JOHN, THE EPISTLES OF. Three anonymous books from among the general epistles in the NT that traditionally have been ascribed to John, the son of Zebedee.
Outline
I. Nature of the epistles
Many distinctives set these three epistles apart from the other letters of the NT, and at the same time draw them together.
A. Historical setting
1. Earliest Gnostic tendencies. Many writers have concluded that incipient Gnosticism (not identifiable historically until the 2nd cent. a.d.) was in the background of several NT books, such as Colossians, Ephesians, the pastoral epistles, the Petrine epistles and Jude, but esp. 1 John. The most advanced stage of Gnosticism that appeared in the background of the NT was reflected in the writing of 1 John. Gnosticism, a popular form of Graeco-Roman philosophy, had no doubt pervaded the thought world of the Rom. empire by a.d. 150 and, confronting Christianity in the latter decades of the 1st cent., had produced serious conflict and confusion within the churches.
Gnosticism was the philosophical result of the blending of the cosmogony of Gr. thought with the theology of oriental religions, esp. Judaism. First John revealed rather sharply three characteristics of Gnosticism that had serious implications for Christianity: (1) dualism, (2) illumination, (3) rejection of the Incarnation. Dualistically, Gnosticism held that matter was essentially evil and spirit was essentially good. Thus the human body and spirit had no effective contact with each other. Gnostics held that a redeemed soul in a sinful body was therefore not responsible for the deeds of that body. Such dualism led to antinomianism—the breakdown of morals and spiritual compromise on the part of some who professed Christ. The name “Gnostic” came from the Greek word that meant “knowledge.” Salvation according to the Gnostics came from knowing theories rather than from faith in a Savior. Only the initiated who knew the Gnostic secrets were in the light. Christ’s earthly life, the fact of the Incarnation, posed a major problem for the Gnostics. God’s spirit and human flesh could not have had any essential unity of personality in Jesus. A separation was made between Christ’s deity and Jesus’ humanity in one of two ways. Docetic Gnosticism taught that Christ was not really a divine person in human flesh; He was only a phantom playing the human role. Christ’s humanity only appeared to be real. Cerinthian Gnosticism (Cerinthus of Alexandria was linked by ancient tradition with John at Ephesus) taught that the human Jesus was an ordinary man upon whom the Logos of God came at His baptism, departing from Him before the Crucifixion. Only the human Jesus died upon the cross. The Logos was a kind of cape that the human Jesus wore during the period of the public ministry. John wrote against all of these heresies in his first epistle.
2. The pastoral scene. The homiletical tone of 1 John is prob. due to the author’s consciousness that his message was to be read to an assembled congregation (or congregations). It seems obvious from all three of these documents that the writer was a Christian leader of wide and prominent influence. An unmistakable air of authority and a noticeable desire to build up the readers in their faith are at the heart of the writer’s effort. The danger of false teachers and teaching provoked the distinctive emphases on faith and love in 1 John (the clearest combination of faith and love in the NT). The conduct of the readers had become a concern of the writer, who urged them not to love the world in words suggesting a condition of worldliness among them.
First John may have been intended for a circle of churches. The term “elder” that was used in the other two letters has been thought to indicate the author’s pastoral relationship to a community of faith. Because 2 John seems to be a miniature of 1 John, having scarcely a single phrase that had not already been employed in the longer letter, it has been thought that the “elder” of 2 John was a venerable church leader (perhaps bishop) who had previously written 1 John as a pastoral letter to deal with the danger of a spreading, false doctrine. B. H. Streeter advanced the idea that the “elder” was in fact a bishop with a responsibility for a circle of smaller churches, making him almost an archbishop. All three letters dealt with real life and not with abstractions. The intense personal feelings of the author are everywhere evident. He was bound to his readers as they were to him. He made an appeal to them that reveals an acquaintance with both their needs and history.
3. Absence of persecution. In a.d. 81, Domitian was crowned emperor of Rome. From that time it was obvious that persecution was the inevitable lot of Christianity. The three Johannine letters have been called “catholic,” or “general,” epistles because they reflect the needs of Christianity at large. It also has been thought that these letters came near the close of the 1st Christian cent. It is surprising, therefore, that they do not reflect the threat of persecution that hung over the new religion at that time, esp. in the Rom. province of Asia where these letters may have originated.
B. Literary characteristics. First John did not conform to the general characteristics of contemporary personal letters. It has no introduction, identification of author, thanksgiving, or author’s greetings. Neither does it have a concluding salutation. There is a complete absence of any personal name. On the other hand, this may show the distinctive form of an encyclical that was intended for more than one congregation, being sent by messengers from church to church, and being read in the general assembly by a leading elder.
The two shorter Johannine letters (the shortest books in the NT) were written in the more typical epistolary character of 1st-cent. correspondence. They are so brief that they prob. were written on one sheet of papyrus each. The Gr. text of 2 John contains 1126 letters whereas 3 John has 1133 letters. They were written for local and personal situations in each instance.
1. Unity. R. Bultmann has attacked the unity of 1 John. He believes that the original letter ended at 5:13 and that vv. 14-21 of that ch. were added by a later ecclesiastical editor. He suggests also that the author of 1 John worked over a previously existing document. He contends that 1:6-10 is stylistically different from 2:1f. The latter section was believed to have been the author’s own commentary upon the former passage. Generally, however, modern scholarship has insisted upon the unity of 1 John, because the style and ideas of the suspected sections have been found to be those of the letter as a whole.
