “We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. ¹⁷ By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world.”

“We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us.” This is similar to Peter’s confession to Jesus (Jn. 6:69).

“May have confidence in the day of judgment.” It’s only as we start to believe in the love of God that we gain “confidence” in our salvation. While it’s true that we have “passed out of judgment” (Jn. 5:24), we gain a subjective “confidence” when we begin to trust in this great truth. John wants his readers to have “confidence” in God’s love and “believe” in it. He wants his readers to experience God’s love and security.

(4:18) “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.”

The context for “fear” is the judgment of verse 17. We will never know what it’s like to experience “punishment” (kolasis). This term is only used one other time in the NT to refer to being punished in hell (Mt. 25:46). This section acts like a domino effect of one topic to the next: We know God’s love, we trust this love, and then we rest in God’s love to love others.

(4:19) Are we supposed to fear God or not? (cf. 1 Pet. 1:17)

(4:19) “We love, because He first loved us.”

This is a quintessential passage regarding the relationship between indicatives and imperatives.

(4:20) “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.”

“‘I love God,’ and hates his brother.” Consider a man who says that he can build a car from scratch, but then he can’t even change your oil. If he can’t do the latter, then he definitely can’t do the former.

John doesn’t seem to be saying that these are non-Christians. After all, every believer hates his brother at some point or another (see comments on 1 John 3:15). The point seems to be that these believers are acting profoundly inconsistent in their condition, and their hatred demonstrates how they really aren’t connecting with the love of God at all. Connecting this to verse 18, Stott comments, “The perfect love that drives out fear, drives out hatred also.”^[160] While believers continue to have “fear” (v.18), they will also continue to struggle with “hatred.”

(4:21) “And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.”

This command comes from Jesus in John 14:15 (“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments”). If we are going to be consistent, love for God and love for people is interwoven. We cannot have one without the other.

Questions for Reflection

Read verses 1-3. What are ways to test whether someone is a false teacher? Why does John use this specific test in verses 2-3?

Read verse 16. What is the difference between knowing God’s love on the one hand, and trusting in God’s love on the other? How are these concepts similar or different?

Read verses 18-19. List 20 insights that you have regarding how to relate to God and others from these two passages.

What does this chapter teach us about the definition of love?

1 John 5

1 Jn. 5:1-12 (Faith and Love)

(5:1) “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.”

Faith is what makes us “born of God.” Then, after we are “born of God,” we should learn to love others who are also “born of Him.”

Faith precedes regeneration. Calvinist theologians hold that unbelievers are so totally depraved that they are unable to even exercise faith. Calvinists often argue that unbelievers are “dead in their trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1, 5), and because it is impossible for a dead person to do anything, this means that they cannot even place their faith in Christ. According to Calvinism, God needs to change a person’s heart and their nature (i.e. regeneration) in order for them to have the ability to exert faith. However, this verse states just the opposite order of salvation (i.e. ordo salutis). According to John, our faith leads to being born again (i.e. regeneration), not the other way around.

How do Calvinists respond? Stott^[161] argues that the use of the present tense for “believes” (pisteuōn) and the perfect tense for “born” (gegennētai) shows that “believing is the consequence, not the cause, of the new birth.”^[162] That is, the new birth results in ongoing believing—not the other way around.

However, the word “believes” is an articular participle (ho pisteuōn). What does this mean? Simply this: The word “believes” functions as an adjective that modifies the subject (“Whoever”), not an adverb that modifies the main verb (“born”). The word “believes” is grammatically connected with whoever believes, rather than being a result of being born. This reaffirms our contention that faith precedes regeneration.

(5:2) “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.”

Once again, love for God and love for one another are intertwined. One way to know you’ve come into a relationship with God is to see love being produced in your life that wasn’t there before. This isn’t a test for our salvation, but it is a way of boosting our confidence in our salvation (see comments on 1 John 2:5).

(5:3) “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.”

The NASB gives a choppy translation above. The NLT and NIV make more sense of this passage: We express our love for God by keeping his commandments of love.

Unlike the “heavy burdens” of the Pharisees (Mt. 23:4; cf. Lk. 11:46), it isn’t “burdensome” (barus) to have a lifestyle of sacrificial love (Mt. 11:30). As we pour out love, God pours more into our hearts (Jn. 13:17; Acts 20:35; Mt. 16:24-25). Barker comments, “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 has entered into us and when we trust God’s Son, then his yoke becomes gentle and the burden light (cf. Matt 11:30). We who have been born of God have within us a desire and a yearning for the Father.”^[163]

(5:4-5) “For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. ⁵ Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?”

Verse 1 tells us how to be “born of God.” We need faith. We don’t fight Satan or the world-system with willpower or self-effort, but with trust in God. This passage becomes essential when interpreting what it means to “overcome” in Jesus’ letters to the Seven Churches (Rev. 2-3).

(5:6-8) “This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. ⁷ For there are three that testify: ⁸ the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”

This section is quite perplexing to understand. Stott comments, “There can be little doubt that John was using phraseology which was already familiar to his readers, either through his own teaching or through that of the false teachers, and which is not so readily understood by us.”^[164]

“Water and blood.” Augustine understood this to refer to the “blood and water” that poured out of Jesus’ side at his death (Jn. 19:34). Calvin and Luther interpreted this to refer to the sacraments that have water (Jn. 4:10, 14) and blood (Jn. 6:53). Others understand it to refer to the OT sacrificial system.

