Читать книгу The Epistles of John - Samuel M. Ngewa - Страница 11

Unlike most Pauline epistles where we have a clear separation of doctrine (the indicative) from the practice (the imperative), with the latter based on the former, John’s structure does not separate the two so neatly. In any case, his exhortation on practical matters does not lack theological foundation. This will become clear as we note how John lays before his readers as bases for their action the nature of God as light and love, with Christ exercising love at the highest level possible. The outline, therefore (see above), is governed more by the content of the different passages of the epistles than some artificial reorganization of the material to come up with an outline that separates doctrine from practice.

Reliable Testimony and Its Goal (1:1–4)

(1:1) What was in existence from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands touched, concerning the word of life (2) and the life was revealed, and we have seen and bear witness and announce to you the life which is eternal, which was with the Father and was revealed to us (3) what we have seen and we have heard, we announce to you also, in order that you (yourselves) also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is also with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ (4) And these (things) we (ourselves27) write in order that our28 joy may have been made complete.

This passage revolves around the two verbs, “we bear witness” (martyroumen) in 1:2 and “we announce” (apangellomen), the latter occurring twice in the passage (1:2, 3).

The act of “bearing witness” or “testifying” (martyrein) is an important one for John. He uses it thirty-three times in the Gospel,29 ten times in his epistles,30 and four times in Revelation.31 The use of the nouns “witness” or “testimony” (martyria) also show the same interest.32 The idea behind the word, whether in form of a verb or noun, is that of passing on one’s experience to others for the purpose of having the readers or hearers stand with the testimony bearer on something that matters. In law courts for example, one who bears witness seeks to convince the judge and others who may be listening that the position the witness bearer takes on the matter is true. The fact that the English word “martyr” comes from it means that what one testifies to be true can also be costly. Within such a context, deep conviction precedes the testifying. This is not to say that there are no false witnesses. Most of those, however, do not bear witness on basis of deep conviction but as an act of pretense. John belabors the point to assert that the witness borne here is true. As Lieu observes, the experience of the “we” gives them the authority to proclaim to the “you” in this epistle.33

The act of announcing (apangellein) moves that personal experience to the public arena. Stott puts it well when he says that “to bear witness” carries with it “authority of experience” and “to announce” the “authority of commission.”34 As will be pointed out below, John’s personal experience (and that of other apostles) is not for private custody but for public utilization. It is for all to read and enjoy its blessings. In the present context, it bears full authority for public consumption in that it is not only true (shown by his use of different senses in establishing the matter, as will be shown below) but also its bearer has been commissioned.35 John sees it as the will of God that his readers will know the truth of his message and join the fellowship in which God the Father and the Son are a part of (1:3). John endeavors to accomplish this act of bearing witness and announcing by way of putting into writing what we have in this epistle (1:4). The acts of “bearing witness,” “announcing,” and “writing” are all expressed using the present tense.36

The acts of bearing witness and announcing are expressed using the first person plural “we” also.37 This could mean that John is including other apostles in the team. If this is so, we need to remember that John is doing so in their absence, as all of the apostles except John had died by this time.38 John could also be using the editorial “we” so as to avoid a display of “self” more than necessary.39 However, given that one of his chief concerns is to show that what he writes is reliable,40 the plural to convey plurality of witnesses is more likely. The principle of two or three witnesses in matters of importance (Deut 17:6; 19:15) was something he was aware of.41 His point is that what is borne witness of and announced, as he writes this epistle, is something beyond doubt. The guide provided on such matters has been followed and so the matter established. It is left to the hearers themselves to accept or not accept the well-established fact.

John uses four sensory verbs, covering three senses (seeing, hearing, and touching) to assure the readers that the witness comes from deep personal experience. Three times (1:1, 2, 3) he uses heōrakamen (a perfect tense, “we have seen”) and in one of them (1:1) adds tois ophthalmois hēmōn (“with our eyes”); the dative tois ophthalmois serving as dative of means and emphasizing that the witness is beyond doubt.42 The other three sensory verbs are akēkoamen (also a perfect, “we have heard”) which he uses twice (1:1, 3), etheasametha (an aorist, “we beheld”) found in 1:1, and epsēlaphēsan (an aorist, “they touched”) in 1:1. The subject of the act of touching is hai cheires hēmōn (“our hands”), again added for emphasis. The witness is firsthand. It is “our eyes” that saw and it was “our hands” that touched.

A question that arises naturally is why John uses two different tenses: perfect tense for hearing (akēkoamen) and seeing (heōrakamen43) but aorist tense for beholding (etheasametha) and touching (epsēlaphēsan). Some have seen some significance in this change. Stott, for example, views the perfect verbs as “suggesting the abiding possession which results from the hearing and seeing” while the aorist verbs “seem to refer to a particular time” specifically after the resurrection.44 It is doubtful, however, that apostle John lays different weight to the two pairs of verb tenses. They may be understood the same way (as perfects) if the two aorist forms are viewed as resultative aorist.45 This is why the NIV, for example, renders the four verbs as “have heard,” “have seen,” “have looked at,” and “have touched.”46 The four actions have abiding result in the production of witnesses who not only saw but also heard and who not only beheld but also touched. All that is needed for a reliable witness is there. In addition, the witness is not by one person but by many as the use of the “we” and “our” communicate.

John uses two different verbs here to present the sense of sight. He uses horan three times (1:1, 2, 3) and theasthai once (1:1). It is possible that theasthai has some nuances that horan does not have. Burdick, for example, says that theasthai was brought into the picture here so as “to emphasize the careful, inspective kind of seeing with which the disciples examined the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.”47 The difference, however, is not to be stressed to the degree that the act of seeing (horan) becomes of less significance in contributing to the witness here.48 The act of seeing (horan) cannot be devoid of careful examination in this context. It is who/what they saw (heōrakamen) that they proclaim (1:3). It cannot be less than accurately determined person and message.