2. Structure. Many scholars have felt that 1 John was plan-less. The author did not present his themes one by one, developing his message and then drawing his conclusions—making it almost impossible to outline the letter. Perhaps the best internal evidence as to any organization of thought in the mind of the author is found in connection with the ideas about God that he advanced: (1) God is light (1:5); (2) God is life (2:25); (3) God is love (4:8). The subject discussed in connection with each idea is hortatory in nature: (1) walk in the light, (2) live God’s life, (3) dwell in love.
Without doubt there is justification for the frequent observation that 1 John is spiral in form. The ideas introduced return for additional treatment and application. For example, “light” and “darkness” are introduced and then reintroduced and applied. The forgiveness of sins is treated in the same fashion, returning several times to the discussion. “Liar” is a recurring theme, as also “commandment.” Perhaps the most important word of all is “love,” which is also treated in this fashion. The foundation of the developing thoughts is laid in 1:1-4—and from this foundation the message begins, ever broadening and expanding, each thought growing out of the other and ever circling to encompass and apply the previously introduced material.
3. Style. First John often has been compared to the “wisdom” material in the NT, esp. James. The message is given in little pearls of wisdom. Simple words are used, and statements are brief and pithy. John did not argue as Paul did; therefore his style was intuitional rather than logical. He was primarily a witness, depending not so much on logical deduction as upon spiritual insight. Another stylistic characteristic is the use of contrast making opposites set against each other to underscore the teaching. Light is contrasted with darkness, truth with error, God with devil, righteousness with sin, love with hate, and life with death. Repetition also was important to John. John’s ideas are relatively few, but they are repeated over and over again. Twice in 1 John it is said that “God is love,” and several times love is offered as the evidence that a man has been born of God. Parallelism is another device used by this author. 1 John 1:8-10 contains three repetitions in parallel statements: “We deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (v. 8), “He is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (v. 9), “we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” (v. 10). The letter is characterized by a comparatively limited vocabulary that is nontechnical, having nothing of instruction about churches, their offerings, ordinances or activities. It has been judged a simple, non-technical document, generally lacking in literary polish but strangely powerful for perhaps those very reasons. The rhythmic quality of this work has been thought to have been due both to the catechetical method of teaching converts to Christianity, as well as to the method of teaching commonly employed in Judaism, which made much use of such repetitions and antithetical parallels.
C. Relation to John’s gospel. The consensus of scholarly opinion through the centuries has held to a common authorship for the fourth gospel and the epistles of John. Tradition has connected the name of John the son of Zebedee with all of these documents from the earliest times. The acceptance of a common authorship was furthered by the obvious similarity of idioms and phrases, common themes, and a shared theological viewpoint that was distinctive in the NT. In the 20th cent. a challenge to this commonly held view was raised by H. J. Holtzmann and C. H. Dodd. Dodd concluded that a distinct theological divergence pointed in the direction of a disciple of John as the probable author of the epistle. He expressed in the Moffatt Commentary the view that the theological distinctives are three principally: (1) the eschatology is more primitive in the gospel, (2) so also is the interpretation of the death of Christ, and (3) the doctrine of the Spirit is not as elevated as in the gospel.
1. The question of priority. The chronological order of the epistles of John and the gospel of John is so complicated that it has not been possible to determine their relationship with any degree of certainty. Some have believed that the epistles were written in the reverse order from their occurrence in the N.T. Third John would have been written first, 2 John next, and 1 John considerably later. In this scheme of writing the gospel has been put between 2 John and 1 John. It also has been conjectured that 1 John was written as a postscript to the gospel, the gospel having been written to explain how men might have eternal life (John 20:31), and the epistle to give assurance that they had it (1 John 5:13). Still other commentators have believed that the epistles were written prob. a year or two after the gospel, because it has been thought that such a passage as 1 John 2:3-8 assumes that the readers were familiar with the fuller exposition of the themes of the gospel. First John has, therefore, been termed the first commentary on the gospel of John. 1 John 1:3, 5, which deals with the theme that “God is light,” has been considered as a reference to the development of the same subject in the gospel. Furthermore, the three references to “I write to you” (see 1 John 2:14) instead of being epistolary aorists have rather been understood as historical aorists (“I have written you”) referring to the former communication contained in the gospel.
2. Similarities to John’s gospel. The concensus of scholarly opinion is that 1 John and the gospel share the same theological approach and, generally speaking, treat the same subjects. Although narration is missing from the epistle, it does include the subjects of eternal life, believers as God’s children, love for God and brethren, and the indwelling of God in man that are prominent in the gospel. Beyond that there are interests shared by the two documents that relate them. “Witness” is a common emphasis in both (the term is used nine times in the epistle). The importance of the Incarnation overshadows every other consideration in both of them. Structurally it seems that there must have been a connection between the prologues of the epistle and gospel that caused them to unfold in a similar fashion. B. F. Westcott set out the following list of notable parallels in the texts: The Epistle—The Gospel
3. Differences from John’s gospel. In spite of the striking similarities between 1 John and the fourth gospel, some differences are apparent. The doctrine of the Incarnation, though important to both, is centered in the epistle in the true humanity of Jesus, whereas in the gospel it centers in the divine glory of Jesus. C. H. Dodd professed to find an eschatological difference, in that the eschatology of the epistle was judged more primitive than that of the gospel, because of an absence of the reinterpretation of that doctrine, which Dodd called “realized eschatology.” The interpretation of the death of Christ in the epistle’s use of “expiation” (2:2; 4:10) and the absence of specific reference to the Spirit in the new birth discussion (as the gospel makes much of the Spirit in the same context) are examples of other acknowledged differences.