We agree with Kruse,^[165] Stott,^[166] Akin,^[167] Hodges,^[168] and Barker^[169] who understand the reference to “water” as referring to Jesus’ baptism,[170] and the reference to “blood” as referring to Jesus’ death on the Cross. This interpretation fits with the idea that Jesus’ earthly ministry was begun at baptism and culminated in his death. This also makes sense of the fact that the Holy Spirit “testifies” of Jesus’ baptism, because the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus at his baptism (Mt. 3:16ff). Moreover, John writes, “The testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son” (v.10). Of course, at Jesus’ baptism, God the Father affirmed that Jesus was his Son.

“Not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood.” The proto-Gnostic false teachers likely affirmed Jesus’ baptism (“with the water”), but they denied his death (“with the blood”). Thus, John’s statement further refuted the proto-Gnostic false teachers. As Akin argues, this is “likely a direct renunciation of the false teaching (perhaps that of Cerinthus) that claimed that Jesus was born an ordinary human being but became God’s special agent when the heavenly Christ descended upon him at his baptism. The heavenly Christ abandoned him before his death and, consequently, it was only the earthly Jesus who died on the cross. In seeking to refute this teaching, John emphasizes that it was Jesus Christ who experienced both baptism and crucifixion.”^[171]

(5:7-8) Do modern translations want to avoid the Trinity? The KJV adds these additional words to verse 7: “The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” KJV-onlyists often state that modern translations remove this clear attribution of the Trinity from the Bible. Not true. There is no anti-Trinitarian conspiracy among modern Bible translations. Even the footnote in the New King James Version explains, “Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek.” The earliest manuscripts do not include this interpolation. Stott comments, “But this whole passage must be regarded as a gloss. The words occur in no Greek MS before the fourteenth century (except one eleventh-century and one twelfth-century MS, in which they have been added in the margin by a much later hand); in no quotation by the early Greek fathers, who, if they had known the text, would surely have quoted it in their trinitarian debates; and in none of the ancient versions (translations), even the early editions of the Vulgate. They first appeared in a fourth-century Latin treatise, after which some Latin fathers began to quote them. They found their way into the AV because Erasmus reluctantly included them in the third edition of his text.”^[172]

Furthermore, this text doesn’t even help to support the Trinity. Stott continues, “[The] gloss is not a very happy one, as the threefold testimony of verse 8 is to Christ; and the biblical teaching about testimony is not that Father, Son and Holy Spirit bear witness together to the Son, but that the Father bears witness to the Son through the Spirit.”^[173]

(5:9) “If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.”

John is making an a fortiori argument. Since we do accept the reliable testimony of men (especially two or three witnesses), then how much more should we accept the testimony of God?

(5:10-11) “The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. ¹¹ And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.”

“The one who does not believe God has made Him a liar.” Since God has stated that Jesus is his Son, we make him out to be a “liar” if we disagree with his statement (cf. 1 Jn. 1:10). This is because God cannot lie (Heb. 6:18; Titus 1:2).

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

This speaks to the exclusivity of the Christian message. Jesus himself said, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (Jn. 3:36).

This also speaks to our security in Christ. After all, God has given us eternal life (in the past tense). We have already received it, and we read nothing about returning eternal life in John’s writings.

1 John 5:13-21 (Things we know)

John has been arguing for and against many things in this letter. To conclude, he simplifies things for his readers. He lists what believers can know about God. We can know:

• We have eternal life (v.13).
• God hears us, and he will answer prayers in his will (v.15).
• Those born of God do not sin (v.18).
• The evil one cannot touch us (v.18).
• We are of God (v.19).
• Jesus has come into the world and he is God (v.20).

This list is in stark contrast to what the proto-Gnostic teachers were spreading. Indeed, they were claiming that the apostolic faith was false, and these believers couldn’t know the truth about Christ. Unless, of course, they learned the “secret knowledge” of proto-Gnosticism.

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

John wrote his gospel so that non-Christians could come to faith in Jesus (Jn. 20:31). He wrote this letter to Christians so that they could have confidence in their salvation (1 Jn. 5:13).

Is this verse the thesis for the entire letter? Lordship theologians argue that this is John’s thesis statement. If a person passes all of the various tests of assurance throughout the letter, then they can “know” that they have eternal life.

Free Grace theologians like Hodges^[174] argue that this statement only refers to the verses immediately preceding it. Indeed, John refers to the purpose for his writing throughout this letter, and this includes various reasons for writing:

• “These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete” (1 Jn. 1:4).
• “I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin” (1 Jn. 2:1).
• “I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake. ¹³ I am writing to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I have written to you, children, because you know the Father. ¹⁴ I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one” (1 Jn. 2:12-14).
• “I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth” (1 Jn. 2:21).
• “These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you” (1 Jn. 2:26).

We are inclined to agree with Free Grace theologians who argue that the central thrust of the letter is fellowship with God and spiritual growth (1 Jn. 1:3). We would also add that a main feature of the letter is to refute false teaching (1 Jn. 2:26). At the very least, we reject the view that 1 John 5:13 is the only purpose for this letter. After all, John repeatedly explains various reasons for writing this letter.

We also disagree with Lordship theologians that our subjective experience of passing various “tests” is the basis of our assurance of salvation. We agree with Hodges he writes, “To suggest that Christian experience can stand on some relatively equal level with the ‘testimony of God’ as a grounds for assurance is nearly a blasphemy, since it compares human experience in its multitude of flaws with the flawless word of God… The irony is that once Christian experience is made the grounds for assurance, as some hold First John does, John’s statement in this verse about knowing becomes a complete impossibility! The apostle here seeks to reaffirm the assurance of his readership. It was the antichrists who called that assurance into question!”^[175] We agree that John wants to boost the confidence of these believers—not put them through a battery of tests regarding whether they are indeed authentic Christians (see comments on 1 John 2:5).

