At the time John wrote this letter, there were many false teachers. The writings of Irenaeus (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book I, chapter XXIV, paragraph 4; chapter XXV, paragraph 4; chapter XXVI, paragraph 1) in the second century may provide a glimpse of the false doctrines that were being spread toward the close of the first century.
According to Irenaeus, Cerinthus, a contemporary of the apostle John, “represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.”
Concerning a certain Basilides, who lived during this general period, Irenaeus said that he taught the following about Jesus: “…he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all.”
The false teachers regarded themselves as possessing special enlightenment and as being superior to Christians generally. They looked down upon those not sharing their “deeper knowledge.” Basilides, for example, viewed one who believed that Jesus was put to death as being “still a slave.” Clearly, men such as these had no love for the genuine Christian brotherhood.
By reason of their claimed exalted spiritual state, certain ones contended that even the most atrocious deeds committed with their bodies had no bearing on what they were inside. They did not acknowledge the seriousness of sin. Irenaeus wrote regarding the followers of Carpocrates: “So unbridled is their madness, that they declare they have in their power all things which are irreligious and impious, and are at liberty to practice them; for they maintain that things are evil or good, simply in virtue of human opinion. They deem it necessary, therefore, that by means of transmigration from body to body, souls should have experience of every kind of life as well as every kind of action (unless, indeed, by a single incarnation, one may be able to prevent any need for others, by once for all, and with equal completeness, doing all those things which we dare not either speak or hear of, nay, which we must not even conceive in our thoughts, nor think credible, if any such thing is mooted among those persons who are our fellow-citizens).”
John’s letter filled a vital need, exposing the views of false teachers by setting forth the truth in an uncomplicated, straightforward manner. He developed the following points: Jesus Christ did indeed come in the flesh. A failure to show love for one’s brother proves that one is not enlightened but is walking in darkness. An inner change effected by God’s spirit is manifest in the purity of the outward life. It does matter how the fleshly body is used. A life of sin is incompatible with one’s having fellowship with the Father, his Son, and other children of God.
Which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we viewed and our hands touched — [this is] concerning the word of life.
The pronoun (hó, which) is neuter and refers to the “word” (lógos). Before his coming to the earth, “the word of life” was unknown to humans as the unique Son of God. Perhaps, therefore, John may have chosen the less definite neuter pronoun instead of the masculine pronoun applying to the “word.”
This one was “from the beginning,” indicating his being with God in the infinite past or before the start of creation. (Compare Genesis 1:1; John 1:1; Hebrews 7:3.) This link to the beginning was not a new thought. In the prophecy regarding the coming of the Messiah from Bethlehem, the Septuagint (Micah 5:2) reads, hai éxodoi autoú ap’ archés ex hemerón aiónos (his goings forth [are] from [the] beginning, from [the] days of eternity.)
Hearing is commonly the way in which one initially becomes aware of another’s presence. (Compare Revelation 1:12.) It is one means for verifying a reality. John had personally heard the voice of the “word of life.” When using the first person plural verb for “heard,” “seen,” “viewed,” and “touched,” he may have included all others who shared the experience.
John wrote, “we have seen with our eyes.” By the sense of sight, the reality of the “word of life” was verified.
Seeing can be both voluntary and involuntary. The next term (theáomai) evidently conveys the thought of deliberate seeing or an attentive looking, or contemplation.
Finally, the reality of the “word of life” was established by the sense of touch. So, in ascending order of actual experience — hearing, seeing, viewing, and feeling, handling, or touching — the fact that the “word of life” had come in the flesh stood solidly confirmed.
The designation “word” (lógos) here seems to have the same significance as in John 1:1, identifying the One whom the Father used in communicating his will and message, the One who came to be known as Jesus Christ. In being called “the word of life,” he is the “word” who is also the “life” or the One through whom life is imparted. (Compare John 14:6.) This life is not mere existence. It is the real life, the fullness of life enjoyed by those having an approved standing with God by reason of their faith in Jesus Christ.
And the life was made visible, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made visible to us.
The main focus appears to be on “the life.” From this verse onward, the expression “life,” not “word of life,” is used. This “life” was made manifest or visible when the “word” became flesh. (John 1:14) John and others who saw Jesus Christ could therefore provide eyewitness testimony, proclaiming to those who were not eyewitnesses the historical truth about the “eternal life” which was with the Father and had been made visible to them.
In the life of Jesus Christ — his words and deeds — the real life (the eternal life) and how it could be attained was clearly in evidence. Accordingly, the testimony of John and other eyewitnesses was a proclamation of the “eternal life.”
Note: The Greek word rendered “with” (prós) is apparently to be understood as being indicative of an interrelationship.
Which we have seen and heard we are proclaiming also to you that you too may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship, moreover, [is] with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
The announcement or proclamation to those addressed rested on firsthand seeing and hearing. Its purpose was that those addressed might share fully with those who had participated in this firsthand experience.
Besides enjoying fellowship with one another, the believers being addressed (as children of God and brothers of Christ) shared fellowship with the Father and his Son.
And this we are writing that our joy may be complete.
The Greek literally reads, “this we are writing — we — that our joy may be complete.” Because the verb gráphomen is the first person plural form of “write,” the pronoun “we” would seem to be superfluous. This “we” (hemeís), however, appears in the oldest extant manuscripts, fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Perhaps the verb points to John’s doing the writing, whereas the “we” served to indicate that he was speaking representatively for all eyewitnesses. For John and other eyewitnesses, their joy would not be complete until others, by responding in faith to the message, came to share in this joy with them. Later manuscripts, though, read, “we are writing to you so that your joy may be complete.” Seemingly, copyists would be more likely to conclude that the reference was to the resulting joy of the readers and would therefore be inclined to change “we” to “you” and “our” to “your.”
And this is the message that we have heard from him and are proclaiming to you, that God is light and in him no darkness at all exists.
John and other eyewitnesses had heard the message from the One who had been made visible to them. The accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John about the life and activity of Jesus Christ do not contain the words, “God is light.” Nevertheless, the words and actions of God’s Son revealed that his Father is “light” — pure, clean, or holy — in the absolute sense. Not even the slightest taint of darkness — evil, depravity, corruption, ignorance, impurity, or uncleanness — exists in him. The Greek uses two negatives, emphasizing the totality of the separation from darkness (ouk [not] and oudemía [none, not at all]).
If we say that we have fellowship with him and are walking in the darkness, we are lying and not practicing the truth.
Persons claiming to have fellowship with God while “walking in darkness” or conducting themselves in a manner associated with darkness (impurity, uncleanness, or corruption) would be lying, guilty of self-deception. They would not be practicing or living the truth (conforming to the divine standard for upright conduct based on faith in God’s Son).
But if we are walking in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son purifies us from all sin.
All whose course of life is characteristic of light (purity, cleanness, or uprightness) enjoy fellowship or a relationship with all others who are walking in the light. That walk, though, is not flawless, requiring the cleansing that only Jesus Christ’s blood can effect. His blood cleanses repentant ones from all sin or any defilement resulting from a failure to meet the divine standard of holiness in thought, word, and action. Sin is a missing of the mark of complete conformity to God’s will. It is a failure to walk flawlessly in the light as God himself is in the light.
If we say that we do not have sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
For individuals to assert that they have no sin would be sheer self-deception and a complete denial of the truth. It would prove that the truth Jesus Christ revealed by his words and actions and which prompts noble thoughts, words, and deeds had not become an integral part of the being of those asserting they were without sin.
Note: After “truth” (alétheia), a number of later manuscripts add “of God” (toú theoú).
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous so that he would forgive us [our] sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
If we confess our sins, we can rest assured of complete forgiveness. This is because God is faithful, dependable or trustworthy. He has declared that forgiveness is possible on the basis of his Son’s shed blood, and we can have absolute confidence in his word. The Father is also just or righteous. Having promised to be forgiving and merciful to repentant sinners, he will grant forgiveness, thereby manifesting his righteousness. Because he will never deviate from being trustworthy respecting his word and just in granting what he has promised, we can depend on his forgiveness.
Note: Fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and numerous later manuscripts (in the second occurrence) read “our sins” (hamartías hemón).
If we say that we have not sinned, we are making him a liar, and his word is not in us.
For individuals to claim that they have not sinned would constitute a denial of the need for an arrangement to have their sins forgiven. Accordingly, this would mean that a redeemer and the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ were wholly unnecessary. Such a denial of having sinned would make God out to be a liar. By having his Son die for the world of mankind, the Father testified to the reality of sin. His arrangement for forgiveness of sin on the basis of his Son’s sacrifice is predicated on the the existence of sin in all humans. Therefore, a denial of sin slanders God. The deposit of divinely revealed truth (particularly as it relates to Jesus Christ) could not be in possession of those making themselves guilty of such slander. This deposit of truth would not be an energizing or motivating power in their lives.
My little children, these things I am writing you that you may not sin. And if someone should sin, we have a paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous one.
The diminutive form of the Greek word for “children” (teknía) is a term of affection and may be rendered “little children” or “dear children.” After having pointed out that the blood of God’s Son makes purifying from all unrighteousness possible, John emphasized that what he had written served as encouragement for his readers not to sin. If they did sin, however, they had a paraclete, a helper, an intercessor, or an advocate “with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous one.” As the unique Son of God, he enjoys an intimate relationship with his Father, and his righteousness is absolute. Because he is righteous, his intercession for repentant sinners always receives his Father’s favorable attention. (Compare James 5:16.)
Note:. As in 1:2, the Greek preposition prós (with) evidently points to an interrelationship.
And he is expiation for our sins, not for ours alone but also for the whole world’s.
The Greek word hilasmós is often rendered “propitiation,” a significance that may originally have been influenced by the Vulgate. The English word is, in fact, derived from Latin. The term suggests that God has to be placated or appeased, and many commentators have expressed the thought that Christ experienced the force of his Father’s wrath directed against sin when he died sacrificially. In the passage itself, however, there is no mention of divine anger. So it seems more appropriate to view the Greek word as denoting the means by which forgiveness of sins is made possible, with the focus being on God’s love for sinful humans. (John 3:16; Romans 5:6-8) Lending further support to this is the fact that the Septuagint uses the term to denote “atonement,” “expiation” (Leviticus 25:9), “forgiveness” (Psalm 130:4 [129:4, LXX]), and “sin offering” (Ezekiel 44:27).