Linguistically there are differences also. Rhetorical questions characterized the epistle, but are entirely neglected in the gospel. There is a tendency toward conditional sentences in the epistle that is not a trait of the gospel. The vocabulary of the gospel is naturally larger than that of the shorter epistle, but even so, there are nearly forty words used by the writer of the epistle not found in the gospel, and there are also common words in the gospel that failed to make the epistle at all.
The gospel of John makes much use of the OT, but the epistles contain no quotation from the OT, and perhaps only one reference. There is in the gospel an interest in Judaism as a living religion that is absent from the epistle. It may have been that the gospel reflects a situation sixty years earlier than the epistle, when Judaism was a living issue.
II. Authorship
Traditionally, John the son of Zebedee was considered the author of the epistles. When tradition is combined with reasonable possibilities, it seems that he went to Ephesus in Asia about a.d. 65-70. He remained there laboring among the churches until about a.d. 95, when he was exiled to the island of Patmos during the Domitianic persecution. Having returned to Ephesus about a.d. 97, this last of the apostles died there about the turn of the cent.
A. Arguments for John the apostle. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (a.d. 185-202) quoted from both 1 John and 2 John, attributing both writings to John, the disciple of the Lord, to whom he also attributed the fourth gospel. The head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, Clement (c. a.d. 180-202) frequently quoted 1 John and attributed it to the Apostle John. The Muratorian Canon, the first known list of NT books, acknowledged two epistles of John, one of which was identified by quotation as 1 John. After the time of Eusebius (c. a.d. 305), general consent was attained to the apostolic authorship of these epistles.
B. Arguments against John the apostle. Ignatius wrote to the church at Ephesus within twenty years of the time that John was supposed to have been there. He mentioned Paul’s ministry, but he was silent as far as John was concerned. Some have thought that an early martyrdom of John was prophesied by Jesus (Mark 10:39; Matt 20:23). George Hamartolos, a 9th-cent. writer, said that Papias wrote that John was murdered by the Jews along with his brother. The calendar of the Syriac church, which dated from the 4th cent., observed the martyrdom of James and John in Jerusalem on December 27.
The possible confusion of John the apostle with John the elder has been cited against apostolic authorship. A second John, known as John the elder, has been cited as the author of the epistles, both from the reference to “the Elder” in 2 and 3 John, and from a reference by Papias to a John the elder who perhaps was a different person from the Apostle John. The elder may have been a disciple of the apostle according to most of those who distinguish between the two.
III. Locale
A. Origin. Traditionally, the epistles of John have been associated with Ephesus and the Rom. province of Asia. It has been supposed that 1 John was written only for congregations in the Rom. province of Asia, but in 1 Peter the address included all those in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. If 1 John was written twenty-five or thirty years later than 1 Peter, it might well be that an even larger territory than Asia was addressed. Because tradition has pointed toward Ephesus as the residence of John, it is likely that all three epistles were written there. Unless 1 John 5:21 is taken literally, as it admonished abstinence from idol worship, there is no indication of whether these Christians were Jews or Gentiles.
B. Destination. About the 4th cent. it was believed that 1 John, and perhaps the other Johannine epistles, were addressed to Parthia, and the title “To the Parthians” actually occurs in a few MSS. Augustine supported this theory. An explanation has been found in a statement in the Clementine “Adumbriationes,” that 2 John was addressed to a Babylonian lady. Since Babylon was in the Parthian empire, the entire Parthian theory may have come from this single statement.
The entire question as to whether 2 John was addressed to an individual or a congregation awaits the discussion of the text, but 3 John undoubtedly was addressed to a trusted friend of the Elder. This trusted friend seems to have been a prosperous layman in a church within the radius of Ephesian influence.
IV. Date
The situation of the churches in the background of 1 John, esp. with reference to the anti-Gnostic material, would suggest a later date than Colossians or the pastoral epistles, where the same tendencies seem to have been met in a less developed form. In all likelihood, the epistles of John were written toward the close of the 1st cent. The absence of any reference to persecution prob. indicates a date before the time of the emperor Trajan (a.d. 98-117), and prob. even prior to the last years of Domitian, who reigned until a.d. 96.
The relationship of the epistles to the gospels also includes the establishing of a date. The gospel of John may have been as late as a.d. 95-100. Many scholars are now inclined to date the gospel about a.d. 85. If the epistles were written after the gospel and at least 1 John and 2 John at about the same time, a likely date would then be about a.d. 87 for the epistles. The Apostle John would at that time have been a man in his middle seventies, able still to travel and work (as suggested in 3 John). Christianity at that time was in difficulty in Asia but had not come under the intense persecution as occurred under Emperor Domitian. The Gnostic situation had the time to develop into a movement of some considerable importance and to spread over a wide area. In all likelihood, the epistles of John were written about the end of the eighties or the beginning of the nineties in the 1st cent.