(5:14-15) “This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. ¹⁵ And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.”

Why does John bring up prayer next? If we can “know” that we have something so incredible as “eternal life” (v.13), then we can also “know” that we have confidence before God in prayer (cf. 3:21; cf. Rom. 8:32). Moreover, John might’ve written this to remind them of their power in prayer in fighting falsehood. We have access to God that false teachers can’t dream of. Jesus promised this to the disciples in the Upper Room Discourse (Jn. 14:13-14; 16:23-24).

What happens when we do not see answers to prayer that are in God’s will? Various answers could be given to this question. However, Barker wisely writes that whether “our petition is answered is not dependent on whether or not we have personally observed the answer.”^[176] We can still trust Jesus’ promise: “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you” (Jn. 15:7; cf. Mk. 11:24). We address this objection at greater length elsewhere (see “Means of Growth: Prayer”).

(5:16-17) “If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this. ¹⁷ All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.”

(5:16) What is the sin leading to death? In short, we don’t know. This could refer to physical death, spiritual death, someone who has already died, or church discipline. No answer is particularly satisfying, and all are fraught with problems. It’s wise not to build any important doctrines on such a difficult passage.

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

“We know that no one who is born of God sins.” See comments on 1 John 3:6-9.

“He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.” Hodges holds that the “he” refers to our regenerate nature or our position in Christ.^[177] Under this view, God’s regenerate “seed” keeps us from losing our salvation.

We hold that Jesus is the One who “keeps” us. Thus, the NET renders this as, “God protects the one he has fathered, and the evil one cannot touch him.” Jesus promised, “While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished… I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one” (Jn. 10:28; 17:12, 15).

(5:19) “We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.”

Our identity is no longer in the world-system, but in Christ.

(5:20) “And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.”

(5:20) Does this passage support the deity of Christ? Indeed! For one, Jesus is the nearest antecedent for the term “this,” which would imply that Jesus is “the true God.” Second, the word for “life” (zoe) is used of Jesus, but never of the Father. Third, the word for “this” (outos) is used of Jesus the majority of the time, but never used of the Father.

(5:21) “Little children, guard yourselves from idols.”

What are the idols to which John is referring? Stott writes, “We can only guess.”^[178] This could refer to the idols that abounded in Ephesus, which would fit nicely with Jesus’ statements to the church in Revelation 2:14, 20. Perhaps John ends his letter this way as “a final characterization of the ‘heresy’ represented by the false teachers.”^[179] However, Akin writes, “The literal use of ‘idols’ (eidolon) is rare in the New Testament. It does not fit with the context of the epistle but would represent a change in thought. Therefore, it is best to take ‘idols’ as ‘anything which occupies the place due to God’ (cf. 1 Thess 1:9). This wider understanding of idolatry fits well with other texts of the New Testament (cf. Eph 5:5; Col 3:5).”^[180]

Questions for Reflection

Read verse 3. John states that God’s commands are not burdensome. Yet, throughout the NT, we read that following Christ is hard work, exhausting, and sometimes filled with suffering or agony. How can we harmonize these two thoughts?

Read verse 6. In what way does this verse refute the proto-Gnostic view that Jesus was only a spirit-being, and not truly human?

Read verse 7-8. What do the “water” and the “blood” represent?

What does John mean when he says that the Spirit, the water, and the blood testify? Testify about what?

Read verse 13. Do you agree with Lordship theologians that this verse is the thesis statement for the entire letter? Why or why not?

Read verses 14-15. How can we have “confidence” in answers to prayer when God sometimes says, “No”?

Read verse 16. What is your best guess as to what is the “sin leading to death”? What are the strengths of your interpretation? What are the difficulties with your interpretation?

Read verse 20. Why does John end his epistle by affirming Jesus’ deity? Why not start the epistle that way?

Read verse 21. Why does John end his epistle by telling his audience to flee from idols?

2 John

John’s final two letters (2 and 3 John) are the shortest documents in the NT. 2 John is only 245 words in length, and it has been called a “postcard epistle.”^[181]

What is the purpose of 2 John? In his first letter, John stated that false teachers “went out” from the churches in Asia Minor (1 Jn. 2:19). These proto-Gnostic teachers must’ve been travelling from house to house in order to distort the faith of these genuine Christians. These men were set on “deceiving” the believers in these churches (1 Jn. 2:26; 3:7). The purpose of this letter is to tell house churches to guard themselves from proto-Gnostic false teachers.

(1:1) “The elder to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not only I, but also all who know the truth.”

“The elder” (presbyteros) could refer to a person who was older in age or a person who was a leader in the church. Based on the content of the letter, the author is a leader in the church. Moreover, he was “so well known to those he was writing to that the title ‘elder’ immediately identified him.”^[182] This fits with John of Zebedee who was has been the traditional author of this letter.

“Whom I love in truth; and not only I.” Everyone who was a believer loved this church. Moreover, Barker comments, “The author is speaking in clear contrast to the heretics. They do not have the truth nor do they know what it means to be in the community of love.”^[183]

“All who know the truth.” John uses the word “truth” four times in the opening three verses. These people who “know the truth” stand in contrast to the false teachers who are spread throughout the region.