Jesus Christ is the expiation or the means of atoning for our sins. Possessing only imputed righteousness, believers continue to need the atoning benefits of Christ’s sacrifice to be applied to them. He is, however, not just the “expiation” for believers. The entire world of mankind is sinful and in urgent need of forgiveness. Accordingly, the “expiation” is available to the whole world, but only persons accepting it, in faith, receive the benefits.
And by this we know that we do know him, if we heed his commands.
The expression en toúto (in this, by this) introduces the words that follow — “if we heed his commands.” Obedience to his commandments provides the basis for confirming that we know “him.”
The pronoun “him” could refer to Jesus Christ or to the Father. In this letter, there are specific references to God’s commands (5:2, 3), providing a basis for concluding that “him” could apply to the Father. A number of translations even make this explicit. “When we obey God, we are sure that we know him.” (CEV) “We know that we have come to know God if we obey his commands.” (NIRV) “If we obey God’s commands, then we are sure that we know him.” (GNT, Second Edition)
On the other hand, the concluding part of verse 6 contains a specific reference to Jesus Christ’s walk, and the pronoun “he” in verse 2 unmistakably means the Son of God. Accordingly, from a strict grammatical standpoint, the pronoun “him” would apply to Jesus Christ.
Being at one with the Son also signifies being at one with the Father. Therefore, whether the pronoun “him” is understood to refer to the Father or to the Son does not really affect the comprehension of the message. The measure of vagueness that prevents precise identification is immaterial. To know the Father means to know him as his obedient child, and his knowing or recognizing one as such. (Galatians 4:8, 9; Hebrews 8:11, 12) To know the Son means to know him as one’s Lord, and the Son’s knowing or recognizing the individual as his disciple, manifest by loyal submission to his commands. (Matthew 7:21-23; John 14:23, 24)
The one saying that I know him, and is not heeding his commands, is a liar, and the truth is not in this one.
Anyone claiming to know “him” (God or his Son) as one enjoying an approved relationship but failing to live in harmony with his commands is a liar. This is because an acceptable standing is impossible without a proper regard for his commands. False claimants would be guilty of a flagrant misrepresentation. In their case, the “truth” (with particular focus on Jesus Christ who is the way, the truth and the life) would not be in them. This truth has transforming power, resulting in exemplary conduct. When, however, evidence of an upright life is nonexistent, the individual could not possibly be in possession of the “truth” as an internal deposit.
Note: Fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and a few other manuscripts read “truth of God,” whereas the majority of manuscripts only contain the word “truth” preceded by the definite article. In a number of manuscripts, however, the definite article is omitted.
But the one who heeds his word, truly in this one the love of God has been perfected. By this we know that we are in him.
The situation is very different in the case of the person who heeds “his [the Father’s or the Son’s] word” or message as reflected in upright conduct and compassionate concern for others. In this person, “the love of God” has been brought to a state of completion or full development. The expression “love of God” may convey three basic meanings: (1) God’s love for the individual, (2) the person’s love for God, and (3) the kind of love God manifests (godly love). John’s main focus appears to be on the conduct of the person who knows “him” (God or Christ). This provides a basis for concluding that “love of God” primarily relates to the individual’s love for God or the individual’s display of godly love. The meaning of the Greek verb teleióo (make perfect, make complete) has contributed to adopting the view that the reference is to God’s love for the individual, for absolute perfection is an impossibility for sinful humans. In the case of humans, however, “perfection” or “completeness” must always be regarded as relative and as having the potential for additional growth and development. (Compare Matthew 5:43-48.) According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, Second Edition, there is a possibility that, instead of “to make complete” or “to make perfect,” the Greek verb teleióo may here mean “to cause to be truly and completely genuine — ‘to make genuine, to make true, to make completely real.’”
The possessors of the “love of God” know or have the assurance that they are “in him” or at one with him, enjoying an intimacy with him (either with the Father as beloved children or with God’s Son as his brothers, disciples, and friends). A number of translations, though, represent the words “in this we know” as introducing what follows. For example, the New International Version reads, “This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.” While this meaning is possible, it requires an abrupt shift of subjects from “we” to “the one saying” or “claiming.” So it appears preferable to regard the words “in this we know” as concluding the thought expressed in this verse. Obedience to God’s word and possession of the “love of God” constitute the basis for knowing or being sure that we are enjoying a divinely approved standing.
The one saying he abides in him is obligated, as that one walked, also thus to walk.
The person saying he “abides in him” (God or Christ), or continues to be in a state of oneness with him, is under obligation to “walk” or live in the same manner that Jesus Christ “walked” or lived. Such an individual’s attitude, words and deeds should give evidence that he is imitating God’s Son.
Beloved ones, I am not writing you a new command but an old command that you have had from the beginning. The old command is the word that you heard.
As members of the same spiritual family, believers regard one another as “beloved ones” (agapetoí.) They are also “beloved ones” of God and Christ.
John was not in the process of writing a “new command” to his readers. From the standpoint of the beginning of their life as disciples of God’s Son, the command was not new. It was one they had been taught right from the start and, therefore, was an “old command.” This “old command” was the “word” or message they had heard, having been imparted to them through oral instruction. The substance of the message was that believers should love one another as Christ loved them. This is the command that Jesus Christ gave to his apostles just hours before his death. (John 13:34, 35)
Notes:
The oldest extant manuscripts read agapetoí (beloved ones), whereas numerous more recent manuscripts say adelphoí (brothers).
After “you have heard” (ekoúsate), numerous later manuscripts add ap’ archés (from the beginning).
Again, I am writing you a new command, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining.
Viewed in the light of the many generations that had preceded Jesus Christ’s being on earth, the command could be designated as “new.” The Mosaic law included the command to “love one’s neighbor as oneself,” but Christ’s command was new in that it required a superior love. This self-sacrificing love went beyond what a love for self required. Its possessor would be willing, if necessary, to lay down his life for a fellow believer, putting his brother’s welfare ahead of his own. (1 John 3:16)
Regarding this “new command,” the letter continues, “which is true in him and in you.” The pronoun “him” refers to Jesus Christ, and the pronoun “you” to those to whom the letter was addressed, disciples of God’s Son. In the life of Jesus Christ, his words and deeds, perfect self-sacrificing love was in evidence. His entire life course, terminating in his sacrificial death, was an expression of love that surpassed all human experience; it was incomparable. He lived the “new command” that he gave to his disciples. So this command was true in him, that is, it was revealed as being true or real in his life. Likewise, in the case of Jesus’ disciples, they loved one another according to the requirement of the new command. So, in their case also, the obligations imposed by the new command were being fulfilled. It was true in them or clearly in evidence as being true in their attitude, words, and actions. Their whole life testified that it was an actuality in their case.
The next words are introduced with “because” (hóti), pointing to the discernible evidence that the command is true in the case of Jesus Christ and that of his disciples. This evidence is summed up in the statement, “the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining.” In the lives of the disciples of Jesus Christ, the darkness (representative of ignorance, hatred, and evil) was revealed to be in a passing state, for these disciples had been liberated from a walk in darkness. So the darkness was in the process of passing away. It had not disappeared, however, as the world in general remained in this condition. Nevertheless, the true light (representative of purity, enlightenment, and love) was already shining, triumphing over the darkness.
Notes:
Fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and a few other manuscripts read alethés kaí en autó (true also in him).
Instead of en hymín (in you), a number of later manuscripts read en hemín (in us).
The one saying he is in the light and is hating his brother is in the darkness until now.
The person claiming to be “in the light” (freed from the ignorance, evil, and hatred associated with the darkness and, therefore, spiritually enlightened) but “hating his brother” continues to be in a state of darkness. This indicates that the one who hates his brother has never been in the light.
Note: After the point about hating his brother, fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and a few later manuscripts add “is a liar and.”
The one loving his brother remains in the light, and in him [there] is no stumbling.
Only the person who loves his brother remains or abides in the light. Such a lover of a fellow child of God is one who is and continues to be in the condition of true enlightenment. The hatred, evil, and ignorance typical of the darkness have been banished from his life. “In him [there] is no stumbling.” His conduct does not trip others, causing them to sin, nor does he, in his walk or conduct, blindly bump into things that cause him to transgress divine precepts. He sees where he is going and characteristically does not deviate from a course of upright conduct. (Compare John 11:9, 10.)
But the one hating his brother is in the darkness and is walking in the darkness, and he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
The person who hates his brother is in the dark and walks in darkness. With his vision totally impaired by darkness and without any light whatsoever for guidance, he has no idea where he is going and continually stumbles. His eyes are completely lacking in spiritual sight; he is blind. His walk or life is a life of sin.
Note: Instead of en té skotía estín (in the darkness is), a few of later manuscripts read en té skotía ménei (in the darkness remains).
I write to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you through his name.
The word grápho (first person present tense of “write”), appearing once in verse 12 and two times in verse 13, may be understood to mean that John was in the process of writing.
Earlier (2:1), John had affectionately addressed all of his readers as “my little children” or “my dear children.” So it would appear that also here the expression has the same sense (rather than designating new believers).
In verses 12 through 14, the Greek term hóti may mean either “because” or “that.” Many translators prefer the rendering “because.” A case can, however, be made for “that.” John is emphasizing vital aspects of Christian life and experience. So it may be concluded that he wrote to those who had these experiences in their life as disciples of God’s Son rather than “because” this was the case.
The same structure with hóti (because, that), however, appears in verse 21 of this chapter, where the meaning is “because.” This could suggest that consistency would require rendering hóti as “because.” Still, there is no conclusive evidence for preferring one rendering over the other, as the statements make sense when the Greek word is translated either as “because” or “that.”
Those addressed as “children” had been forgiven of their sins. The Greek preposition diá, basically meaning “through,” commonly denotes “on account of” or “for the sake of” when, as here, used with the accusative. Therefore, the meaning could be that believers enjoyed forgiveness of sins on account of Christ’s name. Being representative of the person, the name stands for Jesus Christ himself as the One to whom all power and authority had been granted. (Matthew 28:18; Acts 4:12; Philippians 2:9-11) It would include his role as Redeemer. So, “on account of his name” would signify because of who the Son of God is.
At times, diá (even when used with the accusative) can mean “through.” This could be the case here and would mean that “through” their faith in his name or in Jesus Christ himself, believers had been forgiven of their sins. Jesus Christ is the One through whom forgiveness is possible and his sacrificial death made forgiveness possible.