V. Contents of the epistles of John
A. 1 John
1. The prologue (1:1-4). Dionysius of Alexandria may have been the first to note the parallel structure between the prologue of the epistle and that of the gospel of John. In each is: (1) the main subject described first, (2) then the historical manifestation of that subject, (3) last, the personal apprehension of it. The prologue of the epistle (also of the gospel) serves as the foundation upon which the remainder of the letter rests.
The main subject is declared to be the eternal Word, or better still “the living Logos.” In Gr. “logos” did not mean mere speech or utterance; it meant rational and articulate utterance of thought. It was the author’s declared intention to speak of Christ as the eternal Logos who is in Himself life, who is in union with God the Father before all time, and who became incarnate in time as the object of sensible experience among men. In a court of law in ancient times, the testimonies of two senses were required to make a witness authentic. Perhaps this is in the background of John’s emphasis that the proof of the humanity of Jesus had been attested by three senses: hearing, seeing, and touching. The neuter reference “that which” may be explained as a reference to the gospel, but in light of the declaration, “That which was from the beginning,” it is more likely that the author was thinking of Christ as a life—a fact of history. This stressed the truth that Jesus was not an optical illusion, as the Docetic Gnostics had claimed, but that He had an actual human body that was seen and heard.
The long and somewhat tangled sentence that makes up the Prologue is also an emphasis upon the personal and collective apprehension of the eternal, divine life in Christ. There had been a shared experience of the historical Jesus by His people. The repeated “we” indicates not only the apostolic witness and testimony but also the collective witness of the people of Christ, the “salvation” people who had come to find life in Jesus. Fellowship was the common tie of such a people; their fellowship was a fellowship of witness that rested upon the fellowship of a shared experience (see the discussion of “fellowship” in MNT by C. A. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, pp. 13-16, and The Epistles of St. John by B. F. Westcott, pp. 174f.). The textual problem in 1:4 as to whether “our joy” or “your joy” should be read is incapable of a hard and fast decision, but most likely it was “our joy,” in the apostolic sense.
2. Fellowship with God (1:5-2:2). The first expansion of thought based upon the basic statement of 1:1-4 is in terms of “fellowship with God.” The real meaning of all religious experience is caught up in this phrase for the writer. There were heretics in John’s day who claimed to have a vital experience with God, but they denied that Jesus was truly the Son of God—God in human flesh. John insisted in this opening statement that no man has fellowship with God who did not acknowledge Jesus, for it is His blood alone that places men into fellowship with God and maintains them in such fellowship. John stated the facts of Christian experience that were related to the establishment and maintenance of such fellowship with the intended purpose that his readers might know that they truly possessed this fellowship and that they might readily recognize those who did not.
The statement “God is light” has nothing to do with a mysterious or esoteric nature of God. John was merely emphasizing the fact that, in spite of what the Gnostics taught, God had no secret knowledge that was withheld from the entire body of believers, hidden just to give to a select few. The source of this information was Jesus Himself. It did not come from rabbinic instruction in the synagogue nor from the dialectical reasonings of Gr. philosophy. It was the message of revelation received directly through the historical Jesus. Beyond this fact light represents the perfect holiness of the unveiled nature of God as seen in Jesus Christ. Darkness is not simply a symbol of ignorance; it is also a symbol of moral evil. A man who rightly claims a personal knowledge of God in fellowship must measure his life against the character of God. It was B. F. Westcott who pointed out the trilogy: (1) God is light so men who fellowship with Him must walk in the light, (2) God is spirit so men who fellowship with Him must worship in the spirit, (3) God is love so men who fellowship with Him must manifest love.
The repeated statement, “if we say,” would indicate that the apostle was not tilting against men of straw but was combating the errors of his day. He had heard men say these things again and again. Entrance into fellowship with God did not come by denying sin, but by confessing it and being cleansed of it. The cross stands at the heart of any vital experience of a sinful man with the holy God. The blood of Jesus (real blood and not a phantom) is absolutely necessary to the establishment of fellowship between men and God. In the NT, the word “fellowship” is used only in a good and sacred sense. It is never used to describe those who walked in darkness and did not do the truth.
It is important in this passage to recognize the relation between the Gr. present tense and aorist tense. To understand properly 1:8 and relate it to 2:1 and 3:6, it is necessary to tr. the present tense in these vv. as “continue to sin,” i.e., “live a sinful life.” The aorist tense should be tr. “to commit a sin,” i.e., “do a sin.” In 1:8-10, John was saying that if men should say that they have not committed a sin, they make God a liar. In the present tense John was speaking of living a life of sin, so that he can say that whoever abides in God does not continue living a sinful life. The declaration added to the inability to confess the need for God’s forgiveness (to the effect that “the truth is not in us”) meant that such men were incapable of recognizing the truth when they saw it.