The person and message they bear witness concerning, and announce, is presented as having been “from the beginning” (ēn ap’ archēs) in 1:1, “with the Father” (ēn pros ton patera) in 1:2, and “revealed” (ephanerōthē—stated twice in 1:2). This kind of description gives the impression that John is here talking about Jesus, who is second Person of the Trinity.49 If so, it raises the question why John uses the neuter pronoun ho rightly translated as “what” instead of the masculine hos (who). The more common view is that John uses the neuter relative so that he captures all that is included—combining the person, his message, and everything else about him together.50 If the masculine hos was used, it would limit the reference to the person. If the feminine relative pronoun hē was used, it would limit it to the message (angellia). John chooses to use the neuter so that it would be all inclusive of the person and the message. Jobes’ suggestion that the neuter may be used because the author is thinking of euangelion (gospel), which is neuter, or “the more abstract idea of the significance of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection”51 could also be a possibility if it were not for the difficulties it faces as to how such would be seen and touched. The object of the verbs seem to be more personal than non-personal.

The two descriptions: “was from the beginning” (1:1) and “was with the Father” (1:2) place the person and message in eternity while “was revealed” (1:2) places the same in history. The person and message are both eternal and part of human history.

The “beginning” (archē) in question here precedes the beginning of Gen 1:1 (beginning of creation).52 It parallels the beginning of the Gospel of John 1:1. It is a beginning that relates the existence of Jesus and all that his person entails with the existence of God. In other words, it is a beginning that moves out of history into eternity. On the other hand though, the eternal one was made manifest. It was in his state of “having been manifested” that John and his associates had the privilege of exercising their senses in knowing about him. Before they had contact with him he “was” already, and in their contact with him, he was “real.” He is eternal God who became incarnate. John is not making these statements for the fun of it. He is cutting the roots of false teachers among his readers, as it will become clearer when he brings in the need of confession that Jesus is Son of God become flesh (2:22–23).53

The use of the imperfect ēn in the two phrases “was from the beginning” and “was with the Father” is significant from two fronts. First, the use of einai (of which ēn is an imperfect form) is generally distinct from ginesthai. While the latter carries with it the idea of a beginning or coming into existence,54 einai assumes existence. Secondly, the tense used here is imperfect whose exegetical significance is “continuance in the past.”55 The point, therefore, is that the existence of the person John is talking of here was in continuance in the beginning, and so also was his fellowship with the Father.

We are further told in 1:1 that the content of the witness and announcement concerns “word of life” (ho logos56 tēs zōēs), a life further defined as “the life eternal” (tēn zōēn tēn aiōnion) in 1:2. The use of logos is not new in the writings of John, for he uses the same for Jesus in John 1:1. The relation of “word” to its description “of life” (tēs zōēs) is either that he (the word) gives life57 or he himself is life.58 Identification of Jesus as “life” is not far-fetched in view of Jesus’ own claim in John 14:6: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” Jesus gives life because he himself is Life.

By implication, therefore, we have here a reliable witness concerning one whose titles include “Word” and “Life”; one who is eternal, having his existence in continuance with the Father in the beginning; yet one who has been revealed. He is outside of history (since he is eternal) but has been made to become part of history (since he has been revealed). This is one of the distinguishing features of what John announces here, from other forms of beliefs.59 There is combination in it of both eternity and time. During the phase of his life in which he was living on this earth, he was seen, heard, beheld, and touched. In his eternal existence, he was with the Father.

The goal of the activities of bearing witness and announcing is that the readers will also have fellowship with the writer and his team (hina kai humeis koinōnian echēte meth’ hēmōn, “in order that you [yourselves] also may have fellowship with us,” 1:3), whether the team is limited to the apostles60 or includes all believers61 that share the experience John expresses in the four sensory verbs. There are four levels of fellowship here.62 First there is the fellowship John has with his fellow-apostles.63 Then, there is the fellowship John is inviting his readers to have with him and the other apostles. John then adds a third fellowship, which is much more blessed than these horizontal ones (apostle with apostle and apostles with readers/hearers). Both the apostles and their readers who accept the invitation have a fellowship with the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (1:3)64 who themselves have been in fellowship with one another from the beginning, that is eternity (1:1). This is a wonderful community65 of fellowship (koinōnia).

Where there is the fellowship John has in mind here, heart meets heart in the openness of sharing and sincere support of each other. It begins with those who are themselves “witness bearers” or “announcers.” Using modern language, it starts with the ministers of the gospel. It does not dwell on whether one was a fisherman, tax collector, a tent maker, or whatever else our backgrounds are. It is a fellowship around the joy of salvation and the duty to announce it to others. The competition we see from time to time among those who bear the titles “pastor,” “Bible teacher,” or “bishop” is out of place. It fails miserably in reflecting the business they have been called to. There is eternal fellowship between the Father and the Son, which we are called upon to not only exemplify but also to announce and invite others to. It is a fellowship which leads us to “share all things in common” in the sense that none of us will starve while others feast. In our day, it is an international fellowship since we live in a global village. We are meant to rejoice together and to cry together, to eat together and to starve together—all hearts united to God to please him, and to each other in love. Nevertheless, and as John will show later in disputing some wrong teachings, the fellowship within the context of relationships has as its base the context of belief. This is why John relates this fellowship to the witness on whose bases the facts about the Word of life are reaffirmed. Schnackenburg rightly observes that even in the forward, the author “focuses on the heresy he is combating throughout the letter.”66 This, however, should not be emphasized to the point where it becomes the controlling factor of John’s message here. John’s message is broader than just correcting the heresy. His message is not just corrective of error but much more a reaffirmation of a wonderful blessing that is ours as believers. We have a fellowship whose base is eternal, in the Trinity, and whose completion is achieved by inviting others to enjoy it. We, however, do so as a team, fellowshipping in life of holiness and purity of doctrine.