I write to you, fathers, because you have known the one from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one.
Probably the older men among the believers were addressed as “fathers.” (Compare Acts 7:2; 22:1.) The “one from the beginning” evidently is Jesus Christ, as he is so designated earlier when called the “word of life” (1:1). All older men among the believers knew Jesus Christ. They, in faith, had acknowledged him as both Lord and Redeemer. They were disciples of Jesus Christ and so were also known or recognized by him as his.
The distinguishing characteristic of young men is their strength, and this is the attribute highlighted specifically in the next verse. They had “conquered the evil one” or the devil. By not yielding to the persuasions of his agents or those who denied that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh, they overcame the evil one. (Compare 2 Corinthians 11:13-15.) They remained firm in their adherence to the truth about the Son of God and so the wicked one failed to make a conquest among them. The young men came off victorious. (Compare John 16:33.)
Note: Regarding grápho and hóti, see 2:12.
I have written you, young children, because you have known the Father. I have written you, fathers, because you have known the one from the beginning. I have written you, young men, because you are strong and the word of God abides in you, and you have conquered the evil one.
The verb form of “write” (égrapsa) is in the aorist tense, indicating that the writing occurred in the past. Perhaps John meant that, from the standpoint of the recipients of the letter, he had written to them.
John affectionately addressed his readers as paidía (young children). They knew the Father, for they were his children and this was evident from their living upright lives. The Father, in turn, knew them or recognized them as his children.
Regarding the “fathers,” John repeats (2:13, which see) the point about their knowing the one who is “from the beginning,” evidently the “word of life.”
John expanded on what he had written about the young men or the ones with some experience in Christian living. He focused on their being “strong” and attributed this strength to their having God’s word within them. That word or message (the depository of truth that centered on Jesus Christ) remained or continued to be in these young men, having become a part of their deep inner selves. Because “the word of God” had become an integral part of them, guiding their thoughts, words, and actions, they were able to identify the false teachers and the nature of their doctrines. Therefore, these young men did not fall prey to their plausible argumentation. Satan’s agents failed in their purpose. By not giving in to the proponents of error, the young men conquered the wicked one whose servants the false teachers were.
Notes:
The initial verb in numerous later manuscripts is grápho, the present tense (I write), as in verses 12 and 13.
The Greek word for “young children” (paidía) is not the same as the diminutive form of the word for “dear children” or “little children” (teknía) in 2:12, but the meaning is basically the same. A number of later manuscripts do have paidía both here and in verse 12.
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.
In this case, the Greek verb for “love” (agapáo) would include the sense of highly esteeming the object of the love, finding delight and satisfaction in it. This kind of loving is characterized by an intense, consuming ardor that is exclusively focused on the mundane. It manifests itself in a strong attachment to the world and “the things in the world.”
Believers are not to love the “world” (kósmos), the practices and principles by which the world of mankind alienated from and at enmity with God lives. This “world” acts in a manner that is contrary to God’s will. Its goals and desires are unspiritual, bound up with what has no permanence and, in the end, proves to be empty and meaningless.
The “things in the world” are the unspiritual, selfish desires that lead to an incessant striving for pleasures, material possessions, and positions of influence or power.
The expression “love of the Father” probably signifies “love for the Father.” This would contrast with the love that has the “world” as its object. In the case of those who love the world, love for the Father is not a governing or controlling force in their lives. It could also be said that they do not have a love like that of the Father and that their life ignores his love. Accordingly, the person who is a lover of the world would not have “the love of the Father in him.” In his deep inner self, love for the Father, godly love, and any awareness of the Father’s love for him would be nonexistent.
Note: Instead of “Father,” fifth century Codex Alexandrinus reads “God,” as do a number of other later manuscripts.
Because everything in the world, the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the pride of life, is not from the Father but is from the world.
The reason a lover of the world does not have “the love of the Father in him” is that all the things in the world stem from the world of mankind alienated from God.
The “desire of the flesh” is the craving or appetite that has its source in the flesh, the physical nature in its sinful state. Sensual desire can become so strong, incessant, and unrelenting as to develop into an addiction. The desire of the flesh or the physical organism includes what is needed for the enjoyment of life — food and drink, clothing, shelter, companionship, and various pleasurable activities. Without a spiritual focus acting as a governing force, though, the desire pushes the individual to pursue or to satisfy it in a manner that is contrary to God’s will. The prime focus becomes the satisfying of self, with little or no thought about the impact on others or the final outcome to the individual. (See Luke 12:16-21; Romans 1:24-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, 18; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3-5, 10-12; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6; James 4:13-15; 1 Peter 4:1-4.)
The “desire of the eyes” is the desire resulting from what the individual sees and on which his eyes focus. In being linked to the world at enmity with God, the fulfillment of that desire involves actions contrary to his will. (See Genesis 39:7; 2 Samuel 11:2-5; 13:1-14; Psalm 119:37; Matthew 5:28; 6:22, 23; Luke 12:15; 2 Peter 2:14.)
The “pride of life” is the “pride” that has its origin in life. In this case, the Greek term for “life” (bíos) signifies having the wherewithal to support one’s life. In view of the linkage with pride, the means for supporting life is seemingly in a style that is deemed highly desirable. The Greek term alazoneía means “pride” or “arrogance,” whereas the related Greek word alazón designates an “arrogant boaster” or an “empty pretender.” So the pride in having the material means for maintaining a particular style of life is really an empty display. It is a haughty reliance on personal resources that ignores God.
The “desire of the flesh,” the “desire of the eyes,” and the “pride of life” are not “from the Father.” Being contrary to his will, they do not have their source in him. Their origin is the world of mankind at enmity with God.
And the world is passing away, [along with] its desire, but the one doing God’s will remains forever.
The world and its desire are passing away. This means that they are transitory, in a continual process of passing away. There is no permanence. The world is like a stage, with constantly shifting scenes. (Compare 1 Corinthians 7:31.) Objects of intense desire eventually cease to be such and, at best, become things of mere passing interest. Nothing remains the same. There is no stability in anything of this world.
It is entirely different in the case of the person doing the will of God or one who lives in harmony with the divine will. The Most High is eternal, and so all who are at one with him have an eternal future in prospect. From God’s standpoint, men and women of faith who have died are all living to him, for there is an absolute certainty about their being raised from the dead. (Compare Matthew 22:31, 32.)
According to a literal rendering of the Greek, “the one doing the will of God remains into the age.” The Greek word for “age” (aión) is here commonly rendered “forever.” Understood in the sense of “age,” the expression could point to the “age to come,” the time when this “world” will be no more and the Son of God will be governing affairs. The one who does God’s will would abide, sharing to the full in the age to come.
Note: In connection with “desire,” fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus and a number of later manuscripts do not include “its” (autoú).
Young children, it is a last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, also now many antichrists have come to be, wherefore we know that it is a last hour.
John again affectionately addressed those to whom he was writing as “young children” (paidía) and then referred to the time in which they were living as a “last hour” or “final hour.” From a prophetic perspective, the end was at hand, for, to the Father, a thousand years are but as one day. (2 Peter 3:8) The expression “last hour,” however, need not be understood as applying to the short period before Christ’s return in glory nor to the short time prior to the destruction of Jerusalem (which would require an early date for the writing of this letter). The reference to a “last hour” could simply apply to the brief period remaining before the congregation of believers would experience a radical change.
The existence of many antichrists pointed to a dreadful climax — the coming of the antichrist. Believers had heard that antichrist was coming. The many antichrists existing at the time this letter was written were false teachers who misrepresented Christ and thus proved themselves to be against him. For the congregation of believers that John had known, the presence of many antichrists was a sure indication that a “last hour” had arrived.
The final antichrist manifestation probably fits the description in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10 and parallels the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the second century BCE. (Compare Daniel 11:31-37; 1 Maccabees 1:10-63.) This horrific antichrist development apparently still lies ahead, and efforts to explain what form it may take are merely conjectures.
Note: In Greek, the expression “last hour” is not preceded by the definite article.
They went out from us, but they were not from us; for if they had been from us, they would have remained with us, but that it might be revealed that all [of them] are not from us [they departed].
The words “they went out from us” apply to the “many antichrists,” persons who had once associated with believers. These proponents of error, however, were never a part of the body of genuine believers (“but they were not from us”). If they had been such, they would have remained with the loyal disciples of God’s Son. Their departure revealed that all of them were not a part of the body of genuine believers.
Note: The position of “all” varies in manuscripts, with “all” either preceding or following the verb “are.” When “all” precedes “are,” the words could be understood to mean that, of those associated with the body of believers, not all were really a part of it.
And you have an anointing from the holy one, and all of you know.
Those addressed had an anointing “from the holy one.” They were anointed with the spirit of God that served to guide their lives. If the anointing is regarded as originating with the Father, he would be the “holy one.” (Compare 2 Corinthians 1:21.) On the other hand, the Son is called the “holy one” (John 6:69; Acts 3:14; Revelation 3:7), and he identified himself as the one who would send the spirit as a paraclete or advocate. (John 16:7; compare Acts 2:33.)
Manuscripts vary with reference to the reading “all.” Fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and a number of later manuscripts read pántes. This is a masculine plural adjective that designates persons. Accordingly, the concluding phrase would mean “all of you know.” Having been anointed with God’s spirit, believers were fully aware of their status as his children and what this meant. (Compare Romans 8:14.) They knew the truth. (See 2:21.)
Many other manuscripts contain the neuter plural adjective pánta (all things). This would suggest that those in possession of the anointing from the holy one knew all things needful for their walk as God’s children.
I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is from the truth.
John had not written to believers because of their not knowing the “truth” (the full revelation that focuses on Christ, the one who is the “truth”). Rather, he wrote because they did know this truth, being fully acquainted with the complete revelation in the person of the Son of God. As the full truth, it could never be the source of a lie or falsehood.
Who is the liar if not the one denying that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one denying the Father and the Son.
Knowledge of the truth denotes recognizing who Jesus is. Therefore, one who denies that Jesus is the Christ, the Anointed One of God and the unique Son of God, is a liar or a proponent of falsehood. Such a person is an “antichrist,” setting himself in opposition to Jesus by misrepresenting his identity. Because the Father is the one who sent the Son and acknowledged him as his beloved one, denial of the Son’s true identity is also a denial of the Father. So, one who is an antichrist denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:23.