(2 Jn. 1) Who is the “chosen lady”? This doesn’t refer to a romantic relationship with a woman because he calls her “chosen” also says that “all who know the truth” love this woman. There are two central options. First, John could be figuratively referring to the Church in general or a church in particular. The NT authors often depict the church as a woman (Eph. 5:29ff; Rev. 19:7; 21:2). Others argue that this refers to a literal woman. Since other letters are written to individuals, then so is this one. Moreover, the “chosen lady” has a “sister” and “children” (v.13). Even if John is writing to a literal woman, this woman would communicate to the church she leads. So, either way, John is writing to a church that he knows well.

(1:2) “For the sake of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever:”

“For the sake of the truth.” This is John’s thesis statement. John was writing to this group about the subject of the truth and because of the truth. He claims that the truth “will be with us forever.” Hodges comments, “This is an astounding statement, especially since it was made more than 1,900 years ago! So many of the religions and cults of the Greco-Roman world of John’s day have now passed off the scene and are mere historical memories. Yet Christianity, which must have seemed like a minor superstition to most of the cultivated citizens of the Roman Empire, has endured through the centuries and continues to be with us today.”^[184]

(1:3) “Grace, mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.”

In this context, the “peace” Jesus offers is inner peace—a peace in our troubled hearts. Jesus promised, “These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world” (Jn. 16:33).

It’s interesting that John places “truth” before “love.” In our postmodern age, people usually reverse these two concepts. But without truth, our love with atrophy and die.

The Thesis: Love and Truth (vv.4-6)

(1:4) “I was very glad to find some of your children walking in truth, just as we have received commandment to do from the Father.”

John apparently had met some of the believers from this group, and he was happy to see them walking with Christ (1 Jn. 3:23).

(1:5) “Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another.”

“Not as though I were writing to you a new commandment.” Akin writes, “John does not have a new word for this congregation. This sets him apart from the “deceivers” of v. 9, who boast of something more, something new. John is not one who believes old is always bad and new is always better. Truth is truth regardless of its age, for all truth ultimately finds its source in God.”^[185]

“Love one another.” John felt the need to repeat the command to love over and over. A late tradition states that the elderly John would hobble into churches in Ephesus and repeat this message over and over. For instance, Jerome writes, “When he was living at Ephesus in his extreme old age, and was with difficulty carried into the Church in the arms of his disciples, nor could find breath for many words, he would say nothing time after time but, ‘Little children, love one another’” (Jerome, Commentary on Galatians, 6.10). We are honestly not sure how reliable this historical tradition is, but it fits with what we know of John from his writings.

(1:6) “And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.”

Instead of giving them a new and novel insight on how to run the church, John points back to the basic teaching of love.

The Antithesis: False Teachers (vv.7-11)

Akin is correct when he writes that “the elder now comes to the heart of his message. This pericope confronts a docetic heresy, an incipient or proto-Gnosticism that denied (or radically reinterpreted) the cardinal doctrine of the incarnation.”^[186] These false teachers were rejecting the humanity of Christ (cf. 1 Jn. 2:18-27; 4:1-3).

(1:7) “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.”

Are there “many deceivers” or is there “the deceiver” and “the antichrist”? It could be that these many deceivers have their origin in the Deceiver (Satan). It’s similar to John’s point in 1 John 2:18, where he writes, “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.” There are many “antichrists” (i.e. false teachers) in every age, but they will culminate in the Antichrist.

Jesus was “sent” by the Father to teach the world (Jn. 7:29; 8:42; 13:3; 17:18; 20:21), but these false teachers have “gone out” (exēlthon) into the world as well. John mentioned this phenomenon in his first letter (1 Jn. 2:19). These men were set on “deceiving” the believers in these churches (1 Jn. 2:26; 3:7). Stott comments, “The implication is that as the apostles were sent forth into the world to preach the truth, so these false teachers had gone forth to teach lies, as emissaries of the devil, the father of lies.”^[187] These are “Satan’s missionaries on assignment.”^[188]

(1:8) “Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.”

“Watch yourselves” (blepō) implies that there is danger in what he’s about to write. There is danger in becoming complacent in going through perfunctory motions. A traffic cop walks up to the window of a car frequently. But he needs to stay alert because he never knows when the person will have a gun and intend to kill him. Similarly, we need to stay alert in our interactions with false teachers who can rip apart the church.

“Do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.” We can’t lose our salvation, but we can lose spiritual rewards. An investor might make money on a stock for ten years, but the stock could plummet, and she could lose it all. Similarly, a believer could walk with Christ for ten years and rack up spiritual rewards, but if she walks away from God, she could lose these rewards later. Hodges notes, “Unlike many contemporary preachers and expositors, the apostle does not connect the dangers of false doctrine with the loss of eternal life. John knew and affirmed that there can be no loss of eternal life (cf. John 6:35-40). But loss of reward figures clearly in his thinking.”^[189]

The term “lose” (apollumi) means “to cause or experience destruction… ruin, destroy” (BDAG, p.115). This implies that our rewards can be lost. On the other hand, the NT also speaks to our rewards being permanent (Heb. 6:10; Mk. 9:41). Perhaps, some rewards can never be lost (e.g. 1 Thess. 2:19-20), while others can.

(1:9) “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.”