Two erroneous conclusions might have been drawn from 1:8-10 against which the author guarded in 2:1, 2. The acknowledgement of the persistent malady of sin might lead a Christian to accept sin as inevitable in life, causing him to ease his struggle against sin. Also, the readily available forgiveness of sin might lead a Christian to presume on God as the God of forgiveness. The author hastened to assure his readers that everything that he was writing was written that they might not sin. His readers were encouraged to remember the facts that are inseparable from fellowship with God.
3. Keep the commandments (2:3-11). The author began this section by a reference to knowledge, or assurance, of a personal relation to God. The word “know” is derived from the same root from which the Gnostics took their name. They claimed a monopoly on religious knowledge, which John denied with his bold assertion “we know him.” The basis of this assurance is the keeping of His commandments.
The author used the term “commandment” (or its pl.) six times in these verses. In fact, as is characteristic of 1 John (the repetition of previously introduced ideas) the term “commandment” is used in the following sections also (3:23, 24; 4:21; 5:2, 3). It is evidently a key thought in the author’s expanding discussion. The relationship of this new term “commandment” to the previously dominant term “fellowship” is that the Christian’s fellowship with God depends upon, and is assured by, keeping the commandments.
The phrase “his word” in v. 5 is a synonym for “commandment.” The idea of keeping the commandments is previously suggested in 1:6 by the emphasis upon the truth as something that the Christian lives. John prob. took this term from Jesus Himself (see the gospel of John 14:15, 21, 23, 24; 15:10). It was Jesus Himself who identified these commandments with His word. There is an objective basis behind all Christian experience that made it impossible for men to brand it a sham or an illusion. That objective basis is keeping the commandments.
The importance and meaning of keeping the commandments is developed by two illustrations: (1) love for the believing brother (1 John 2:9-11), (2) avoiding love for the world (1 John 2:12-17). It is prob. better to treat the second of these as a separate subject because 1 John 2:12-17 is most difficult to connect. Some have judged it a parenthesis in which the writer definitely turned aside for a word of personal appeal.
The commandment of love is as old as God’s revelation. In the Christian context, the readers may have heard it preached by Paul and John. Perhaps they read it in John’s gospel also. Some who had professed the light had given the lie to that profession by the darkness of their hatred for their brethren. John was saying that the new commandment is to put the old commandment into practice; in that sense it is not a new commandment at all but the old one applied.
4. Don’t love the world (2:12-17). As previously noted, this passage is a personal appeal in the first instance. These tender words of personal exhortation are in sharp contrast with the rather severe words that follow. Here is primarily a warning against that which would destroy the believer’s fellowship with God, and also His fellowship with His brethren—the love of the world. The basis upon which John wrote to them was that their sins had been forgiven them. Since this was true, he was able to write these things to them because they were in the fellowship.
John divided his readers into the young and the old, for apparently his common way of referring to all of his readers was with the word “children.” In all probability, these words refer to natural age and are not spiritualizations of mature and immature Christians. The Gnostics claimed an exclusive knowledge of God and condemned John’s readers as having no knowledge of God. He reassured his readers of their real knowledge of the Father. Their abiding knowledge of God was attested by their fellowship with Him.
In John’s writings, “to love the world” always means to replace love for God in one’s life with love for wrong objects. The “world” here means the realm of evil that excludes God. The word John chose for love (ἀγαπάω, G26) denotes direction of the will and purposeful choice. There are two reasons that arise from the essential nature of the world that labels love of the world as unspiritual: (1) such love is fixed upon that which is in essential opposition to God, (2) such love is fixed upon that which is unable to stand the test of time.
5. Beware the antichrist (2:18-28). In early Christianity the belief that an antichrist would come who would be the direct opponent of Christ was widespread and significant. Usually the thought centered on one antichrist, but here John considered anyone as an antichrist who taught the false doctrines that he had thus far considered. They have withdrawn from the fellowship, and this itself branded them as those who had never shared in the real life and fellowship of the brethren. They had not loved the brethren because they had not loved God. In a sense, their departure from the fellowship provided a key word to John at this point, the term “remained.” Six times in these vv. John wrote some form of this word “remain,” or “continue” just as he previously emphasized “commandment.” Their withdrawal was beneficial. The cause of Christ had been in much greater danger before these false teachers had been revealed for what they really were, i.e., unbelievers.
The special heresy against which John warned his readers was related to the person of Christ. To deny that Jesus was at one and the same time the perfect man and the true God, was the supreme lie. Such a liar was antichrist. A denial such as this is also a denial of the Father, for it is only through the Son that the Father had been manifested in the flesh. Whereas previously it was affirmed that love of the world was proof that one did not love God, in this passage it is affirmed that the denial of the truth concerning Christ is evidence that there is no fellowship with God. Faith in Christ tests fellowship with God.
Loyalty to the truth of God in Christ is declared to have its rewards. The two advantages that result from such loyalty conclude the section. They are an eternal relationship with God through Christ and a secure knowledge of spiritual realities. It is the Holy Spirit’s function to bring both of these to the knowledge of the believer. The Holy Spirit was John’s answer to the Gnostic. It was not the proud human “knower” who brought secret, mystic knowledge that men needed, but the Holy Spirit’s guidance.