The readers’ positive response to the witness borne and announcement made becomes an opportunity to increase the joy of the witness bearers. John says, “in order that our joy may have been made full or complete” (hina hē chara hēmōn ē peplērōmenē, 1:4). The use of the verb “complete” or “make full” (plēroun) is deliberate here, with regard to this joy. In other words, it is not that they do not have joy even before the readers’ response. They do, on the basis of their own fellowship with God and Jesus Christ. Until the readers are brought in, however, there is still something missing. Here is a lesson for us. Yes, we need to enjoy the presence of God all the time. However, when we fail to invite others to enjoy that blessing also, the process is not complete. The duty of the believer is not to enjoy and store for oneself, but to enjoy and dispense the same to others, to enjoy also. It is a call to a mission that never ceases as long as we are in the world.

The literal translation of the periphrastic construction ē peplērōmenē in 1:4 is “may have been made complete,”67 that is, by the act of sharing and much more so by the positive response of the hearers. True Christian ministry means rejoicing when we see others grow in their faith. It is a fellowship that leaves out all competition and jealousies. We are not called to build our empires but to bring others to fellowship with God and other members of the community of faith. What a corrective reminder to us serving the Lord in the twenty-first century where we witness all sorts of unhealthy competitions for control and pursuit for personal fame and prosperity!

Inescapable Fact and Its Implication (1:5–10)

(1:5) And this is the message which we have heard from him and we announce to you, that “God is light and in him there is not any darkness at all.”68 (6) If we should say that we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and we do not do the truth (7) But if we should 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 every sin (8) If we should say that we do not have sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us (9) If we should confess our sins, he is so faithful and just that he will forgive69 us the sins and will cleanse70 us from every unrighteousness (10) If we should say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not in us.

This passage revolves around an inescapable fact found in 1:5, namely, “God is light” (ho theos phōs estin). The verb “is” (estin) here makes an assertion that is true at all times. It is a timeless fact.71 This is emphasized by saying the same thing in a different way in the same verse, that is, “and in him, there is not any darkness at all” (kai skotia en autō ouk estin oudemia). Within his being and the sphere in which God dwells, there is no darkness at all.

There is no doubt that “light” and “darkness” are used metaphorically here. Light may be viewed as standing for holiness while darkness stands for sin.72 Simply put, therefore, one may say, “God is holy and in him there is no sin at all.” At one level, sin may be defined as that which is contrary to the will of God, but at another level it can be defined as that which hurts God’s creation.73 God made creation to live in harmony, but it was the intrusion of sin that destroyed that harmony. In the garden of Eden where sin entered into the sphere of humankind (Gen 3; Rom 5:12) there was disobedience for sure but much more so, there was hurt, embarrassment (Gen 3:7, 10) and passing of blame (Gen 3:12, 13). Life of joy, confidence, and oneness were taken away from Adam and Eve. Harmony was also taken away from the rest of creation (Gen 3:17, 18). The rule of God who is light restores this harmony between members of humankind, by way of fellowship with God and with one another.

A further point we can draw from this statement of fact (that is, God is light) is that God cannot deny himself or hurt any of his creation. He keeps his promises and is out to do good to all those prepared to benefit from his fellowship with them. This benefit must also be extended to all his creation. By implication, the Christian duty is not just toward God and to other members of humankind, but also to our environment and all the creation that surrounds us.

Conditions upon which such a relationship can be maintained are spelled out. They are expressed in such a way that they confront the one who assumes this relationship without reflecting on what the inescapable fact about God’s holiness means. At the same time, they also affirm the faithfulness of God in dealing with those who walk in obedience to the will of God.

Three situations are spelled out, hypothetically74 presupposing the manner in which a critic could develop his or her argument to justify his or her behavior contrary to the nature of God. John raises the possible claim and then responds to it, so that the one who is in the wrong corrects his or her way and those who are in the right dig their feet deeper into what is right. Deliberately, John is attacking the false teaching step by step until the wise one has no choice but to correct his or her way, for there is no further argument to justify one’s walk contrary to the will of God.

The first situation is a claim to have fellowship with God while at the same time walking in darkness (1:6). Logically, such a claim is dismissed by the inescapable fact that God is light. How can God in whom there is no darkness at all have fellowship with someone walking in darkness? The two are as far apart as opposite poles of the universe. The verb translated “walking” is in the present tense, meaning it is the habit of such a person. Person of complete holiness and another of habitual sin cannot have fellowship. John says that such a person lies75 and does not do the truth (1:6b). Using the first person plural, since this would apply to anyone who makes such a claim, he says, “we lie [to ourselves] and do not do the truth” (pseudometha kai ou poioumen tēn alētheian). Not doing the truth is a statement of enforcement to “lying.” It says the same thing in a different way. Such a claim is an act of “lie” and not an act of “truth.”

The “lying” and “not doing” the truth also are expressed using the present tense. Treating them both as iterative present, the idea would be that whenever we make such a claim, it amounts to cheating ourselves and not living out what is factual. It is not a judgment about our nature but a statement about the result of a claim that does not meet the qualifications. We can be believers who have been transformed by the blood of Christ but are not living up to expectation. The call would then not be “to conversion” but “to live out a life of the converted.” This is a message for all of us. We must walk out our nature, and our nature is based on the nature of God, which is total holiness. From what John writes and how he argues it out, there must have been some who tended to belittle the matter of sin. When God’s nature is called into the picture, sin is excluded in all its forms and degree. This is not a message for then (John’s time) only but also for us who live in the twenty-first century. Times may change and advancements may be made on many fronts like science and philosophies, but God’s nature never changes from being light to being darkness. This needs to be the glasses through which believers of all centuries examine the trends of their times.