Doctrine matters! If you deny a doctrine like the incarnation of Christ (v.7), you are not a Christian (1 Jn. 5:12). Hodges^[190] argues that John is still thinking of eternal rewards here, given the context (v.8). Furthermore, John uses the term “abide” which means to remain in Jesus’ teachings. Under this view, John is not threatening believers with damnation, but with a loss of reward. It would be similar to seeing believers suffering “shipwreck” with regard to their faith (1 Tim. 1:19-20). However, the loss referred to here is the loss of God himself (“…does not have God”). This sounds like the person misses out on eternal life. This is not the loss of salvation, but rather, this refers to “anyone” who rejects Christ.

“Goes too far.” They were exceeding Scripture—not learning secret knowledge about God. Stott comments, “John refers sarcastically to their claim. They had indeed ‘run ahead’. They had advanced so far that they had even left God behind them!”^[191]

(1:10-11) “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; ¹¹ for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.”

Does this mean that we can’t allow a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness into our home when they knock on our door? This refers to giving them an “official welcome,” rather than merely offering “private hospitality.”^[192] Since the early church met in “houses” (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; 1 Tim. 3:15; Phile. 2), this likely refers to “receiving an itinerant preacher in the assembly of a house church.”^[193] After all, this is addressed to a church—not an individual. The “you” is plural—not singular. Thus, welcoming a false teacher communicates that the church approved of their false doctrines in house churches (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Phile. 2).

Moreover, ancient Christians would practice hospitality to itinerant teachers, as well as give them financial aid. Thus, John is saying that they are “not to provide support and aid (e.g., a place to stay and money) to anyone who is spreading false teaching and disseminating error.”^[194]

“Participates in his evil deeds” (koinōneo) confirms the theory that this is referring to fellowship with false teacher. The practice of allowing false teachers into one’s home was a practical imperative for the time, but the timeless principle is to refrain from accepting false teachers in general. One application of this might be to allow a false teacher to teach at your Bible study, carrying on like nothing is wrong. Another might be to share a stage at a conference with a false teacher, which would imply that you agree with his or her views. If a false teacher comes to a time of Christian fellowship to learn, this should be welcomed. However, if he comes to teach, this is out of bounds.

John refers to the teaching of these men as acts of “evil deeds.” This is why these people shouldn’t be welcomed into fellowship. While this imperative is quite strong, Barker comments, “The statement is all the more remarkable since it comes from the ‘apostle of love.’”^[195] Because truth and love are so vitally intertwined, it is right to stand up for the truth. Barker continues, “We today can only be grateful that the infant church took heresy regarding the person of Christ seriously. Christianity stands or falls with its Christology. From the human point of view, if John and other apostolic leaders had tolerated the ‘antichrists’ who denied the basic truth of the Incarnation, the church might never have survived. We today are the beneficiaries of the spiritual discernment and moral courage of John and others like him.”^[196]

(1:12) “Though I have many things to write to you, I do not want to do so with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, so that your joy may be made full.”

There is something better about meeting face to face, rather than writing a letter. In our modern age of email and social media, we can still bear witness to this truth.

(1:13) “The children of your chosen sister greet you.”

If this is a literal woman, then this would refer to her literal “sister” and literal “children.” However, if this “chosen lady” refers to the church, then this could refer to a neighboring church.

3 John

In 2 John, we are told to not welcome travelling false teachers into the church. In 3 John, Gaius is praised for his hospitality toward itinerant or travelling teachers. However, an abusive leader named Diotrephes had the practice of banishing these travelling teachers from his church—especially those sent from the apostle John. So, while Gaius was welcoming travelling teachers (3 Jn 6), Diotrephes was excommunicating them. Therefore, these two letters are two sides of the same coin: In 2 John, we should reject false teachers, and in 3 John, we are told to confront those who reject true teachers (e.g. Diotrephes). In this short letter of 219 words,^[197] we receive insight “concerning the life and tensions of an early Christian community.”^[198] John explains how to handle abusive leaders like Diotrephes.

(1:1) “The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth.”

Just like in 2 John, the author refers to himself as “the elder.” John is writing to “Gaius” a fellow Christian and friend. We don’t know exactly who this man was, because Gaius was such a popular name in the Greco-Roman world (Acts 19:29? Acts 20:4-5? 1 Cor. 1:14? Rom. 16:23?). Most commentators aren’t sure who this man is (e.g. Stott, Hodges, etc.).

(1:2) “Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers.”

“Good health.” This was a first-century cultural convention to wish Gaius “good health” (see Stott,^[199] Akin,^[200] and Barker^[201]), and it doesn’t require that he was actually sick. At the very least, however, it shows John knew him well and cared about him.

“Just as your soul prospers.” Here is the more important point: John knew Gaius well, and he thought he was a spiritually strong man.

(1:3) “For I was very glad when brethren came and testified to your truth, that is, how you are walking in truth.”

“Brethren came and testified to your truth.” A group of Christians visited Gaius’ church and were sharing with John what they saw. They told John about Gaius’ faithfulness to Christ. Perhaps Gaius didn’t even know they were from John’s church, but he still showed them love (“especially when they are strangers,” v.5).

(1:4) “I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth.”

This doesn’t refer to biological children—though that certainly is a great joy. In this context, John is referring to those whom he has impacted for Christ (cf. 1 Jn. 2:1; 3:18). It brings us joy to see younger believers growing with God.

John encourages Gaius’ loving leadership

(1:5-6) “Beloved, you are acting faithfully in whatever you accomplish for the brethren, and especially when they are strangers; ⁶ and they have testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God.”