Everyone denying the Son does not have the Father. The one confessing the Son also has the Father.
“Everyone denying the Son,” refusing to acknowledge his true identity as the Christ, the Son of God, does not “have the Father.” This means that the denier has no relationship with the Father and is not one of his approved children.
The one who confesses the Son, acknowledging him as the Christ who came in the flesh and as God’s unique Son, does have the Father. This acknowledgment is no empty profession but is backed by a life that harmonizes with the example and teaching of God’s beloved Son. Therefore, the one making the confession is part of the family of the Father’s children.
Let what you have heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you have heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father.
The expression “from the beginning” refers to the time when individuals became believers. At that time, they heard the truth about the Son of God and responded in faith. (Compare Galatians 1:6-9.) The recipients of the letter were to continue to have the message they had heard “in” them. This message was to be a part of their inmost being. For them to have what they heard abide or remain “in” them would also mean that they would remain “in the Son and in the Father.” Theirs would be a relationship of oneness with God and his Son as members of one united spiritual family, with all the blessings resulting therefrom.
And this is the promise that he has promised us, the eternal life.
Believers look forward to the fulfillment of a marvelous promise. Either the Father or the Son may be understood as making the promise. Jesus Christ did say that he would give his “sheep” or his followers “eternal life.” (John 10:27, 28) On the other hand, because of having determined to fulfill all his promises through his Son, the Father, as the Originator of the promise, may be regarded as the One who did the promising. (Compare 2 Corinthians 1:20; Titus 1:2.) Accordingly, a definitive link with the Father or the Son is not necessary for understanding the message being conveyed.
For believers, “eternal life” is both a present possession and a completely sinless life in prospect. (Compare 1 Timothy 4:8; 1 John 5:11-13.) Although associated with eternity, this life is not to be equated with mere endless existence. Rather, it is a life bound up with the Father and his Son. The distinguishing feature of this life is the enjoyment of an approved relationship in the family of God’s children. For believers, this is a present possession by reason of their faith in the atoning benefits of Christ’s sacrifice. Not until the completely sinless state comes into their possession, however, will the oneness with the Father and his Son be realized in all its fullness. The then-existing relationship will be one of truly knowing God and Christ, and this is the very nature of eternal life. (Compare John 17:3.)
Note: Fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and a number of later manuscripts read hymín (you), not hemín (us).
These things I have written to you about the ones [attempting] to deceive you.
John’s calling attention to basic aspects regarding the relationship of believers with the Father and the Son was designed to safeguard them from falling prey to deceivers. The deceivers evidently tried to get others to think that they were lacking in knowledge, making them doubt whether they really knew God. Once weak believers could be plunged into a state of doubt about whether they really were God’s children, they could more readily be victimized by proponents of error.
And [as for] you, the anointing you received from him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you. But as his anointing is teaching you concerning everything (and it is true and it is no lie) and as it is teaching you, abide in him.
The one from whom believers received an anointing could either be the Son or the Father. (See 2:20.) This anointing with the spirit remained in them, confirming their continuing to be God’s children and guiding their thoughts, words, and deeds. Therefore, they did not need anyone to teach them as if they were without the anointing. This anointing, by reason of its having been effected by the spirit that continued to operate upon them, taught them all that was essential for conducting their lives as obedient children of God and provided the assurance that they did not need anything besides the truth revealed through God’s Son. The changes the spirit had brought about in their lives and their continuing to benefit from the guidance provided demonstrated that the anointing was true or a reliable guide regarding their standing with God and was no lie or undependable falsehood. Therefore, they had every reason to resist all who wanted to teach them things that did not harmonize with their having received this anointing. Just as the anointing taught them, they were to remain “in him” or continue to be at one with him (the Father or the Son).
And now, little children, abide in him, that whenever he is revealed we may have confidence and not be shamed from him at his presence.
John again affectionately referred to those being addressed as “little children” or “dear children.” (See 2:1.) Evidently Christ’s glorious return is in view, as suggested by the words about his being revealed and his presence. Accordingly, remaining or abiding “in him” would signify continuing to be at one with the Son of God. At his presence, he would then acknowledge them as his brothers, and they would have confidence before him, not experiencing shame because of having failed to live lives that demonstrated their recognition of him as their Lord. (Compare Matthew 7:21-23; Luke 6:46-49; 13:23-30.)
If you know that he is righteous, you know that also everyone who practices righteousness is generated from him.
The Father is righteous and so is the Son. Therefore, the one whom believers knew or recognized to be righteous could either be the Father or the Son. Believers, however, are not spoken of as being generated from or born of Christ. Therefore, the Father may be understood as the one known to believers as being righteous or the source of what is right, just and good. Whether the initial “him” is understood as applying to the Son (as in the previous verse) or the Father, the message is still the same. Everyone who is born of God would be a doer of what is righteous or upright. The righteous God could not possibly be the source of a life that is characteristically corrupt. Neither the righteous God nor his righteous Son would have a relationship with those living a life of sin.
See what kind of love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God, and we are. Therefore, the world does not know us because it did not know him.
The initial “see” is an imperative and serves to focus on an aspect that is truly amazing. In this context, the Greek word potapós (what kind) may be understood to denote “how great,” “how wonderful,” or “how amazing” the love is. That sinful humans would be granted the unparalleled dignity of being called “children” of the pure and righteous God is an expression of love beyond compare. According to the oldest manuscript evidence, this is followed by the confident assurance, “and we are” (truly God’s children).
The “world” that is at enmity with God, however, does not know, recognize, or acknowledge “us” as God’s children. This is “because” those who are a part of this world do not know him. People who are alienated from God and to whom a spirit-led life is foreign do not know or recognize the Father. They have no relationship with him. Therefore, it is impossible for them to recognize or acknowledge the spirit-led children as being his very own.
Notes:
Although numerous manuscripts read “has given us,” others, including fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, say “has given you.” In still other manuscripts, there are variations in the form of the verb.
Fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus, and numerous other manuscripts read “not know us.” The original reading of fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus is “not know you,” which is also what many later manuscripts say.
Beloved ones, now we are children of God and it has not yet been revealed what we will be. We do know that whenever it is revealed we will be like him, because we will see him as he is.
Believers are addressed as “beloved ones,” for they are all members of the same spiritual family. This is followed by the conviction that all share — “now we are children of God.”
It has not yet been revealed just what “we will be” in the glorified, sinless state. Although enjoying the status of being God's children during their earthly sojourn, believers are not in a position to comprehend this aspect.
The second occurrence of the verb for “manifested” or “revealed” is third person singular and so could refer to “his” being revealed or “its” being revealed. Therefore, the words could apply to Christ’s being revealed in glory or to the time when it would be revealed to God’s children just what they will be. If the reference is to Christ, then all of God’s children would be like him and see him as he is in his glorified state. The unique Son of God is like the Father, the flawless reflection of his very being. (Compare Hebrews 1:3.) Accordingly, the “children” would then also be like their Father and see him as he truly is. (Compare Matthew 5:8.)
And everyone who has this hope upon him purifies himself, just as that one is pure.
The hope of seeing the one who is pure rests upon the Father or the Son on whose promise the believer can rely. Either the Father or the Son may here be designated as the one who is pure. Both the Father and the Son are pure in the absolute sense. Therefore, all who have the hope of seeing the one who is pure just as he is would endeavor to live uprightly in harmony with this marvelous hope. Theirs would be a life of active cooperation with God’s spirit. Others should be able to see evidence of their progress in virtuous living. The process of purifying themselves would never stop. (Compare 2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 3:12-16; 1 Timothy 4:14-16.)
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.
Sin is a missing of the mark of moral rectitude in thought, attitude, word, or deed. In view of the earlier reference indicating that believers are not free of sin in the absolute sense (1:8-2:2), evidently sin is here being represented as a habit or a way of life distinguishing the proponents of error. “The sin” was a rejection of God and his law, or the deliberate refusal to let divine law govern individual action and the relationship with fellow humans. Habitual practicers of sin acknowledged no accountability to God for their actions. Such sin is lawlessness, a flagrant revolt against divine law.
And you know that he was revealed that he might take away sins, and in him no sin exists.
The antichrists or false teachers conducted themselves in a manner that was contrary to the purpose for which the Son of God came to the earth. Believers knew or recognized that the Son of God laid down his life to effect a liberation from sin. The one without sin died for sinners. Therefore, the practicers of sin treated Christ’s precious sacrifice with contempt.
Notes:
Fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and a few other manuscripts read oídamen (we know), whereas the majority of manuscripts say oídate (you know).
The word “sins” appears in extant manuscripts with or without an accompanying “our.”
Everyone who abides in him does not sin; everyone who sins has not seen him or known him.
If the words about abiding “in him” are directly linked to the previous verse, the pronoun “him” would apply to Christ. Because of the statement that follows about “seeing” and “knowing,” however, “him” could mean the Father. Everyone who is at one with the Father or the Son lives a virtuous life, not a life of sin.
“Everyone who sins has not seen him or known him.” Based on 3:1, the pronoun “him” may be understood to refer to the Father. Habitual practicers of sin cannot “see” or perceive the pure and righteous God. Their defilement blinds them. (Compare Titus 1:15, 16.) They do not know him, for, as corrupt persons, they have no relationship with him and are no part of the family of his beloved children.
Little children, let no one deceive you. The one practicing righteousness is righteous, as that one is righteous.
John again affectionately referred to believers as “little children” or “dear children” (teknía; see note) and urged them, “let no one deceive you.” The deception involved the claim that virtuous conduct had no bearing on one’s standing before God. The very opposite is true. Upright conduct identifies one as an upright person, and as one having a relationship with the one who is righteous in the absolute sense. This one is either the Father or the Son. Because he is righteous, only persons whose lives are virtuous could be a part of the family of God’s beloved children. Anyone claiming otherwise would be a deceiver.
Note: Fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus and a number of later manuscripts read paidía (young children), whereas teknía (little children, dear children) has the better manuscript support. The basic meaning, however, is the same.
The one practicing sin is from the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. For this reason the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the devil’s works.
The practicer of sin has a different father. A person reveals who he is by his attitude, words, and actions, and thereby also shows who his father is. (Compare John 8:42-44.) The Greek word for “devil” (diábolos) means “slanderer” or “false accuser.” Once the spirit person who is called “the devil” became guilty of the first slander against God, he persisted in his defiant course. Accordingly, “from the beginning” or from the start of his being the ultimate slanderer, he has been sinning, always missing the mark of rectitude.