To avoid refuting the claim and not give a positive statement, John goes on to indicate what blessings are ours if we walk in the light as God is in the light (1:7). The blessings include fellowship with one another (koinōnian echomen met’ allēlōn, “we have fellowship with one another”) and cleansing from every sin by Jesus’ blood (to haima Iesou tou hyiou autou katharizei hēmas apo pasēs hamartias, “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from every sin”). Those who walk in the light are not only in God’s likeness but are also like-minded.76 Persons who are like-minded live in harmony with each other. This state may not be one of perfection in relationships, but whenever there is a failure, it is followed by confession and, as a result, a cleansing from sin and movement forward.77 The community of faith is expected to be on the move toward glorification. This is possible as we walk in the light, enjoy our fellowship with each other, and deal with sin whenever it occurs, through cleansing of Jesus’ blood.

Members of humankind, in many parts of the world, are experiencing some degree of enmity with each other. Some areas have conflicts that have lasted for many years and the end of such conflicts does not seem to be in sight. Relating properly to God who is light, and seeking to do his will, is key to bringing about fellowship among members of humankind. The believers are called upon to set the example since they have a continuing fellowship with God the Father and God the Son (1:3). This fellowship is then lived out in our daily interaction with each other.

The second situation John refutes is the claim not to have sin (1:8). Again, using the first person plural he responds to the ones who may make the claim “we do not have sin” (hamartian ouk echomen). It is like John is imagining that the critic he is dealing with here will respond to his mention of our sins being cleansed with a statement that he or she does not have sin to be cleansed. John points out that such a claim is self-deception (heautous planōmen, “we deceive ourselves”) and lack of truth (hē alētheia ouk estin en hēmin, “the truth is not in us”). Just as the one who makes the first claim above is lying to self, so also the one who makes this second claim. Instead of repeating that such a person does not do the truth, however, John intensifies the situation as he says, the truth is not in such person. It is not only that the act is not according to the truth but also the total character is one that lacks truth.

Upon refuting this claim, John provides the positive statement, “if we confess our sins, God is faithful and righteous” (1:9) and will give to us the blessings of forgiveness (hina aphē hēmin tas hamartias, “that he will forgive us, with reference to the sins”78) and cleansing from unrighteousness (kai katharisē hēmas apo pasēs adikias, “and will cleanse us from every unrighteousness”). The Greek word translated “confess” is homologeō and it means, “I say as it is.” It does not leave room for beating about the bush. It is a confession whose basis is clear knowledge of God’s nature as light. When there is such knowledge, our response becomes like that of Isaiah as recorded in Isa 6:5. Those who open themselves, exposing the nakedness of their souls before God, always receive his forgiveness. The forgiveness is not based on how big or small the act of sin is. It is based on our humble confession, which then receives response from faithful and righteous God.

Describing God as faithful asserts that he keeps what he promises. We do not approach him just to find that he changed his mind on what he has promised. He is also righteous. He does what is right. He would never punish anyone for doing right or approve an act of sin. His deeds and his nature are consistent at all times.

The third and final claim John refutes here is the claim not to have sinned (ouch hēmartēkamen, “we have not sinned”) found in 1:10. The situation is one in which after John has indicated the availability of forgiveness, the critic responds by saying that no act of sin has been committed so as to be forgiven. John sees two problems with such a claim: (1) we make God a liar, and (2) the word of God is not in us. The Scripture is very clear on the matter of all those who have been born by Adam and Eve (and this includes all members of humankind) being participants in sin. They are not only sinners by way of their own individual acts of sin (sin being defined as all that does not measure to the level of God’s perfect nature as light) but also by virtue of having the touch of Adam and Eve—the grandparents of all of us. Theological debates may not be settled whether this passing on of sin from Adam and Eve to us is by way of representation or other,79 but the fact that the sin has been passed on is expressed in the Bible without ambiguity (Pss 14:2, 3; 51:5; 130:3; 143:2; Rom 3:10–18; 5:12). To make the claim that one has not sinned, therefore, amounts to saying that God tells lies and also a failure to listen to the word of God. There is no escape except by way of confessing our sins. When confession has been done, forgiveness from faithful and righteous God is guaranteed. What an opportunity to enjoy fellowship with God, even from our weak point!

Summary of the Three Claims Refuted

The Claim	Consequences	Remedy	Blessings	Verses
Fellowship with God while living in darkness	Lie to ourselvesNot do the truth	Walk in the light	Fellowship with one anotherCleansing from sin	1:6, 7
We do not have sin	Deceive ourselvesTruth not in us	Confess sins	ForgivenessCleansing fromunrighteousness	1:8, 9
We have notsinned	Make God a liarHis word not in us	–	–	1:10

The Intended Goal—Not to Sin (2:1–6)

(2:1) My little children, I write these things to you in order that you might not sin. And if anyone should sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; (2) and he (himself) is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. (3) And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments. (4) The one who says, “I have known him” and does not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; (5) but whoever keeps his word, truly in him the love of God has been perfected. By this we know that we are in him; (6) the one who claims to remain in him ought also to walk just as he himself walked.