“Strangers” likely refers to travelling believers—not non-Christians.^[202] After all, these people “testified to [Gaius’] love before the church.” John encourages Gaius for his love and hospitality towards the visiting brothers from John’s church.

“You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God.” John tells us to support those who spread the good news faithfully.

(1:7) “For they went out for the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles.”

“They went out” (exēlthon) is the same term used to describe the false teachers going out to spread heresy (2 Jn. 7).

“The Name” refers to serving Jesus (Acts 5:41).

“Accepting nothing from the Gentiles.” These missionaries were preaching under the same principle as Paul: They wouldn’t accept money because they didn’t want this to bring suspicion on their motives (1 Cor. 9:12). While Hodges^[203] holds that John is referring to non-Christian Gentiles, it is more likely that he is referring to believing Gentiles. After all, why would non-Christian Gentiles want to support Christian missions?

(1:8) “Therefore we ought to support such men, so that we may be fellow workers with the truth.”

This is a great passage on giving to missions. When we support missionaries, we are “fellow workers” in spreading the gospel. God calls some people to be sent, and he calls others to be senders.

John exposes Diotrephes authoritarian leadership

(1:9) “I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say.”

“I wrote something to the church.” We do not possess this letter. John seems to have already written to Gaius’s church regarding Diotrephes, but this letter was rejected and “perhaps destroyed by Diotrephes himself.”^[204] This could refer to “Diotrephes’s refusal to receive the emissaries and letters of the author.”^[205]

“[Diotrephes] loves to be first among them.” Is Diotrephes a leader in this church? If he is a leader, he is a very poor one! He breaks from several attributes of godly leadership: hospitable (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8), not self-willed (Titus 1:7), gentle and not quarrelsome (1 Timothy 3:3), loving what is good (Titus 1:8), and having a good reputation with those outside (1 Tim. 3:7). Hodges writes, “Diotrephes provides us with our one New Testament glimpse of hierarchical Christianity, with a sobering reminder of the self-seeking which ecclesiastical hierarchies so easily foster.”^[206]

(3 Jn. 9-10) Does this passage speak against church discipline or for it? This passage speaks against the misuse of church discipline—not the prescribed use of church discipline.

How will John respond to Diotrephes? Akin writes, “One of the ‘sons of thunder’ now responds in a way that is in keeping with his old nickname.”^[207]

(1:10) “For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.”

“If I come.” This doesn’t mean that John is unsure if he will come. This means “when I come.”^[208]

What was Diotrephes doing that John was going to battle? When John visits this church and this mean, he is going to call out a number of Diotrephes actions:

First, he is “unjustly accusing” (phluareō) John of using “wicked words.” This refers to slander, gossip (1 Tim. 5:13), or “to spread malicious nonsense.”^[209]

Second, he refuses to allow godly itinerant missionaries from bringing apostolic teaching to his church. Kruse writes, “Diotrephes had sided with the secessionists and was treating the orthodox missionaries in the same way as the elder said the secessionist missionaries should be treated.”^[210]

Third, he was threatening to use church discipline if someone received a messenger from John (!). Diotrephes “put them out of the church” (ekballō). This is the same term used for how the religious leaders excommunicated the blind man from the synagogue (Jn. 9:34-35). This is an extreme overreach of leadership authority. After all, Kruse writes, “Even the elder, who in 2 John 10-11 had urged his readers not to provide hospitality for the secessionists, had not threatened with excommunication any who did so.”^[211] And this was written by someone with apostolic authority!

To bring everything together, Stott writes, “Diotrephes slandered John, cold-shouldered the missionaries and excommunicated the loyal believers—all because he loved himself and wanted to have the pre-eminence. Personal vanity still lies at the root of most dissensions in every local church today.”^[212]

“I will call attention to his deeds.” Barker writes, “There seems to be an implication that Diotrephes’ misdeeds were not yet fully known to the congregation; and perhaps it was the elder’s hope that once they were revealed, the church would either censure or expel Diotrephes from his position.”^[213] This strongly implies that we should not be wary of making issues public if they are serious and corporate in nature. John did not keep secrets in this regard. To the extent that Diotrephes sinned publicly, he should be corrected publicly. On the other hand, this assumes that Diotrephes was in the wrong, and John was in the right. Of course, this was true for John. But what about for us? If we bring a public charge against a leader, we need to be ready to face public debate regarding our views.

In the end, this is an important lesson to learn. Even Christian leaders can become spiritually sick, and we need to discern when this happens in a church and have the courage to confront authoritarian leaders like this.

(1:11) “Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.”

Diotrephes may have had many of the Christians in his church imitating and following him, but John encourages Gaius to “not imitate what is evil, but what is good.” When we serve under a corrupt leader, it can be hard to cast off what we learned and what was modeled for us. Yet, we are all called to change by focusing on Christ as our example (1 Cor. 11:1; Heb. 12:1-2).

John’s encouragement is based on what he himself is willing to do. He says that he himself is going to take down Diotrephes if he shows up, and he expects Gaius to do the same. He also points to the fact that Gaius has received the brothers (vv.5-8), while Diotrephes has not (v.10). Hodges writes, “Like many gracious individuals in our own day, Gaius may have abhorred confrontation—especially with willful people like Diotrephes—so that he may well have needed these words from John to instill in him the necessary backbone.”^[214] Likewise, Barker comments, “It was no pleasant experience that awaited the elder, but ‘truth’ without love is no truth at all.”^[215]

“The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.” Hodges doesn’t take this to mean that believers cannot do evil. Instead, if they do evil, they are not in fellowship with God (1 Jn. 1:3).^[216] After all, if Gaius did evil (succumbing to the peer pressure of Diotrephes), then he would become a non-Christian!