6. Do right (2:29-3:10). The Gnostics taught that restraint of sin was unnecessary. John confidently asserted that the real proof of a man having been born of God was that he did that which was right in God’s sight. John esp. considered two matters in connection with the new faith: first, the privileges of God’s children and, second, the character of God’s children. Though years of Christian experience had accumulated for John, he was still amazed that sinners should be accorded the privilege of being God’s children; but perhaps fearing that someone would pick up the word “called” and imply only called, he added more amazingly that his readers were actually God’s children. The reason why the world did not recognize these Christians as children of God was because that world did not know God. Beyond all this there awaits these believers a wonderful destiny more marvelous than anything yet experienced. This glorious destiny is not known in detail, but in essence it is that the Lord’s people will be like Him. John declared that to be like Christ is the Christian’s destiny.
In vv. 4-8, John placed the Christian’s life of righteousness against a life of sin, by way of contrast. These two lives come from two personal sources—Christ and the devil. A new life principle has been imparted to the Christian, a life principle that could not possibly be the seed of sin because it comes from God. The children of God may be expected to resemble their Father, God, in righteousness. Conversely, the same thing is true of the devil’s offspring, for he was from the beginning a sinner. The expression “from the beginning” as here related to the devil has been subject to interpretation in three ways: (1) that “the beginning” refers to eternity, thus the devil is associated with sin from all eternity; (2) that “the beginning” refers to the beginning of the human race, thus in all of human experience the devil is the source of sin; (3) that “the beginning” means “from the beginning of sin,” thus the devil is the original sinner.
The most difficult v. in 1 John is v. 9 of this passage, no doubt because of the absolute and unqualified terms employed by John. It is to be understood, however, that the tenses of the verbs in Gr. is the important matter. The first verb is in the intensive perfect; “everyone who is begotten of God” is the idea. The second verb is the present of continued action; “does not keep on practicing sin” is the idea. The truly regenerated man cannot continue his former sinful disposition, but his desires change, and with the Holy Spirit’s help he grows in godliness.
7. Love the brethren (3:11-18). A family member in the divine circle, one of God’s children, is expected to love the other family members of the divine circle. Proud Gnosticism, boasting its intellectual superiority, produced a spirit of arrogance and self-assertiveness on the part of its followers. There was no place in it for the uninitiated who did not accept the Gnostic interpretation. Jealousy, contempt, and hatred characterized this heretical movement. John declared that love is fundamental to the Christian message, being “from the beginning.” In contrast with Cain, the first murderer and embodiment of hatred, stands Christ, the very revelation of love. Christ’s death was offered as the supreme proof of His love and the ultimate requirement of love from His people. Love is thus declared to be the manifestation of this new life from God in men. It is not enough to profess this love; it is required that Christ’s people practice this transforming love in their daily lives.
8. Be confident (3:19-24). When Christians judge themselves by the high standard of Christian love, it is easy to become discouraged. The first vv. of this paragraph are difficult to interpret (for the difficulties of the Gr. constructions see Westcott, The Epistles of St. John). John apparently meant by “heart” the entire conscious, moral nature of man. The declaration is that the refuge from a guilty conscience is the greatness of God’s forgiveness. God’s greatness is not to be found in His justice that brings condemnation upon men, but in His mercy that brings salvation from sin. Prayer would have no foundation if it were not for the greatness of God. By keeping God’s commandments, prayer becomes effective, which means that because His people are one with God’s purpose, they can expect His help. The keeping of God’s commandments is summarized by John as a true belief in Jesus and a real love for the brethren. This keeping of God’s commandments is both the condition and result of true fellowship with God. The Spirit’s presence in the Christian’s life is adduced as the proof of such vital fellowship with God.
9. Test the spirits (4:1-6). John wrote (3:24) that a Christian can know that God is abiding in him because of the Holy Spirit’s presence in his heart. Before he continued with his message, the author paused to warn his readers about the false doctrine of the spirit as held by the Gnostics. The Gnostics talked much about spirit. Matter, they said, was evil, but the spirit was the divine part of man because it was non-material. They claimed that their knowledge of God was a spiritual knowledge. John urged his readers to be rigidly discriminating concerning the “spirit” that moved a teacher in the church. The fundamental test to apply to a teacher was his attitude toward Christ. If such a teacher denied the reality of the Incarnation, he then based his message upon the wisdom of human reason rather than on revelation from God.
10. Abide in God (4:7-12). Twice already John affirmed that love is the test of the Christian life. In this passage, the letter reaches its climax, for it was intended not only to give tests by which the readers could measure their lives, but more importantly, to secure for them a deeper experience with God. Love is the supreme test both of the new life and the abiding fellowship of God. Love is the natural fruit of the saved life. John related this love to the reality of the incarnation of Jesus Christ in the flesh. If Jesus was not truly the Son of God, then the love of God for a lost world was a figment of the imagination. A true Incarnation was necessary for God’s love to be revealed in the world. When love is associated with faith and devotion toward Jesus Christ, it then becomes a valid evidence of life everlasting. God, because He is love, is the one source of love. This means that men have no love for God until they discover God’s love for them. Love that is genuine, according to John, has to have its source in God.
11. Have faith (5:1-12). Throughout 1 John is a constant interplay of love, righteousness, and belief. The author insisted upon the relation of belief and love. The readers must remember to identify love with keeping the commandments. Because they are children of God, it should not be burdensome for them. Also, those born of God will gain the victory over the world through faith. John commonly used the verb “believe,” and 5:4 is the only place where he used the noun “faith.” Faith is the victory. It was not the Gnostic victory of spirit over matter, but the Christian victory of righteousness over evil. Faith brings victory. Faith comes from love. Love results from being born again. These are the familiar Johannine themes brought again into combination and new emphasis.