After addressing his readers as “my little children” (teknia mou) in 2:1, John tells them the reason for his writing as “in order that you might not sin” (hina mē hamartēte). The use of the aorist tense here (hamartēte) could be deliberate, to communicate that his purpose for writing is that the readers would not do an act of sin.80 Elsewhere in the epistle, John uses present tense verbs as he disassociates the believer from sin. In 3:6, using the present tense hamartanei, he says, “Everyone who remains in him does not sin” (pas ho en autō menōn ouch hamartanei), and in 3:9 uses both the present tenses poiei and hamartanein as he says, “Everyone who has been born of God does not do sin . . . is not able to sin” (pas ho gegennēmenos ek tou theou hamartian ou poiei . . . ou dunatai hamartanein). As it will be shown when these passages are discussed below, John is asserting that a believer cannot sin as a matter of habit. In his use of aorist tense in 2:1, he is seeing the goal of obeying God’s word as freedom from sin. However, John cannot by this assertion be denying that even the believer has the inherited sinful nature. If he said this, he would be denying his own statement in 1:8. The point rather is that the believer and sin belong to two different spheres. This is in view of who God is (light, and in him there is no sin—1:5) and who believers are (persons in fellowship with God—1:3). Sin is, therefore, not to be perceived as mere disobedience to some set of rules, but a failure to respond in any given situation in a manner that corresponds to God being light.81

John hastens to acknowledge that total freedom from sin may not be a possible experience in this life and so pronounces provision for that act of sin, which a believer may find it to be his or her experience from time to time. He states, in 2:1b, “and if anyone should sin, we have an advocate with the Father” (kai ean tis hamartē, paraklēton echomen pros ton patera). His work as our advocate82 is that he stands in our place so that we are not consumed by the holy God. He stood for us on the cross, and on the basis of the blood he shed to cleanse our sins (1:9) he stands even now when we sin and confess that sin.83 John identifies this advocate as “Jesus Christ the righteous.” The use of the adjective “righteous” (dikaios) here is important. It is because he has no case of his own84 to answer before the court of heaven that he can serve as our advocate. At a secondary level, the quality of being righteous can also be applied to the manner in which he dispenses his services. He does not only qualify before God who is light, but also serves his clients (us) faithfully. We at times hear of advocates who have not passed on to their clients whatever the courts of justice awarded to them. Not advocate Jesus Christ! As Yarbrough puts it, “There is no chance that what he urges in God’s presence will be rejected” and “those who look to him for advocacy can be assured that he will do the right thing.”85

In 2:2 John further describes Jesus as “propitiation for our sins” (hilasmos . . . peri tōn hamartiōn hēmōn). The meaning of the term hilasmos is debated. It is, for example, translated propitiation here (also, NKJB and NASB), expiation (NRSV), or sacrifice of atonement (NIV). The basis of the debate is that the word propitiation focuses on the fact that God is appeased (and by implication he was wrathful), while expiation focuses on sins’ removal, tying it especially with the function of the mercy seat86 within the Old Testament’s economy of redemption. The NIV’s choice (sacrifice of atonement) could be influenced by the fact that both ideas are facts, in view of Scripture. God’s wrath against sin is real (Rom 1:18) and removal of sin (1:9) is the act by which God’s attitude changes from one of wrath to that of fellowship with the believer. While the context here seems to favor more the act of appeasing God (it goes well with his work as advocate) the idea of expiation should not be totally lost. It is because sins have been removed that God is appeased. These intertwined functions make Yarbrough translate the term (hilasmos) as “expiatory propitiation.”87 One of them (expiation) is basis of the other (propitiation) and the other is a guaranteed outcome of the first.

John says that the sins in question here is not only our (believers’) but peri holou tou kosmou (“for the whole world”). Jesus died for me in particular and for everyone else in general. As commonly put in theology, the death of Jesus was and is sufficient for every sin, but only efficient for sins that are confessed. It is the basis upon which God has extended, and continues to extend, “patience and forbearance to those who merit his rejection.”88 It satisfied the demands against everyone who comes by faith to accept him as hilasmos (basis for removal of sin and restoration of fellowship with God).

With the matter made clear who Jesus is to us as believers (that is, paraklētos and hilasmos) John goes on to state how our knowledge of him may be tested. It is “if we keep his commandments” (ean tas entolas autou tērōmen, 2:3). In fact, John continues and says that the one who claims this knowledge and does not keep his commandments “is a liar and the truth is not in him” (pseustēs estin kai en toutō hē alētheia ouk estin, 2:4). This is because the commandments are rooted in the will of God and the provision of Jesus as advocate and propitiation is part of that will. To know Jesus means that we will seek to do the will of God, which in summary is to be like Christ. The knowledge spoken of here is not just “knowledge about” but “knowledge in experience.”89 One cannot have close experience with God through Jesus and still disregard the importance of keeping his commandments. This may not mean perfection, but the heart’s determination to please God. Such determination causes us to confess any imperfection that sets into our lives. It is such determination that makes the Scriptures describe David as a man after God’s heart (Acts 13:22, quoting 1 Sam 13:14) even when we know that he failed miserably at some point (2 Sam 11). God does not deal with us in wrath when we have not achieved perfection, so long as our hearts strive for perfection because he is our God.

On the other hand is the one who keeps the commandments (2:5a). John uses “whoever” (hos an) to imply that God does not shut anyone out of the blessings that go with the act of keeping the commandments. Concerning such a person, John says, “truly in him the love of God has been perfected” (alēthōs en toutō hē agapē tou theou teteleiōtai). While the genitive tou theou (of God), describing love, could be the love that God has toward such a person (subjective genitive90) or even a love like that which God exercises (qualitative genitive91), it is better to treat it here as the love the person who keeps God’s commandments has toward God (objective genitive).92 Later on (see under 2:15) John contrasts our love for the world and our love for the Father (using another genitive, hē agapē tou patros—“the love of the Father”) and is in order to treat it here (2:5) in the same way. At least, there is nothing within the context here that makes that choice unviable. Using human illustration here, when one tells another person “I love you” it is appreciated. However, it is not complete until the statement has been applied in actual life situations. In the same way also, the one who says he or she loves God. That claim must be made full or perfect by pleasing God, the object of that love.93 It is by loving God that we can be assured that we remain in him (2:5b). Our mystical union with God is based on clearly set conditions: keeping his commandments94—a natural outcome of knowledge, and appreciation of who Jesus is.