The “devil’s works” embrace his complete record of sin, including all the sins of the world of mankind alienated from God. Through his sacrificial death, God’s Son effected a liberation from sin for all who, in faith, accepted this loving provision for them. He thereby fulfilled the purpose for which he came to the earth, and this was to destroy the devil’s works. Therefore, those who choose to continue living a life of sin are conducting themselves contrary to the reason for Jesus’ sacrificial death.
Everyone who is generated from God does not practice sin, because his seed remains in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been generated from God.
God’s children are recognized by their living virtuous lives. Theirs is not a life of sin. The reason for this is that God’s “seed” remains in them. Likely this “seed” refers to what has been implanted in believers that brought about their newness of life as God’s children. The principle or germ of this new life came to be their possession through the operation of God’s spirit upon them, and that new spirit-led life is an upright life.
That being a child of God is incompatible with a life of sin is reemphasized with the words, “and he cannot [practice] sin, because he has been generated from God.” No child of God can be a person who chooses to continue living in sin.
By this the children of God and the children of the devil are revealed: Everyone not practicing righteousness is not from God, nor [is] the one not loving his brother.
The task of distinguishing the children of God from those of the devil does not demand one’s having the ability to disprove plausible arguments. In the case of the children of God, one would be able to see clear evidence of virtuous living in attitude, word, and deed. Furthermore, one should be able to sense warm affection and concern, the kind of love that exists among brothers who deeply care about one another. The absence of an upright life and a loveless spirit are not of God but of the devil. A person whose life is continually defiled by sins of the spirit—hatred, jealousy, envy, rage, arrogance, spitefulness, vindictiveness, sneakiness, and the like — is no more a child of God than is the one who in other ways habitually acts contrary to divine law.
For this is the message you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
At the very start of their life as believers, they heard or came to know that, as members of the one family of God’s children, they should love one another, maintaining a caring, self-sacrificing disposition.
Note: The word “message” (angelía has strong manuscript support, including fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus, and many other later manuscripts. A number of manuscripts, including fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus, read epangelía (promise).
Not like Cain who was from the evil one and slaughtered his brother. And why did he slaughter him? Because his works were evil, but those of his brother [were] righteous.
God’s children are “not like Cain,” the child of the evil one. In the case of Cain, the envy that developed into murderous hatred and moved him to kill his brother was devilish. “And why did he slaughter him? Because his works were evil, but those of his brother were righteous.” He resented that God’s approval was revealed in the acceptance of his brother’s sacrifice because his deeds had been virtuous. Instead of abandoning his “evil works” and imitating the noble example of his brother, Cain chose to slay him, thereby revealing himself to be a child of the evil one or the devil. (Genesis 4:3-8)
And do not be surprised, brothers, if the world hates you.
Because children of God are no part of the world at enmity with him, condemning it by their virtuous life, they incur its displeasure. Individuals who experience great discomfort when feeling self-condemned often ridicule and lash out against those whose way of life is markedly different from their own. So, for believers, it should cause no astonishment when they become objects of the world’s hatred.
Note: Manuscripts vary in including or omitting the initial kaí (and) in this verse.
We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brothers. The one not loving remains in death.
Before accepting the atoning benefits of Christ’s sacrifice, believers, like the rest of the world of mankind, found themselves in the state of death. This is because sin leads to death.
The letter to the Ephesians (2:1-5, NRSV) describes the transferal from death to life in greater detail: “You were dead through the trespasses and sins in which you once lived, following the course of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient. All of us once lived among them in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of flesh and senses, and we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else. But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ — by grace you have been saved — and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”
In his letter to Titus (3:3-5, NAB) Paul, in like terms, spoke about what had once been the situation with those who had become children of God and their marvelous deliverance. “For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, deluded, slaves to various desires and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful ourselves and hating one another. But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit.”
The unmistakable evidence that believers had passed from death to life was the love existing among them. Jews and non-Jews, men and women, and slaves and masters had become fellow members of the one spiritual family, enjoying spiritual equality as beloved children of God. The divisions that had formerly given rise to animosity, envy, and resentment had been abolished. The love that believers had for one another, their brothers, contrasted sharply with their past life in the world alienated from the Father. Therefore, they knew that they had passed from death to life, having ever before them the evidence of the kind of love that exists among caring, self-sacrificing brothers.
In the case of one who does not have this love, any claim to being a child of God is false. He “remains in death,” indicating that he never passed from death to life but continued in a state of death in the world alienated from God.
Notes:
A number of manuscripts, including fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus, read “our brothers.”
Numerous manuscripts, after “does not love,” add tón adelphón (the brother) or tón adelphón autoú (his brother).
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
The case of Cain illustrated that one hating his brother is a murderer. Those who hate would never come to the rescue of anyone who is the object of their intense hostility. They would not respond with care and compassion upon seeing those whom they hate in a state of desperate need.
Persons with a hateful, murderous disposition are dead. The newness of life, the eternal life distinguished by knowing God and Christ as members of the beloved spiritual family, would not be abiding in them. Believers knew this to be a fact.
By this we know love, because he laid down his soul for us, and we are obligated to lay down [our] souls for [our] brothers.
Believers have learned what real love is from the Son of God. While believers were in a state of alienation from the Father, Christ died for them. He willingly gave up his soul or life, suffering for them to make a liberation from sin and death possible. This expression of love for those who were neither upright nor good is beyond comprehension. It is a love that far surpasses even the most outstanding expression of love and so remains beyond compare.
The love of Christ rightly makes believers feel deeply indebted and prompts a noble recognition of their duty to love. Because of what the Son of God has done for us, “we are obligated to lay down our souls for our brothers,” putting their interests ahead of our own, protecting them from harm, and coming to their aid in times of need. Under certain circumstances, this can mean literally giving up our soul or life for them.
But whoever has the world’s [means for sustaining] life and sees his brother having need and shuts his compassion toward him, how can the love of God abide in him?
One would expect that the person having the means and the capacity to render aid to the brother who is seen or recognized as being in need would respond compassionately and provide help. When the needy brother is callously cut off from compassion, however, the person doing so could not possibly have the “love of God” abiding in him and motivating his actions. The expression “love of God” may mean (1) the kind of love God has or godly love, (2) God’s love for the individual, and (3) the person’s love for God. The person who would treat a needy brother without compassion could not possibly be a possessor of godly love. He could not do so and personally have experienced the depth of divine love for him. It would be impossible for him to love the invisible God while hurting God’s visible, needy child.
Little children, let us not [merely] love in word nor with the tongue but [love] in deed and truth.
Once again believers are affectionately addressed as “little children” or “dear children” (teknía), and many manuscripts include the pronoun “my” (mou). Words of care, concern, and affection may be expressed, but are hollow when there is no follow-through with loving deed or action. A love limited to words is a very weak love, never producing self-sacrificing acts. To love only with the tongue is to make expressions that may sound pleasant to the ear but are insincere, absent of any heartfelt feeling and any intent to respond with genuine care and concern. Such loving with the tongue is the very opposite of love in truth, manifesting a love that is real.
Note: The Greek conjunction allá (but) is a strong indicator of contrast.
And by this we shall know that we are of the truth and shall convince our hearts before him...
Believers are keenly aware of their personal failings in being imitators of God and Christ. They know that their walk is not flawless and, therefore, continue to hunger and thirst for righteousness, looking forward to the time when they can be upright in the ultimate sense. (Matthew 5:6) Proponents of error can exploit the painful awareness of failings and, with plausible arguments, cause believers to entertain doubts about their standing before God, plummeting their hearts or deep inner selves into a state of upheaval.
The way in which believers can convince or calm their troubled hearts is not by diligently developing counterarguments but by considering whether their lives reflect genuine love that expresses itself in caring and compassionate deeds. Being “of the truth” or belonging to the truth is confirmed “by this” — loving in “action and truth.” The expression “of the truth” evidently is to be understood as being attached to the truth that God’s Son, who is the truth, revealed in his life and teaching. Because the truth is bound up with Jesus Christ, all who belong to the truth are at one with him and members of the family of God’s children. Based on the words in the next verse, the one before whom believers reassure their hearts is evidently the Father.
Notes:
Fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and numerous later manuscripts do not include the initial kaí (and). Other variant readings are “from this,” “and this,” “and from this,” and “but from this.”
A number of manuscripts have the present tense for “we know” (ginóskomen) instead of the future tense “we shall know” (gnosómetha).
...whenever the heart condemns us, because God is greater than our heart and knows all things.
If it should happen that the heart condemns us, we have the assurance that “God is greater than our heart and knows everything.” Our loving heavenly Father is a better and more compassionate judge than the believer’s heart or deep inner self. Because of their failings, believers may, at times, be troubled by feelings of unworthiness and begin to doubt how God could possibly love them. The Father who gave his own Son for us in expression of his boundless love, however, does not take this narrow view of us when we stumble in our walk with him. He looks upon us as the obedient children we want to be and the children we will eventually be. He knows “everything” about us, including how frail and helpless we are and the reasons for our failings. (Compare Psalm 103:1-14.)
Note: A few manuscripts include “not” before the verb for “condemn.”
Beloved ones, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God.
Manuscripts vary in addressing believers as “beloved ones” or “brothers.” Both expressions, however, call attention to the close relationship all enjoy.
The Greek word for “confidence” (parresía) can convey the sense of “boldness,” “fearlessness,” or “outspokenness” (the kind of expression that holds nothing back). Whenever the heart or deep inner self does not render an unfavorable verdict respecting us, we, like trusting children, can readily approach our heavenly Father with any care and concern. Nothing would then restrain our words, and our expressions would reflect confidence that we will be heard.
Notes:
A number of manuscripts, including fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, read “heart” without a personal pronoun. Other manuscripts say either “our heart” or “your heart.”
In connection with the verb “condemn,” there are variations. These are: “not condemn” (without a personal pronoun), “not condemn you,” and “not condemn us.”
And whatever we request we receive from him, because we heed his commands and do the things pleasing to him.
Confidence in God’s answering our prayers rests on our obeying his commands and maintaining conduct that he approves. All petitions to the Father include the reverential thought, “your will be done.” As obedient children, we can always expect our heavenly Father’s response to be in keeping with our standing before him.