Verse 6 may have been a direct thrust at the Gnostic leader, Cerinthus, who taught that the divinity of Christ came upon the human Jesus at His baptism in the form of the dove that descended from heaven, but left Him in Gethsemane. The author acknowledged that the messianic ministry of Jesus began at His baptism, but the fulfillment of that ministry was in the sacrifice of the cross “in the blood.” In the Jewish legal system a testimony was regarded as conclusive when supported by two or three witnesses. It was, therefore, important to John that he discerned three witnesses to the real incarnation of God in the historical Jesus: “the Spirit, the water, and the blood.” These witnesses combined to support the declaration that it was Jesus, God’s Son, who died on the cross and thereby worked redemption for humanity. There is the record of Jesus’ earthly ministry, the fact of His atoning death, and the subsequent witness of the Spirit in the life of the believer (as well as the witness of the Spirit to Jesus in the days of His flesh). So intense is the rejection of the Gnostic heresies that taught that salvation was secured through a speculative “gnosis,” that John made the strong declaration that men who taught such heresy made God a liar. The true witness of Christian experience, given through the Spirit, is that salvation is accepted by faith in Jesus as the Son of God.
12. Ask God (5:13-17). The word “ask” is interrelated with the word “know” throughout this passage. Knowledge not only brought the certainty of salvation but also boldness and confidence in prayer. There are, however, three important qualifications introduced in connection with effective prayer: (1) the Christian must ask in accordance with God’s will (v. 14), (2) the Christian must ask with faith (v. 15), (3) the Christian must consign some things to the wisdom of God alone (vv. 16, 17). The reference to mortal sin and the fact that John did not encourage prayer for such, has created much bewilderment for Christian interpreters through the centuries. It must be remembered that confidence is expressed in the effectiveness of prayer for “a brother.” The point of contrast is that the “mortal sin” raises the crucial question of salvation. A Christian cannot pray with complete confidence where the genuine experience of grace is questionable. No doubt, in John’s mind, the Gnostic heresy of denying the redemptive work of God’s Son was such a situation, perhaps the primary indication of it to Him. He could not encourage hopeful prayer that such a one because he was a brother would be dealt with by God as He deals with His children. Rather, such men as the Gnostics who professed God but were infidels with reference to Jesus had put themselves beyond the pale of prayer that intercedes for a brother. They were not brethren.
13. Know these (5:18-21). As the previous section reveals an interplay of “know” and “ask,” here the word “know” dominates the scene. It becomes more than a declaration from the author; it is also an outreach to establish his readers. Including the larger section (beginning in v. 13), the word “know” occurs seven times. In the Gr. text, there is a significant variation of terms. Six times the word “know” refers to knowledge that comes from Christian instruction. The last use of the word (v. 20) signifies knowledge that is based upon experience. The entire sum of Christian teaching is imparted to the end that men may know in their own experience the reality of the Gospel. The Gnostics made great use of what they called “knowledge”; but the Christian has real knowledge. The Christian knows security in the provision of God; he knows the reality of an escape from the bondage of sin; he knows the truth and not error; he knows the reality of eternal life.
B. 2 John. This briefest of books may be analyzed as follows:
1. Greetings (vv. 1-3). The concept of salvation in 2 John is similar to that of 3 John. The term “elder” may have referred to the office the author held in the Christian community, or it may have referred to his advanced age. In all probability, it referred to his office (though for John at this time it would have been equally true as a reference to his age). This title had wide use in the Asiatic churches, and apparently the author felt it was sufficient identification of himself.
The “elect lady” may have been a woman with a family, and her sister (v. 13) may have been the elder’s hostess at the time of writing. Some have even thought that “lady,” which in Gr. was sometimes the proper noun Cyria, should not be tr. “lady” but rather as Cyria, the personal name of a woman (even as Gaius’ name appeared in 3 John). It is more likely that the reference is a figure of speech referring to the church to which the letter was addressed, and the closing reference to “sister” would be understood as a sister congregation.
The familiar Johannine theme of “love in the truth” is quickly introduced. The author assured those to whom he wrote that he loved them in the truth. His love was not sweet sentimentality. It was a love that was rationally and morally conditioned by the Gospel. It was the spiritual knowledge of God in Christ that produced this love in his heart. The society of the faithful was established by and has its very existence from its relationship to this truth.
The typical blessing, as Westcott has noted, began with the activity of God in behalf of men, and continues to the final satisfaction of men: “Grace, mercy, and peace.”
2. Follow the truth (vv. 4-6). The opening words of this passage have been held to indicate that only some of the people involved were following the truth; other of the “children” were not. This may have been true, but it seems better to understand this simply as a positive comment. He has had contact with some of the children, and he found those to be following the truth. “Following the truth” meant that the Gospel of Christ was manifested in their living.