John finishes the section with a specific instruction (2:6) for anyone who claims to remain in this fellowship with God and Jesus Christ. He says that such a person “ought to walk95 just as he himself walked”96 (opheilei kathōs ekeinos periepatēsen kai autos [houtōs] peripatein). This is a clear statement of our need to pursue Christlikeness. Jesus conducted himself before the Father and in relationship to human beings in a manner that was all pure. Remaining in this fellowship means conducting ourselves in the same manner. Should this be achieved, it would be a life of sinlessnes (which John, in 2:1, said was his goal for writing). Since our experiences tell us that we still have to wait for glorification of our beings before we attain perfection, what we can confidently affirm is to seek to be like Christ. When we fail, Jesus is our advocate and we will be given a second chance. Perfection, however, is our goal and the march must always be on.

Christ’s walk of perfect obedience was crowned with death, on our behalf, on the cross. This was the highest degree of expression of love (John 10:11; 15:13; 1 John 3:16). It is not surprising, therefore, that this statement ushers in the theme of love among followers of Christ.

The Ageless Commandment—Old Yet New (2:7–17)

(2:7) Beloved ones, I do not write to you a new commandment but an old commandment which you have had from beginning; the commandment which is old is the word which you heard. (8) Again, a new commandment I write to you, which is true in him and in you, because darkness is passing away and the light which is true is shining already. (9) The person who claims to be in the light and hates his brother (or sister) is in darkness until now. (10) The one who loves his brother (or sister) remains in the light and there is no stumbling block in him or her (11) but the one who hates his brother (or sister) is in darkness and in darkness he (or she) walks and has not known where he (or she) is going, because the darkness has blinded97 his (or her) eyes.

(12) I write to you, children,

because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name

(13) I write to you fathers,

because you have known the one from the beginning

I write to you young men,

because you have overcome the evil one.

(14) I write98 to you children,

because you have known the Father.

I write to you fathers,

because you have known the one from the beginning.

I write to you young men,

because you are strong

and the word of God remains in you

and you have overcome the evil one.

(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 (16) because everything in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world (17) And the world and its lusts pass away, but the person who does the will of God remains forever.

Having mentioned the need to keep God’s commandments (2:3–6) John now focuses on one of these commandments, namely, the commandment of love. Two objects are the focus of the love John is writing to promote here. There is the love toward a brother or sister (contrasted with hating) and there is the love toward the Father (contrasted with love of the world and what goes with it)

Love Toward a Brother or Sister

After addressing his readers as “beloved” (agapētoi)99 in 2:7a, John goes on to tell them that he is writing to them about a commandment. He gives the commandment the qualities of being both old (2:7) and new (2:8). It is old because his readers have had it from the beginning100 (hēn eichete ap’ archēs) and is by definition the word which they had already heard (hē entolē hē palaia estin ho logos hon ēkousate). At the same time, it is new (2:8). Its newness is most likely to be seen in the example of Christ101 who John has described as hilasmos for our sins (2:2). Jesus himself said that there is no greater love than one laying down his or her life for another (John 15:13). As hilasmos, Jesus did exactly this and so remains a supreme example of the act of love. John says that the practice of this commandment is true in Jesus and in the readers.102 He gives the basis for this conclusion as that darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining (2:8b). Jesus had said that he is the light103 of the world (John 9:5) and the readers have him as their Savior and Lord and so are living in his light. Where that light is in charge, there is love and not hatred. John writes to enhance this love as he encourages his readers to live in fellowship with God who is also described as light (1:5).

John moves on to give a clue as to what commandment he is talking about here by responding to the possible claim104 of being in the light and not loving a brother or sister (2:9–11). The one who hates his brother or sister “is in darkness (en tē skotia estin105—repeated in 2:9, 11) until now” (heōs arti), even when he or she claims to be in the light. He or she is not only in darkness (sphere) but also “walks in darkness” (kai en tē skotia peripatei) and “does not know where he or she is going” (kai ouk oiden pou hupagei). The hating here is a continual practice (present tense misōn), the walking a continual act (present tense peripatei), and the ignorance a current status (the perfect tense oiden, used with the negative particle ouk). John gives the basis for the present status of such a person as that “the darkness has blinded106 his eyes” (hoti hē skotia etuphlōsen tous ophthalmous autou). If the act of hating puts one into the sphere of darkness (2:9) and in God there is no darkness (1:5), it means that the one who hates is not in God’s company. He or she has not known that the Christian walk is one of light (here shown by loving) and its destination is the city of holiness (Rev 21:22–27). The one who hates is not ready for heaven. Darkness clouds his or her eyes not to see the beauty of walking with God, enjoying his fellowship now and in eternity.

So as not to appear to be talking to only the person who makes the unacceptable claim, John also affirms the one who loves107 (2:10). The one who loves (as a habit, present tense agapōn) his brother (or sister) remains in the light (continual status) and in him is no stumbling block (another continual status). The stumbling block is that which can trip him or her from living in fellowship with God and with others.108 John’s words here are like calling to mind the verse “love covers a multitude of sins” (Prov 10:12; 1 Pet 4:8). When we love someone, we shall not do him or her harm of any kind. Love serves as a catalyst to keep us in the light, which is God’s sphere of existence.