And this is his command, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as he gave us command.
It is the Father’s will that we accept his Son as our Lord and Savior. God’s will has the force of a command. To believe in or have faith in the “name of his Son” means to acknowledge Jesus Christ as God’s unique Son and one’s Lord as evident by a life that conforms to his example and teaching. (Compare Matthew 7:21-23; 10:32, 33; Luke 6:46; John 5:22, 23; Acts 2:36-40; 4:12; 13:37, 38; Philippians 2:9-11.) As God’s children, believers are under command to love one another. It is the Father’s command that his Son’s command to manifest self-sacrificing love be heeded. (Compare John 13:34; 15:17.)
Notes:
In the last phrase, the third person verb édoken (he gave) apparently is to be understood as linked to the nearest antecedent (Jesus Christ, the giver of the command to love one another).
Although the oldest manuscripts and many others include hemín (us), the pronoun is missing in numerous later manuscripts.
And the one who heeds his commands abides in him and he in him, and by this we know that he abides in us, by reason of the spirit he has given us.
In view of the main focus on the Father’s command in the previous verse, evidently he is also referred to here. The believer who obeys God’s command to put his faith in Jesus Christ and manifests love for his brothers is at one with the Father, abiding in him. The Father, in turn, abides in or is at one with the believer. For believers, this means the full enjoyment of God’s continuing presence because of always having his spirit as the guiding and sustaining power during their earthly sojourn. The possession of the spirit proves that the Father abides in or is at one with believers. Within themselves, believers have the full awareness of being God’s children, prompting them to speak of him as their Father and in the intimate manner reflected in the expression “Abba” (papa), just as sons and daughters do naturally when speaking to and about their fathers whom they love. (Compare Romans 8:15, 16.)
Beloved ones, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Those being addressed are again called “beloved ones,” members of the family of God’s children. They are admonished to guard against giving credence to every “spirit,” claimed spiritual influence, or expression asserted to be the product of a spirit. Believers know their Father and his Son. Daily, their personal prayers and virtuous lives that reflect genuine love expressed in actions prove whose children they are. The working of God’s spirit within them started with their acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Lord who died for them.
God’s children, therefore, were in a position to test the spirits by determining whether the individuals claiming to be under a spiritual influence were treating them as beloved members of their heavenly Father’s family and did not distort the identity of their Lord. Testing spiritual utterances was necessary because many false prophets had gone out into the world of mankind. These false prophets were antichrists, because their teachings misrepresented the Son of God. They maintained that they were a channel for the “spirit,” but their expressions and bearing toward God’s children proved that this “spirit” was from an alien source.
Notes:
Only God’s children are in a position to “test the spirits.” There is a distinct difference between being a nominal professor associated with a “church” or a religious movement and the possessor of the inner conviction that Jesus is the Son of God, evident in a daily life of faith and love. This distinction becomes especially apparent when disillusioned former members of religious organizations cease to profess belief in the Father and his Son and begin a life that ignores accountability to them. Their association with the “church” gave the appearance of faith but, in reality, was not a faith or unqualified trust in God and his Son.
Upon seeing what happens to a considerable number of those who depart from the “church,” many of those remaining are strengthened in the erroneous belief that approved membership in their particular denomination or nondenominational movement is essential for salvation, and they remain blind to the grave danger of looking to any human or group of humans as a divinely appointed channel of truth. Only the Son of God is “the way and the truth and the life.” Through him alone is salvation possible.
By this you know the spirit of God, every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh is from God.
This letter addressed erroneous teachings that were then being spread and set forth the basis on which believers would know or be able to determine whether a spirit (or teaching represented as having its source in a spirit) is from God. The acknowledgment was the one that rested on the historically verified reality that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh. (See 1:1.) The confession or acknowledgment of Jesus Christ’s true identity has its source in the Father. When Peter made his unqualified confession, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God,” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 16:16, 17, NRSV)
And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the [spirit] of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and now is already in the world.
Teachings purported to have a spiritual source but denying or not acknowledging the true identity of Jesus are not from God. Instead of being from God, the “spirit” is that of the antichrist. (Although the word “spirit” does not precede “antichrist” in the Greek text, this meaning is indicated by the genitive construction.) It is a spirit that stands in opposition to the Christ and, therefore, also to the Father.
Whereas in 2:18 the focus is on the antichrist, here the emphasis is on the “spirit,” disposition, inclination, or influence of the antichrist. This spirit was then already at work in the world of mankind alienated from God.
Notes:
The words “not confessing” have the best extant manuscript support, but there is also the reading “every spirit that nullifies” (loosens, unfastens, or destroys).
The oldest extant manuscripts read “the Jesus.” Other manuscript readings include “Jesus Christ,” “Jesus [the] Lord as coming in the flesh,” “the Christ,” “the Jesus as coming in the flesh,” “Jesus [the] Lord as coming in the flesh,” and “Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.”
You are from God, little children, and you have conquered them, because the one in you is greater than the one [who is] in the world.
For the believers who are affectionately addressed as “little children” or “dear children,” there was no question about their identity. They were “from God,” belonging to him as his beloved children. By not yielding to the influence of false prophets or teachers and becoming their prey, believers had come off victorious or conquered those who would have harmed them spiritually. This conquest, however, was not achieved in their own strength. They attained the victory because the “one” in them, with whom they were united, was greater than the evil one. The expression “the one in you” could be understood either of the Father or the Son. (Compare John 17:20, 21.) If, however, “God” is regarded as the antecedent, the reference would be to the Father (as in 4:12, 16).
The world at enmity with God is in the realm of the “evil one.” (5:19) All who belong to the world, therefore, could not possibly be at one with the Father. The one who is “in” them or at work in their lives is the inferior—the devil or the ultimate slanderer.
They are from the world; therefore, they speak [what is] from the world, and the world listens to them.
The false prophets or false teachers were part of the world at enmity with God. In disposition and action they violated the law of love and demonstrated that they were from the world. Their message had its source in the world, for it was a message that contradicted the historical truth respecting God’s beloved Son. Those of the world recognize who are just like them and listen to their own. Therefore, in the world at enmity with God, the false prophets did find hearing ears.
We are from God; the one who knows God listens to us. Whoever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.
Believers are “from God,” for they are his children. Persons who know God as evident from the purity of their conduct and their compassionate concern for others recognize other children of God and listen to them. Those who are not from God and, therefore, not members of the one spiritual family do not listen to his children. The response or lack of response to God’s children is the means for ascertaining the nature of the “spirit,” the spiritual influence, or the spiritual source. Teachings that are repugnant to persons whose conduct is virtuous and reflects love in action could not possibly be from God. The “spirit” could not be one that has its source in truth (the truth embodied in Jesus Christ’s example and teaching). Whatever appeals to the world of mankind alienated from God and does not harmonize with a life of uprightness and love in action stems from a “spirit of deceit” or error. The spirit of error results in defilement. Often that defilement is reflected in a disposition that can readily be identified as arrogant and unloving.
Note: The expression ek toútou (from this) has the best manuscript support. There is limited evidence for en toúto (in this).
Beloved ones, let us love one another, because love is from God. And everyone who loves has been generated from God and knows God.
In the case of the “beloved ones,” their love for one another as fellow children of God would be of an abiding nature. Because this love has its source in their Father, they, as his children, should continue to love one another. Everyone who thus persists in living a life of love is revealed as having God as his Father and knowing God as his obedient child.
The one who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
When genuine love that expresses itself in selfless action is absent, so is any relationship with God. The person who does not live a life of love does not know God as his Father. This is because “God is love.” Love sums up all that God is in his very being, making it impossible for those who are unloving to have any personal knowledge of God. They may have intellectual knowledge about God based on what they have read or heard others say, but they have no relationship with him that is based on an inward realization of the depth of divine love, appreciation for which engenders love. The Father is unknown to them, and he does not recognize them as his children.
By this the love of God has been revealed in us, because God sent his only-begotten Son into the world that we might live through him.
God took the initiative in manifesting or revealing the depth of his love. Although the Greek word for “in” (en) can mean “among,” it seems more likely that the reference is to the love God has shown “in” the case of believers.
He sent his unique Son, the one with whom he enjoyed the most intimate relationship. It is a relationship that existed before the beginning of the universe, belongs to the realm of the infinite, and is beyond human grasp. The greatness of the love existing between the Father and the Son defies comprehension and cannot be adequately described in human terms. Therefore, the revelation of the Father’s love in sending his Son into the world of humankind likewise transcends every expression of love that humans have ever experienced. That manifestation of the Father’s love made it possible for his Son to surrender his life so that all who gratefully, like trusting children, accept this provision for them would “live through him.” Instead of remaining dead in trespasses and sins, they would enjoy a newness of life as God’s pardoned children.
Note: The Greek term monogenés (often rendered “only-begotten”) points to the uniqueness of the relationship of the Son to the Father. There is no other son like him. The emphasis is not to be placed on the second part of the compound (begotten), but the expression is to be regarded as a unit. This is evident from the way the term is used in the Septuagint as a rendering for the Hebrew term yahíd (only, only one, alone). Jephthah’s daughter was his only child. (Judges 11:34) The psalmist pleaded that YHWH might rescue his “only-begotten one” (Brenton), meaning the only life he possessed or his precious life. (Psalm 21:21 [22:20(21)]; 34:17 [35:17]) He also prayed for mercy because he identified himself as an “only-begotten,” that is, one of a kind (like an only child). In this case, the Hebrew often has been translated “lonely” or “alone.” (Psalm 24:16 [25:16])
By this the love is [evident], not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as expiation for our sins.
The outstanding aspect about God’s love is that humans were not the initiators and could not have been such. As sinners, all are in a helpless condition, totally lacking in anything that could be offered to God, and without any basis for reaching out to him in a gesture of love. God, however, by sending his Son, provided the basis for reconciling flawed humans to himself and, on the basis of his Son’s sacrifice, made it possible for them to become his beloved children.
The Father’s initiative in sending his Son is the utmost demonstration of love. He did not just send one of his sons or angels, but his unique Son, his Son of sons, the one to whom he was lovingly attached in the most intimate relationship from time immemorial.
The greatness of the sacrifice that resulted in atoning for the sins of believers reveals the depth of the Father’s love in a manner that no other act could have done. Moreover, what this act of love required of the Son in willingly surrendering his life in expression of his love also makes the seriousness of sin, all sin, apparent in a manner that nothing else could.