(1:12) “Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself; and we add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true.”

Who is Demetrius? Whoever he is, John knows and trusts his character. He has a “good testimony… from the truth itself.” This implies that he is faithful to the truth. John must mention him because Gaius probably felt inadequate to confront such an authoritarian leader like Diotrephes all alone. Demetrius was a good man who could help him in this endeavor.

(1:13-15) “I had many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write them to you with pen and ink; ¹⁴ but I hope to see you shortly, and we will speak face to face. ¹⁵ Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends by name.”

(3 Jn. 13-14) Does this passage imply that verbal tradition is greater than Scripture? This reminds us of 2 John 12, where he writes that the reason he does “not wish to write with pen and ink” is “so that our joy may be made complete.” Talking face to face seems to be more effective and bring more joy. John writes. “I hope to see you right away” (“soon” NLT, “shortly” NASB, “right away” NET), leaving us to assume that the issue with Diotrephes is urgent.

Questions for Reflection

Read 3 John. What can we know about Gaius from this chapter? What can we know about Diotrephes?

Read verses 1-4. What is John’s relationship to Gaius?

Read verse 2. John tells Gaius that his “soul prospers.” What do you think he means by this?

Read verse 9. What happened when John wrote to Diotrephes’ church?

Read verses 9-12. Why is John writing this letter to Gaius?

[1] Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Baker, 2003), p.102.

^[2] I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), 46.

[3] C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, New York/London, 1955, 113f.

[4] A. E. Brooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, ICC (New York: Scribner’s, 1912), ii-iv.

[5] I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), 42-48.

^[6] See Kruse for the literary parallels between 1, 2, and 3 John. His case is quite compelling. Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 7-8.

^[7] C. H. Dodd, Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, Moffatt New Testament Commentary (Hodder & Stoughton, 1946).

^[8] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 18.

^[9] Michael Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL. Crossway, 2012), 272.

^[10] Michael Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL. Crossway, 2012), 272.

^[11] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 26.

^[12] I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), 48.

^[13] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 224.

^[14] Daniel B. Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 98.

^[15] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 39.

^[16] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 70.

^[17] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 28.

^[18] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 27-28.

^[19] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 301.

^[20] Thomas F. Johnson, 1, 2, and 3 John, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011), 4.

^[21] Marianne Meye Thompson, 1-3 John, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992).

^[22] Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 51, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1984), xxxii.

^[23] Following the work of J.A.T. Robinson, Zane Hodges dates the gospel of John, the three letters, and the book of Revelation before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 23-28. This dating is mostly predicated on the fact that there is no mention of the Temple’s destruction in any of these documents. Hodges admits that specific dates are “conjectural” (p.28), but generally holds to a dating before AD 70. Our biggest complaint about Hodges’ reconstruction (in this commentary) is his lack of interaction with the external evidence from Irenaeus, dating John’s work to the time of Emperor Domitian—not Emperor Nero. For an argument for the AD 95 dating of Revelation, see our earlier article “Date of Revelation.”

^[24] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 32.

^[25] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 1.

^[26] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 17.

^[27] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 295.

^[28] Kruse thinks it is “highly unlikely” that Cerinthus is a good candidate for the false teacher in the Ephesian churches. This is because there’s no evidence he was ever a member (1 Jn. 2:19). However, he thinks that the false teachers were surely Docetists (based on Ignatius’ writings). Regardless, the evidence from Irenaeus (who received his material from Polycarp before him) shows that John had a powerful Gnostic ringleader in Ephesus at this time (Cerinthus). This demonstrates that a community of false teachers were there as well. We favor Cerinthus. But even on Kruse’s view, some sort of radical dualists (proto-Gnostics?) existed in this region at this time. See Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 15-27.

^[29] Hiebert, D. Edmond. “An Exposition of 1 John 1:1-4.” Bibliotheca Sacra. April-June 1988. 199.

^[30] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 2.

^[31] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 2.

[32] John MacArthur, Saved Without a Doubt (Colorado Springs, CO: Victor Books, 1992), Chapter 5: Eleven Tests from an Apostolic Expert.

[33] In John’s writing, the two are closely tied together (1 Jn. 3:15; 4:20).

[34] Of course, John uses the verbal form (koinōnei) in 2 John 11. He also uses a compound term in Revelation 1:9 and 18:4 (synkoinōnēsēte).

[35] Scott Berkun, Confessions of a Public Speaker (Cambridge: O’Reilly Media, 2009), 57.

^[36] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 307.

^[37] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 306.

^[38] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 63.

^[39] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 56.

^[40] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 65.

^[41] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 48-49.

^[42] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 50.

^[43] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 56.

^[44] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 58.

^[45] Hiebert, D. Edmond. “An Exposition of 1 John 1:5-2:6.” Bibliotheca Sacra. July-September 1988. 332.

^[46] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 77.

^[47] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 67.

^[48] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 77.

^[49] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 77.

^[50] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 69.

^[51] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 75.

^[52] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 76.

^[53] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 59.

[54] D.A. Carson defines the negative inference fallacy in this way: “It does not necessarily follow that if a proposition is true, a negative inference from that proposition is also true.” D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), p.101. Consider some examples of this fallacy:

(1) “All the basketball players were exercising at the gym. Therefore, no one else was exercising there.”