While in 2:7–11 John tells his readers what he is writing to them, in 2:12–14 he tells them why he is writing (see discussion of this below). In summary, they have the qualification needed so as to be able to absorb what he is saying into their character. This is an important point because a repetition of the love commandment to a people who do not have that potential amounts to wasting of time. It is only the believer who can exercise the kind of love John is talking about here. It is a love that does not categorize people into classes for purpose of excluding some from love, not even into “enemies” and “friends” categories (Matt 5:43–48) and it is a love that permeates every aspect of one’s life.

John now addresses his readers using three classifications: little children (teknia, 2:12a), fathers (pateres, 2:13a), and young men (neaniskoi, 2:13b), which he repeats in 2:14 using the same classification except he now uses paidia and not teknia for children. These three verses (2:12–14) raise some interesting exegetical questions, including:

1. Are the classifications of children (teknia, paidia), fathers (pateres), and young men (neaniskoi) pointing to their level in physical age or in spiritual maturity, if either of the two?

2. Is there a difference between the two Greek words John uses for children here? That is, are teknia and paidia synonymous or does each have its own focus?

3. Why does John repeat the content of 2:12–13 in 2:14, with some of what he says to the group being exactly the same in both cases?

4. Why does he use the present tense, graphō, in the first set (2:12–13) and aorist tense, egrapsa, in the second set in 2:14?

Concerning the classification into children, fathers, and young men, the majority of scholars view these to be classification on their stage in Christian experience.109 The “children” represents those who have been born into the Christian faith recently (probably both teknia and paidia being used for this group) or have not moved far in their spiritual growth even if they have had many years of belonging to the family of God. The young men represent those believers whose lives show clear evidence of victory in facing temptations and trials, while the fathers represent those who have many years of experience walking in the path of wisdom and fear of God.110 They have come to know and teach that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Prov 1:7) and can counsel others about the same on basis of their experience.111

Another approach, still under the spiritual experience classification, is to view the use of “children” (both teknia and paidia) as standing for all believers and the “young men” and “fathers” representing two levels in spiritual growth.112 Brown,113 who supports this position, sees the beauty of it as that once the entire community has been addressed as children (in both sets) the order of “fathers” and “young men” follows naturally (as opposed to the order: “children,” “fathers,” and “young men” if one took it to be three groups). To this can also be added the observation that John uses both teknia and paidia in contexts in which it is the whole community in view (2:1, 18, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21).114 However, the use of a word in different senses within the same document is not an impossibility. For example, John can use teknia as all inclusive in some passages (see above) while in a different context use it as distinct from other groups. Here, he uses it alongside neaniskoi (young men) and pateres (fathers) and this could be an indicator of a different usage from places where it includes all believers.

As for the use of the two Greek words for children, teknia and paidia, it seems like John is using them interchangeably to refer to all his readers. He uses teknia in 2:1, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; and 5:21 in a manner that parallels his use of paidia in 2:18. If this be the case, and it is reasonable that it is, we can also say that it is the same group of people he has in mind when he uses the two words in this passage (2:12 and 2:14) though now using it specifically for those who have come to faith recently so that he can draw attention also to those who have been growing spiritually for sometime, that is the neanisikoi and the pateres. John is probably using the two (teknia and paidia) for purpose of minimizing monotony, just as he may be doing in changing the tense from present to aorist (see discussion below). The dictionary115 meaning for the two words are “little child” for paidion (being diminutive of, and related to pais which covers ages of 7–14 years) and “little child” for teknion (being a diminitive of and related to teknon, which sees it from the standpoint of origin or birth). The contextual meaning seems to support this interchangeability in meaning. If there is any slight difference to be drawn between the two, it may simply be that teknion does not only communicate the “littleness” but also denotes affection. Moulton and Milligan note that teknon, of which teknion is a diminutive, may also be used “as a form of kindly address, even in the case of grown-up persons.”116 Jesus used teknia for his disciples in John 13:33 and it is the same word (tekna) that is used when reference is made to believers as belonging to the family of God (5:2).

The repetition of the thoughts here in two pairs of three is striking. For the “fathers,” for example, he repeats in 2:14 exactly what he said to them in 2:13: “you have known the one from (the) beginning” (egnōkate ton ap’ archēs) and for the young men he says exactly the same thing in 2:13 and 2:14: “you have overcome the evil one” (nenikēkate ton ponēron). It is not strange for John, as a Jew, to be repeating these thoughts for the purpose of emphasis. This was a feature of a Jewish style of communication of matters that need to be stressed. Describing this passage as the “most rhetorically structured” Jobes sees the passage as patterned after Hebrew parallelism.117 Lieu also sees the purpose of the variation as “to drive the point home.”118

It would be unnecessary to argue that John sees the spiritual experience of each group as exclusively theirs. However, we do see some progression here, especially if we take the three categories of “children,” “young men,” and “fathers” as implying different stages in spiritual growth. For the children (teknia/paidia) there are both the experiences of forgiveness of sin (“your sins have been forgiven on account of his name,” apheōntai humin hai hamartiai dia to onoma autou, 2:12b) and knowledge of the Father (“you have known the Father,” egnōkate ton patera, 2:14a). The spiritual journey of the believer starts with forgiveness of sin. John had told his readers in 1:8 that a denial of having sin is a deception of self. A believer is one who has come to that point where he or she has said, “I am a sinner” and in faith “confessed sin” (1:9) and then received the blessings of Jesus being his or her hilasmos (propitiation, 2:2) or the means by which God now turns his face toward him or her as a Father. It brings a new experience of not just knowing that God exists out there somewhere but a relationship John describes as “knowledge of.” It is deeper than knowledge about. It includes a personal experience of how this person is like.119 This knowledge comes on account of Jesus’ name. It is when we go before God and use the name of Jesus as the basis for God’s acceptance of us that we get to know God in this way. This is because by ourselves alone we cannot stand before God who is light (1:5), but on account of Jesus who is righteous (2:1) we can begin this experiential knowledge with God. By implication, taking the meaning of hoti in these three verses as causal120 (the reason why he writes), those he refers to as children are standing on a first step from which they can move on into the depths of the things he is writing. Their status121 is one of a “forgiven people” and “living in experience with God as Father.”