As in the first century, unbelievers may look upon the sacrificial death of God’s Son for sinners as something foolish or meaningless or even find it offensive. For believers, however, the unparalleled expression of the Father’s love has been the transforming power in their lives.
Notes:
After the noun “love” (agápe), fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus adds “of God.”
Regarding “expiation” (hilasmós), see 2:2.
Beloved ones, since God has thus loved us, then we are obligated to love one another.
Believers regard and treat one another as “beloved ones.” God’s great love for us in sending his Son places a debt or obligation on us. This obligation is that we love one another as beloved members of God’s family.
No one has ever seen God. If we love one another, God abides in us and his love is made complete in us.
No human has ever seen God. His glorious manifestation would be too much for frail humans to behold. (Exodus 33:20) It is, however, possible to enjoy his abiding presence. If we love believers as members of our family, we reveal that we have God as our Father. We are at one with him and so he abides in us by means of his spirit. Because to love his children means to love him as their Father, the “love of God” (here probably meaning “love for God,” a love having the potential for growth) is perfected or brought to its finished or competed state.
By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us from his spirit.
Believers abide or remain at one with the Father and he abides or remains at one with them. This is evident from his having given them “from his spirit.” Therefore, they possess everything needed to guide, sustain and strengthen them.
And we have seen and are testifying that the Father sent the Son as Savior of the world.
John and others had personally seen the Son of God (1:1), enabling them to provide firsthand testimony about him. Based on what they had seen, they were convinced that the Father had sent his Son as the Savior of the world of mankind. Therefore, the opportunity to benefit from the divine arrangement for salvation was open to all, provided they were willing to accept it in faith.
Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him and he in God.
Apart from Jesus Christ, a relationship with the Father is impossible. Only by confessing or acknowledging Jesus as the Son of God who surrendered his life to effect the liberation from sin and death can an individual become reconciled to the Father. The person responding in faith comes to be at one with or “abides in” the Father, and the Father, by means of his spirit, “abides in” or makes his home with the believer.
Note: Fourth-century Codex Vaticanus adds “Christ” after “Jesus.”
And we have known and believed the love that God has in us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God and God abides in him.
Believers know or are fully aware of God’s love. They believe in, are fully convinced of, and put their full trust in his love. They have experienced it “in” their own case.
The Father is the embodiment of love. (See 4:8.) Therefore, abiding, remaining or living in love — being loving as God is loving — is the condition for abiding in or being at one with him. Furthermore, God abides in, remains in, or is at one with the believer who lives a life of love.
Note: Fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus and a number of later manuscripts do not include ménei (abides) in the concluding part of the verse, where the reference is to God. This omission, however, does not change the meaning.
By this love has been perfected with us, that we may have confidence in the day of judgment, for as he is, so are we in this world.
The expression “by this” or “in this” (en toúto) could refer to the state of oneness with the Father (abiding or remaining in God) mentioned in the previous verse. Love is brought to its completed or perfected state by our being at one with the Father and he at one with us. There is also a possibility that en toúto is to be linked with what follows. Love is perfected or brought to a completed state when the coming day of judgment can be anticipated with confidence (not terror), with the kind of boldness or freeness of expression characteristic of a trusting and obedient child. (Also see 2:28 and 3:21.)
Translators commonly render meth’ hemón (with us) as “among us.” It may be, though, that the preposition “with” is to be understood of God’s working “with” the believer and the believer’s cooperative response. The reference could also be to the perfecting of love in the relationship “with us.” A love that is not fully developed does affect one’s relationship with God, as it interferes with one’s having childlike trust.
Evidently regarding this “day of judgment” before God’s appointed judge, Paul said, “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.” (2 Corinthians 5:10, NAB)
The basis for confidence with reference to the judgment to come is that, in the world of mankind, believers are like Jesus Christ. A few manuscripts add that he “was blameless and pure in the world.” Like the Son of God, believers are blameless and pure in the world alienated from the Father. (Ephesians 1:4; 5:27; Philippians 2:15; Colossians 1:22; Jude 24) Therefore, because of living an upright life in keeping with Jesus’ example of love, believers have no reason to fear the day of judgment.
Fear is not in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear has punishment, and the one who fears has not been perfected in love.
Where genuine love prevails, fear is banished. A person would never be in terror before those whom he loves and who love him. A perfect or fully developed love has no room for fear; any lingering fear is expelled.
The Greek word kólasis is commonly rendered “punishment.” This could mean that the words “fear has punishment” could mean that “fear has to do with punishment.” (NAB, NIV, NRSV) There is, however, another possible significance. The related verb kolázo can mean “punish” (Acts 4:21) but may also denote “prune,” “curtail,” or “check.” Accordingly, the meaning may be that fear curtails or checks the development of love, not permitting it to reach its full potential. The person who remains in a state of fear has not been made perfect or complete in love.
We love because he first loved us.
Fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and numerous later manuscripts read either “love God” or “love him.” It is because God first loved us (the superlative expression of that love being the sending of his Son to surrender his life for us) that we love. The reality of our love for God is manifest in our active loving concern for others. Having learned from God (also from his Son) what real love is, we are motivated to love.
If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar, for one who does not love his brother whom he has seen is not able to love God whom he has not seen.
Hatred of one’s brother is irreconcilable with a claim of loving God, for the brother is the child whom the Father loves. Therefore, the one claiming to love God while hating his child is a liar. Although children of God are unable to reflect the image of the Father flawlessly, they do strive to conduct themselves in harmony with his upright ways. Accordingly, the person who sees the “brother” who is endeavoring to be a loving and obedient child of God and then hatefully turns away from him could not possibly love God whom he has never seen.
Note: The oldest extant manuscripts read “not able to love.” Many later manuscripts, however, read “how able to love God.”
And this is the command we have from him, that the one who loves God should also love his brother.
Jesus Christ did command his disciples to love one another. (John 13:34, 35) Whereas he may be understood as being the one giving the command, there is also the possibility that the reference is to the Father with whom the command to love originated. Fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus does read “from God” (not “from him”). Believers recognize that, as children of the Father, they should love him and their brothers. Where love for a brother is nonexistent, also nonexistent is love for God.
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is generated from God, and everyone who loves the one who generated also loves the one who is generated from him.
The proponents of error denied that Jesus is the Christ, advancing teachings that identified Christ as another entity. (See the introduction to 1 John.) These false teachers arrogantly looked down on those who did not share their views, had no love for God’s children, and were no part of the spiritual family. Those who believed that Jesus is the Christ, on the other hand, were God’s children. The believer is born of or generated from God, enjoying a newness of life by reason of his faith in Jesus Christ. As God is the one who brought about this newness of life, anyone who loved him would also love the one who had been born of him. Accordingly, because the teachers of error did not love the children, their claim about loving God was false.
Note: Fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and a number of later manuscripts do not include the second kaí (here translated “also”).
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and carry out his commands.
Love for God cannot be separated from love for his children. Therefore, “by this” (our response to the Father), we know that we love his children. All who love God’s children love him and demonstrate that love through loyal submission to his commands.
Note: Manuscripts read either poiómen (we carry out; we do) or terómen (we keep; we observe; we heed). This difference, however, does not affect the meaning.
For this is the love of God, that we heed his commands, and his commands are not burdensome.
These words make it explicit that love for God is shown by obedience to his commands. For believers, this means maintaining virtuous conduct and imitating the Father and his Son in showing love for others. Unbelievers would find this burdensome, as it conflicts with their desires and goals. For those who are God’s children, on the other hand, it is a joy to live a life of godliness and love. The reason this is no burden is presented in the next verse.
Note: In view of the emphasis on the believer’s responsibility, the expression “love of God” evidently means “love for God.” There is, however, a possibility that it could mean “godly love,” the kind of love that God has.
Because everyone who is generated from God conquers the world, and this is the [means of] conquest that conquers the world: our faith.
God’s commands are no burden for the believer because of being in possession of a newness of life. He has God as his Father and earnestly wants to be a loving and obedient child. Instead of yielding to the world alienated from God and its sensual and selfish desires, the believer conquers the world. Because the pressures the world exerts fail, the children of God are victorious. The means for attaining the victory is faith, a childlike trust in and full reliance on God’s Son (and, therefore, also the Father).
Notes: The Greek word pan is neuter gender and has been rendered “whatever.” As the application is to persons, however, the rendering “everyone” is appropriate.
The reading “our faith” has the best manuscript support. A number of manuscripts read “your faith,” but this does not really affect the meaning.
Who is the one who conquers the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
This question focuses on the nature of the “faith” mentioned in the previous verse. It is faith in a person, faith in Jesus as the Son of God. Apart from the Son of God, no one can conquer the world. Through his sacrificial death, he made it possible for sinful humans to become children of God, and only those who are such children can attain the victory over the world by remaining unconquerable. This triumph would include their not yielding to the plausible arguments of those who would cause them to doubt their standing as God’s beloved children.
Note: Not all manuscripts include dé (but) after “who” (tís). This omission, however, does not affect the meaning of the verse.
This is the one who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not in the water only but in the water and in the blood, and the spirit is the one testifying, for the spirit is the truth.
The false teachers denied that Christ was truly human and that his blood was shed. (See comments in the introduction to 1 John.) While they were willing to link the Christ to the water of baptism, they did not accept that Jesus Christ’s blood was poured out. Apparently for this reason, John emphasized that Jesus Christ came not through water only. Both elements were involved.
At his baptism, Jesus was revealed as the promised Messiah, the Christ, or Anointed One, and God’s beloved Son. (Matthew 3:13-17; Acts 10:36-38) The blood that flowed from his side when it was pierced verified that he was the Son who fulfilled his Father’s will by surrendering his life. (John 19:34, 35; Colossians 1:20) From the time that the spirit descended on Jesus at his baptism, testimony continued to pile up respecting his identity. The miracles proved undeniably that he was the Christ, the Son of God. (Matthew 4:23, 24; 12:28; John 3:2; 10:37, 38, 40-42; 11:45; Acts 10:37, 38) The spirit’s testimony was completely trustworthy and no delusion. Even Jesus enemies could not deny the reality of the miracles. (John 11:47, 48) Fittingly, then, the spirit is called the “truth,” the reliable source for what is true.