(2) “Jeff hates broccoli. Therefore, he likes every other kind of vegetable.”

(3) “Jesus gave an exception for divorce. Therefore, there are no other exceptions for divorce.”

These are all examples of the “negative inference fallacy,” and it does not logically follow. A way to avoid the fallacy is to change or add the word “only” to the major premise of the argument or proposition (i.e. “Only the basketball players…”).

^[55] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 67.

^[56] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 62.

^[57] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 82.

^[58] I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), 116.

^[59] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 78.

^[60] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 313.

^[61] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 94.

^[62] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 77.

[63] David R. Anderson, “Chapter 24: Fellowship with the Father: 1 John.” A Defense of Free Grace Theology: With Respect to Saving Faith, Perseverance, and Assurance (Grace Theology Press, 2017), pp.595ff.

^[64] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 573.

^[65] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 80.

^[66] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 96.

^[67] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 89.

^[68] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 316.

^[69] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 96.

^[70] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 89.

^[71] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 96.

^[72] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 317.

^[73] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 87.

^[74] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 92.

^[75] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 92.

^[76] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 88.

^[77] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 100.

^[78] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 89.

^[79] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 89.

^[80] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 317.

^[81] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 100.

^[82] Akin holds to a “two-group” view. Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 103.

^[83] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 95.

^[84] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 94.

^[85] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 100.

^[86] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 108.

^[87] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 101.

^[88] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 102.

^[89] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 102.

^[90] I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), 144.

^[91] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 109.

^[92] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 102.

^[93] Perhaps Smalley is right that both concepts are in view. After all, in this letter, John portrays a close link between God’s love for us and our love for God. Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 51, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1984), 83.

^[94] I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), 144.

^[95] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 110.

^[96] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 321.

^[97] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 103.

^[98] I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), 145.

^[99] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 103.

^[100] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 322.

^[101] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 103.

^[102] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 111.

^[103] I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), 146.

^[104] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 110.

^[105] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 112-113.

^[106] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 120.

^[107] He does so based on the various ways we could understand the word “have” (echō), as in “have the Father.” Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 114.

^[108] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 116.

^[109] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 125.

^[110] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 127.

^[111] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 84.

^[112] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 122.

^[113] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 132.

^[114] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 330.

^[115] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 137.

^[116] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 127.

^[117] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 138.

^[118] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 132.

^[119] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 140.

^[120] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 143.

^[121] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 150.

^[122] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 134.

^[123] Emphasis mine. Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 136.

^[124] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 136.

^[125] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 138.

[126] David R. Anderson, “Chapter 24: Fellowship with the Father: 1 John.” A Defense of Free Grace Theology: With Respect to Saving Faith, Perseverance, and Assurance (Grace Theology Press, 2017), pp.595ff.

^[127] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 134-144.

^[128] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 151.

^[129] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 145.

^[130] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 145.

^[131] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 154.

^[132] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 335.

^[133] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 157.

^[134] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 144.

^[135] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 145.

^[136] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 337.

^[137] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 337.

^[138] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 148.

^[139] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 150-153.

^[140] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 153.

^[141] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 166.

^[142] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 166-167.

^[143] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 340.

^[144] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 173.

^[145] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 174.

^[146] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 158.

^[147] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 181.

^[148] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 341.

^[149] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 159.

^[150] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 175.

^[151] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 184.

^[152] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 180.

^[153] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 163.

^[154] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 181.

^[155] Thomas F. Johnson, 1, 2, and 3 John, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011), 105.

^[156] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 175.

^[157] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 164.

^[158] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 345.

^[159] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 192-193.

^[160] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 170.

^[161] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 172.

^[162] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 172.

^[163] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 349.

^[164] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 177.

^[165] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 191.

^[166] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 178.

^[167] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 196.

^[168] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 218.

^[169] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 350.

[170] John the Baptist uses “in water” (en hydati) to describe baptism (John 1:26, 31, 33).

^[171] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 197.

^[172] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 180.

^[173] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 180.

^[174] Hodges notes that “these things” usually modifies what was just written throughout the letter (e.g. 1 Jn. 1:4; 2:1; 2:26. Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 226.

^[175] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 229.

^[176] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 354.

^[177] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 242.

^[178] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 196.

^[179] Glenn W. Barker, “1 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 357.

^[180] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 215-216.

^[181] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 217.

^[182] Glenn W. Barker, “2 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 361.

^[183] Glenn W. Barker, “2 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 362.

^[184] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 254.

^[185] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 226.

^[186] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 228.

^[187] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 211.

^[188] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 228.

^[189] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 259.

^[190] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 262.

^[191] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 213.

^[192] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 216.

^[193] To be clear, Kruse holds that this could also refer to private hospitality, and both concepts could be in view. Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 234.

^[194] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 233.

^[195] Glenn W. Barker, “2 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 365.

^[196] Glenn W. Barker, “2 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 366.

^[197] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 235.

^[198] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 243.

^[199] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 227.

^[200] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 240.

^[201] Glenn W. Barker, “3 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 371.

^[202] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 281.

^[203] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 282-283.

^[204] Glenn W. Barker, “3 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 374.

^[205] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 286.

^[206] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 286.

^[207] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 245.

^[208] Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 248.

^[209] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 251.

^[210] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 249.

^[211] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, ed. D. A. Carson, Second Edition, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2020), 253.

^[212] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 235.

^[213] Glenn W. Barker, “3 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 375.

^[214] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 289.

^[215] Glenn W. Barker, “3 John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 375.

^[216] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 290.