The second level is that of the young men (neaniskoi) though John mentions them last in both listings. Three things are said about them. They are overcomers (“you have overcome the evil one,” nenikēkate ton ponēron, 2:13, 14), they are strong (“you are strong,” ischuroi este, 2:14) and they are obedient (“the word of God remains in you,” ho logos tou theou en humin menei, 2:14). John uses a perfect tense, nenikēkate, for their victory. The perfect is to be understood as intensive. They have attained the status of being victors. He uses a present tense, este, for their being strong. This is also their status, taking the present tense here as perfective. Its focus is the reality of past action. The more battles they have won, the more spiritual strength they have acquired. John can evaluate them and say “you are strong” and on that basis, I know I am not wasting time as I exhort you on the issues I am writing to you about. The present tense menei translated as “remains” can be taken as a durative present. As their general habit, they allow the word of God to control their lives. This has helped them to achieve what they are now (conquerors and strong) and forms a good basis for what John is writing to them about. The phrase “the word of God” (ho logos122 tou theou) is making reference to the will of God as expressed in the Scriptures as his readers knew it. God has revealed it for the believer to be led by it. Jesus’ victory over the evil one as recorded in Matt 4:1–11 and Luke 4:1–13 is a clear demonstration on the centrality of God’s word in being conquerors. This is a clear reminder of the relationship between the place we give to the word of God and the victory we are able to attain. Paul in Eph 6:17 refers to the word of God (rhema theou) as the sword of the Spirit (machaira tou pneumatos). God has given or spoken the word (taking theou as genitive of source) and the Spirit uses the word (taking pneumatos as subjective genitive) to enable us to win the battle.

“Fathers” is the third level and John describes them twice but in the exact same way. They have known the one from the beginning (“you have known the one from the beginning,” egnōkate ton ap’ archēs, 2:13, 14). They have the experience of walking with him. Whether the one from the beginning is God the Father or God the Son makes no difference.123 Knowledge of one is knowledge of the other (John 14:7–11).

Taking the three verses together we note that John writes to the “children” because:

1. Their sins have been forgiven on account of his name (2:12b)

2. They have known the Father (2:14a)

He writes to the “Fathers” because:

1. They have known the one from the beginning (2:13a)

2. The same is repeated exactly in 2:14b

He writes to the “young men” because:

1. They have overcome the evil one (2:13b)

2. They are strong (2:14c)

3. The word of God remains in them (2:14c)

4. Exact repetition of no. 1 above, in 2:14c

Whether one views these classifications as referring to the same group of people from different perspectives or to three different groups, each of them has come to the level of believing in Jesus. By virtue of that experience, they are able to appreciate the command of love John writes to them in this section.

The fourth issue of using the present tense (graphō) in the first set (2:12–13) but the aorist tense (egrapsa) in the second set (2:14) also calls for comment. The literal translation of graphō is “I write” or “I am writing” and that of egrapsa is “I wrote.” While the present tense, graphō, is clear John means this epistle (1 John), the aorist tense, egrapsa, can imply that John had written another epistle earlier, to these same readers.124 This, however, is not necessary because it is not uncommon for a writer to write either within the perspective of where he/she sits as the writing is taking place or the perspective of the reader when he/she is reading the already written letter. This means that a writer can use “I write” and “I wrote” while referring to the same letter, depending on the glasses he/she has on at a given time. In the Greek language studies, this use of the aorist tense is referred to as “epistolary aorist”125 and this is what we most likely have here (2:14). This is why the NIV, for example, uses “I write” in both sets of statements even though the Greek has two different tenses. This provision in the Greek language can be utilized simply for purpose of variation or emphasis. As Kruse says, the use of both present and aorist tenses here probably serves “as a stylic device to heighten the rhetorical effect of what he is writing.”126

Love Toward the Father

John is not only interested in his believing readers exercising the horizontal love but also the vertical love. In fact, it is the vertical relationship (with God) that makes it possible to have harmonious relationship with other persons.

The love of the Father is expressed within the context of prohibition not to love things that would strangle the love of the Father. This calls to mind Jesus’ words that one cannot serve two masters (Matt 6:24). John tells his readers, “Do not love the world nor the things in the world” (2:15, mē agapate ton kosmon mēde ta en tō kosmō). The prohibition here is expressed using mē and present imperative,127 and this allows for the possibility that John’s readers (at least some) were already at fault in this matter.128 John, however, tells them that love for the world and the things in it (kosmos here understood as that system which is in opposition to the things of God129) excludes love of the Father. He says, “If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (ean tis agapa ton kosmon, ouk estin hē agapē tou patros en autō, 2:15b). The use of the third class condition here (projecting a possible situation, and not asserting a particular occurrence as a first class condition would130) does not necessarily mean that the prohibition above cannot be an actual happening for some of his readers. He could here be stating the general principle that would apply to anyone if the condition is allowed so as to enforce the prohibition as it actually affected some. The genitive “of the Father” (tou patros) is here best taken as objective genitive. The one who loves the world is not able to love the Father also. There is a choice one must make for the two cannot go together. The reason for this exclusion is that what is in the world does not come from the Father (ouk estin ek tou patros). It is not his will. Specifically, what is in the world, in this negative usage, include, “lust of the flesh,” “lust of the eyes,” and “pride of life” (hē epithumia tēs sarkos kai hē epithumia tōn ophthalmōn kai hē alazoneia tou biou, 2:16)