Notes:
Instead of “through water and blood,” a few later manuscripts read “through water and spirit.” Fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and numerous later manuscripts add “and spirit.” Other manuscript readings are “spirit and blood” and “blood and holy spirit.”
Some have linked the water and the blood to what occurred when Jesus’ side was pierced. (John 19:34) The Contemporary English Version even includes this interpretation in the main text. “Water and blood came out from the side of Jesus Christ.” In view of what the false teachers evidently were denying, however, it appears preferable to regard the water as the water of baptism.
For [there] are three that testify.
According to the Mosaic law, two or three witnesses were needed to establish a matter as being true. Evidently the specific mention of three serves to indicate that the truth about Jesus Christ was fully verified. (Deuteronomy 19:15)
The spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are one.
All three witnesses are in agreement, providing unanimous testimony that Jesus is indeed the Christ, the Son of God.
Note: The overwhelming manuscript evidence indicates that the words about the three testifying in heaven and the three testifying on earth were not part of the original text. They may have crept into the main text from a marginal note. In a Greek manuscript from the tenth century, the addition by a later hand appears in the margin. The words are found in the main text of one Greek manuscript dating from the early sixteenth century and another Greek manuscript from the sixteenth century.
If we accept the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has testified concerning his Son.
The testimony of two or three persons was sufficient for verifying a matter. God’s testimony, however, is far greater than that of men and, therefore, deserving of the utmost trust. It logically follows that a willingness to accept the testimony of men would call for an even greater readiness to accept God’s superior testimony concerning his Son. The Father provided this testimony by imparting the spirit to his Son, empowering him to perform miracles. This testimony undeniably established that Jesus is his beloved Son. (John 1:32-34; 5:31-37)
The one believing in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one not believing God has made him a liar, for he does not believe the testimony which God testified concerning his Son.
Believing or putting faith in God’s Son is a response that stems from the inner self. The accepted or received testimony of God is like a deposit within the believer. Having received God’s testimony as being directed to him personally, the individual embraces it, putting his trust or faith in the Son of God. The response is a personal one, not one induced by an emotionally charged group environment or any type of humanly devised pressure. The faith in the Son of God is based on the preserved first-century record setting forth the Father’s testimony concerning him.
The one who does not believe God’s testimony makes God out to be a liar, as the only valid reason for rejecting testimony is because of regarding it as false. Accordingly, if the testimony is treated as unacceptable or not to be trusted, the one testifying is made out to be a liar.
Notes:
After “has the testimony” a number of manuscripts add “of God.”
Instead of the reflexive heautó (himself), many manuscripts, including fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus, read autó (him).
The reference to believing “God” has the best manuscript support. Other Greek manuscripts say either “the Son” or “the Son of God.”
Today, the rejection of the testimony is primarily justified on the basis that the preserved first-century record concerning Jesus Christ is untrustworthy or that God does not even exist. Avowed unbelievers, therefore, continue to represent the testimony as unreliable or false.
And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
All who have put their faith in God’s beloved Son are in possession of a newness of life. Therefore, the testimony is the present enjoyment of God’s gift of eternal life, a life of knowing the Father and his Son or having an approved relationship with them. (John 17:3) This relationship is an eternal one and will be attained in all its fullness in the glorified state as sinless children of God.
Apart from the Son, this life of an abiding relationship would be impossible. It is “in” the Son, for believers must be at one with him, having accepted the atoning benefits of his sacrifice for them.
The one who has the Son has the life, and the one who does not have the Son does not have the life.
This “life” is the newness of life or the eternal life. For one to have the Son means to have a relationship with him based on unqualified faith or trust in him as the Christ, the Son of God. (Compare John 20:31.) The person who does not have the Son and so is without the benefits of his atoning sacrifice is not in possession of eternal life. Such a person is not in the family of God’s beloved children who are enjoying a newness of life because their sins have been forgiven.
These things I have written you that you may know that you have eternal life, [you] who believe in the name of the Son of God.
John wanted those to whom he directed his letter to have no doubt concerning their being in possession of eternal life, the life of abiding relationship with the Father and his Son. To believe in the “name” of the Son means to have faith in him, acknowledging him as the Christ, God’s Son, and one’s Lord. All who do have this faith are pardoned children of God, having been cleansed of their sins through faith in the atoning value of Christ’s precious blood.
And this is the confidence that we have with him, that, whatever we request according to his will, he hears us.
As God’s children, we can have confidence when approaching him in prayer that he will hear us. Because we love him and he loves us, we can pour out all our cares and concerns, holding nothing back. Inherent in all our requests is that his will be done, and he will never fail to answer any petition made according to his will.
Note: Regarding “confidence,” see also 2:28, 3:21, and 4:17.
And if we know that he hears us [in] whatever we may request, we know that we have the requests that we have requested from him.
Confidence in God’s hearing all requests leads to the assurance that prayers will be answered. The answer is so certain that, when the child of God asks, the request is transformed into possession. This is because the request has been directed to the Father according to his will.
If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he will make request, and he will give him life, to the ones not sinning unto death. [There] is a sin unto death. Concerning that sin I am not saying that he should make request.
Upon seeing a brother or fellow believer committing a sin of a nature suggesting that it would not lead to death or to the loss of the relationship with the Father and his Son, the concerned believer should pray for the erring fellow believer whom he loves. Because no antecedent distinguishes the one doing the asking and the one giving life to the erring brother, some have concluded that the intercessor is the instrument for bringing about the bestowal of life. It appears more appropriate, however, to regard the Father, to whom the prayer is directed, as answering it, resulting in life for the sinner and not condemnatory judgment. This would agree with the thoughts expressed in the previous two verses about requests directed to the Father.
A “sin unto death” or a deadly sin, based on the tenor of this letter, evidently would involve rejecting God’s Son and deliberately choosing to pursue a life of sin. John, however, did not forbid praying for a brother who seemingly became guilty of deadly sin. Instead, he did not say or direct that this be done, leaving it up to the individual believer to choose when or when not to pray for the sinner.
1 John 5:17.
All unrighteousness is sin, and [there] is sin not unto death.
Any form of unrighteousness (whatever violates the divine standard of what is right and good) is sin, and sin is the missing of the mark of uprightness in attitude, word, or deed. Not all sin, however, is deadly, leading to the loss of a relationship with God and Christ. That relationship is the essence of eternal life.
We know that everyone who has been generated from God does not sin, but the one generated from God guards him, and the evil one does not take hold of him.
The person born of or generated from God, enjoying the newness of life as his child, does not live a life of sin. In the manuscript reading that has “him” (autón) as the object of the one doing the guarding, the reference would be to Jesus Christ. God’s Son specifically gave the assurance that no one would snatch his sheep out of his hand. (John 10:27, 28) His being designated as the one generated (or begotten) from God would agree with his being the unique Son whom the Father raised from the dead. God fulfilled the promise made to the ancestors of the Israelites “by raising up Jesus, as it is written in the second psalm, ‘You are my son; this day I have begotten you.’” (Acts 13:32, 33, NAB)
Because God’s Son would be safeguarding believers, the evil one or the devil is unable to fasten his hold on them, bringing about their eternal ruin. Not many hours before his death, Jesus expressed a similar thought to Peter: “Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail.” (Luke 22:31, 32, NRSV)
According to fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and many later manuscripts, the one doing the guarding would not be Jesus Christ. Instead of “him” (autón), these manuscripts read “himself” (heautón), indicating that the believer or the one born of God would be watching himself.
We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies [under the control] of the evil one.
Believers know that they are children of God because of the working of his spirit within them, motivating them to live virtuous lives that reflect love in action. The world at enmity with God, however, is subservient to another master — the evil one or the devil. The evidence that a person is under the control of the evil one is a life that disregards God and is centered on self without thought about the effect on others or the eventual outcome.
But we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight that we may know the true one, and we are in the true one, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and eternal life.
Because of having the testimony within them (5:10), God’s children know for a certainty that his Son has come. Through the Son, by the life he lived and what he taught, they were given the needed insight or understanding to know the “true one” or, according to the reading of numerous other manuscripts, the “true God.” As Jesus Christ said to his apostles, “If you know me, you will also know my Father.” (John 14:7) On an earlier occasion, he made it clear that he alone knew his Father and could reveal him to others. “All things have been given me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son and the one to whom the Son may decide to reveal him.” (Matthew 11:27)
Believers are “in” or at one with the Father. This is because they are “in” or at one with his Son Jesus Christ.
From a strict grammatical standpoint, the concluding words (“This one is the true God and eternal life”) would apply to Jesus Christ (the immediate antecedent). There are factors, however, that make this unlikely.
In this letter, it is often not possible to determine whether the pronouns refer to the Father or to the Son. Therefore, context needs to be given greater weight than grammatical construction, and context would include the quoted words of Jesus and the expressions of first-century believers. This context is explicit in identifying the Father as the only true God. “Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3, NAB) “Jesus said, ‘Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” (John 20:17, NIV) “[F]or us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (1 Corinthians 8:6, NRSV) The typical expression (with variations in the use of pronouns) found in Paul’s letters is “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” We also find the words “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 15:6; Ephesians 1:3) To the Colossians (1:3, NRSV), Paul wrote, “In our prayers for you we always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Against the backdrop of this context, “this one is the true God” may rightly be understood as applying to the Father.
The use of houtós (this one; he) in other passages indicates that the term is at times used to relate to an earlier-mentioned subject and not what would, in a strict grammatical sense, be regarded as the nearest antecedent. (See Acts 4:10, 11; 7:18, 19; 1 John 2:22; 2 John 7.)
The subject on which John here focused is the “true one” or the “true God” with whom believers are at one by reason of being at one with his Son. He, the Father, is the true God and the source of eternal life, the life of an abiding relationship made possible by his arrangement for salvation through his Son. (See 5:11 and John 5:26.)
Note: Manuscripts vary in reading “but we know,” “and we know, or “we know.” These differences, however, do not affect the meaning.
Little children, guard yourselves from idols.
Believers are again addressed affectionately as “little children” or “dear children.” The concluding exhortation is a logical follow-up to the preceding thought that they are “in” the “true one.” The Son revealed his Father, the true God, and “in” the Son believers are at one with the Father. Children of God should remain exclusively devoted to him, shunning every form of idolatry. An idol can be anything that interferes with an exclusive attachment to their Father, making the admonition that they keep themselves from idols timeless.
Note: Numerous manuscripts conclude with “amen.”