John practiced love in his dealing with the recipients of the letter, as indicated by his tender appeal that they love one another. John appears to have reasoned in a circle. Love, he said, is to follow the truth, and to keep the commandments. On the other hand, he said the command is that they should love one another. It may be important to note that, in the first instance, “commandments” is pl., and in the second, “commandment” is sing. The life of love seeks to obey God in all that He commanded; at the same time all the commandments can be summarized in one—love!
3. Watch for deceivers (vv. 7-11). The love of which John wrote never goes contrary to the interest of truth. It is not to be extended indiscriminately. Those who were perverters of the truth and enemies of Christ could not in the very nature of things be made the object of brotherly love. Of compassion and care they should be objects, but of Christian fellowship and service they could not be in the nature of the situation. There were roving teachers of Gnosticism that propagated heresy in denying the reality of the incarnation of God in Christ. These antichrists did not abide in “the doctrine of Christ,” which prob. meant the teaching of the apostles about Christ. They felt they knew God but took a small view of Jesus. The readers were warned against such men. To such men they were not to offer Christian hospitality. They were not to give aid to those teachers of heresy.
4. Future plans (vv. 12, 13). John found writing to his reader in this instance to be less than satisfactory for the communication of his message. He anxiously awaited an opportunity when he could visit them and speak to them “face to face.” He anticipated such a meeting with joy. The reference to children of the sister may have been to nieces and nephews, or more likely was a greeting from the members of a sister church.
C. 3 John
1. Greetings (v. 1). This letter was addressed by the “elder” to Gaius. The name “Gaius” was very common in the 1st cent., and the individual in this instance cannot be positively identified. Three men of this name have been suggested from the NT. Gaius of Corinth (Rom 16:23) was noted for his hospitality. Gaius of Macedonia (Acts 19:29) was a missionary companion of Paul. Gaius of Derbe (20:4) accompanied Paul on a missionary journey (possibly the same as the Gaius of Acts 19:29). The tie that bound the “elder” to this man, whoever he was, was the love of a Christian brother in the context of the Gospel.
2. Follow the truth (vv. 2-4). The “elder” prayed that Gaius would prosper physically and materially in the same way that he had prospered. This interest in Gaius’ prosperity was related in the first instance to the generosity that he had shown to the visiting missionaries with whom he had shared his material possessions. These missionaries had reported Gaius’ devotion to the truth, his faithful stewardship that was manifested in his works. “Following the truth” is peculiarly Johannine terminology. It means that the man lived the life of the Gospel, was shaped in character by it, and was dominated and controlled by his instruction in Christ.
3. Render service (vv. 5-8). The act that particularly drew the “elder’s” praise had been Gaius’ hospitality to the itinerant missionaries who ministered to the church of which he was a member. Apparently Gaius’ kindness subjected him to criticism from his fellow members. Gaius was commended by the “elder” for doing wisely that which the “elect lady” was warned against doing unwisely (2 John). The expression “send them on their journey (way),” as found in the NT, means to provide expenses for a missionary undertaking (Acts 15:3; 21:5, etc.). These missionaries deserved such help because they were representatives of Christ, for this was the meaning of “for they have set out for his sake.” These missionaries also refrained from accepting help from the heathen to whom they ministered so as not to open up their work to suspicion of unworthy motives. Gaius was reminded that as he supported these workers for Christ, he shared in their labor.
4. Warning against Diotrephes (vv. 9, 10). Here is found the explanation of John’s writing to Gaius instead of the church. He had tried the method of writing to the church, but with no results. This letter to the church had been sent by a faithful Christian missionary named Demetrius, but among the elders of the church was an arrogant, domineering, and conceited man named Diotrephes, who had assumed the leadership of the church. Diotrephes had barred Demetrius from the church and had suppressed the elder’s letter. Apparently this selfish man was fearful that the church would acknowledge an authority other than his own, so he forbade the reading of the elder’s letter or the entertaining of any messenger from him. The elder promised to confront this man shortly if he was able to come himself.
5. Commendation of Demetrius (vv. 11, 12). Demetrius was the bearer of 3 John. Gaius not only was warned against being like Diotrephes, but he also was encouraged to be like Demetrius. Demetrius was given a threefold commendation: (1) he was widely known in the church as a man of good character, (2) his life revealed his Christianity through his loyalty to the truth, (3) John himself testified to the kind of man he was.
6. Conclusion (vv. 13-15). This conclusion is strikingly similar to that of 2 John, which may suggest that the two letters were written close to the same time. The elder stated his definite plan to visit Gaius shortly. The closing greeting, typically Christian, reveals the writer’s extensive personal acquaintance in the church of which Gaius was a part.
Bibliography R. S. Candlish, The First Epistle of John (reprint of 1869 ed.); B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John (1883); C. H. Dodd, “The Johannine Epistles” in New Testament Commentary (Moffatt) (1946); H. E. Dana, The Epistles and Apocalypse of John (1947); G. H. King, The Fellowship (1954); W. T. Conner, The Epistles of John (1957); J. P. Love, “The First, Second and Third Letters of John”; “The Letter of Jude”; “The Revelation of John” in The Layman’s Bible Commentary (1961); G. P. Lewis, “The Johannine Epistles” in Epworth Preacher’s Commentaries (1961); R. E. O. White, Open Letter to Evangelicals (1964); J. R. W. Stott, “The Epistles of John” in Tyndale Bible Commentaries (1964).