Sermon Addendum: Letters of John

So, I just didn't really finish strong on Psalm PSeptember 2024 with additional sermon information. You know what they say: you can't win them all. And I'm a Razorback fan, so sometimes not only can I not win them, I can't close out good starts well, either.

We're going to move forward, though, instead of dwelling on past mistakes, let's go make some new mistakes!

Our next two months of sermons will come from the Letters of John in the New Testament. These three books, labeled I John, II John, and III John (or 1, 2, and 3 John, depending on your Bible printer!) are traditionally ascribed to John the Apostle, but there will be some discussion of that later.

Instead, what I want to do here is give you some resources to look at, partly as a glimpse toward sermon production. I know I've covered some those ideas before on this blog, but let's face it: it's been a while and you probably didn't read those posts anyway.

The first resource for a sermon is the only one that is absolutely critical: you've got to have a Bible. You can't preach without a Bible. And preferably a Bible in your own language, because that's the language you will preach in and your hearers will listen in! Fortunately, gone are the days, at least in most Christian traditions, where the Scripture was read in Latin, the sermon (or homily) was delivered in Latin, and the non-Latin speaking churchgoers just had to hope it was okay.

On Bibles, I like using a more "formal" type of translation. For years, I used the New American Standard Bible translation, the 1995 Update. Then I decided to be a good Southern Baptist and use the very nice Christian Standard Bible translation (2013 version) that Lifeway gave me. Both the NASB95 and the CSB are good translations. The CSB is a little less "formal" than the NASB, and what that means is the English is more like how we talk and a little less like the Greek odd structures. 

These days, I use the NET Bible translation, the most recent print version in their "Full Notes Edition." I like the methodology and such. 

That's always the first thing for a sermon: Bible. If you don't have one handy, preach only what you have correctly memorized. If you're not sure you have the verse right, don't preach it.

Second resource: I'm using my Tyndale House Greek New Testament. I'm happy to be back preaching in the New Testament because I can do some of my own language work. I won't preach "my translation" because I am not good enough with Greek to correct Bible translators, but I am good enough that it helps me understand better. And I can see what is going on underneath the English. This resource couples with the Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (GE for quick reference) and the third edition of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (BDAG for short). Along with the occasional glance at a reference grammar like Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.

(This helps me understand some of the differences in 1 John 1:1 between translations. More on that, probably next week.)

Third resource stack is the commentary stack. Commentaries come in several "profiles," from technical to devotional. The technical ones do a lot with grammar and historical studies; the devotional ones do a lot with "what it means for us now." Most commentaries do all of the above, but the mix is what defines the profile.

Commentaries also come with different assumptions. Some, like the New American Commentary/Christian Standard Commentary series assume most of the traditional understandings of the text, like John the Apostle being the author, etc., are true and should only be abandoned if there is an abundance of indisputable evidence. Others, like the Word Biblical Commentary Series, tend to go the other way: assume the tradition is not valid unless you can prove it.

There are others that note specific aspects of the text. These look at ideas like "socio-rhetorical" issues or "discourse analysis" issues. Either one helps you look at the text a little differently than just as normal English writing on a page. After all, the original was not mass-printed English writing in a book.

It was hand-written by a person in a culture, place, time, and situation. The more we learn about those, the better we might understand what was meant in the writing!

Commentaries that I will use for 1-3 John sermons? Here's a list:

I, II, III John: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament) by Martin M. Culy.

1-3 John (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament) by Robert Plummer and E. Roderick Elledge.

1, 2, 3 John: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (vol. 38, New American Commentary) by Daniel L. Akin.

An Exegetical Summary of 1, 2, and 3 John by John L. Anderson.

Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John by Ben Witherington.

1, 2, and 3 John (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) by Karen H. Jobes.

There will be others--I'll consult with my Ancient Christian Commentary volume that covers these books as well as a few other options, but those ar the starting points.

That is how the sermon series starts: a lot of background learning as well as consulting with others who God has blessed us with, others who can help me understand the text of the Word of God.

Gatekeepers: 3 John

In Summary:
3 John is another short book in Scripture. In fact, at a little over 200 words in the original Greek, it’s the shortest book in the whole Bible. (You can compare Greek-to-Greek by using the Septuagint.)

One of the great things about Scripture, though, is every word is valuable, and every word is given by God with a purpose. So, even the short 3 John has value. We see a couple of points in summary:

First, John writes to a friend, opening with his concern for Gaius’ own health and prosperity. There is no reason to get carried away with “prosperity” in 3 John 3, as it can simply mean the overall meeting of needs and provision for life. And, it’s linked to the prosperity of his soul—the focus is on the relationship with Jesus not on material.

Second, John keeps his eyes on the importance of walking in the truth. Realize that this is the same pen that wrote “God is love” in 1 John 4:8, so John is not short on acknowledging the love of God.

But he sees that love as inseparable from the truth of who God is.

In Focus:
John’s primary purpose in writing, though, is to address the issue of the gatekeepers of the church. In this case, we’re not talking about a gate in a fence, but rather the overall idea of those who determined who was permitted to come into the church, who was permitted to speak or teach, and to whom the church extended hospitality.

The church in question had a problem here, because Diotrephes had become the power broker in the situation. He utilized his role in the church for his own power and his own privilege, rather than for the betterment of the body. Why? John said he “loves to be first.”

John further highlights that he will, when he gets there, deal with Diotrephes.

In Practice:
Why do you think John wrote this to Gaius? It is most likely that John hoped Gaius could persuade Diotrephes to repent. Perhaps they were friends, family members, they had some relationship that had endured despite the questionable behaviors of Diotrephes.

And John wanted Gaius to work through that relationship to bring Diotrephes to repentance and restoration, for the sake of his own soul and for the good of the whole church.

You see where this is going, right? In the current era of the church, we have similar problems. There are people who have warped the church of the Living God for their own power and pleasure, to the detriment of the church and to the harm of many souls. Meanwhile, most of these have friends and associates who have remained faithful, true to the Gospel, living in the truth, and the question becomes:

Will they call their friend to repentance? In a Christendom filled with folks claiming to be Daniel or Peter or Paul or David, we need men and women to step up and be Gaius. We need those who will step forward, look their friend in the eye, and call them to repentance.

And not secretly after the first attempt: John’s letter is no closed-door meeting. The opportunity for Diotrephes to have private repentance and restoration had passed, for the damage was too wide, too public, and the only restoration could be found if the repentance matched the sin.

So what will we do? What did John find when he came to Gaius and the church? Did he find himself having to rebuke not only Diotrephes but also Gaius for falling from the truth?



What will Jesus find when He calls us to account?



In Nerdiness: 

Authorship discussions likely belong here, but there is not much to say that has not already been said regarding 1 John or 2 John. If those two are written by the Apostle John, then this one is. If not, it is likely that this one was not, either. There is very little reason to suggest a different author among the Johannine Epistles, and the determination of the Apostle John’s authorship is more a matter of historical study than it is examination of the inspired text. It does not follow that a New Testament text must be written by an Apostle to be counted as inspired by God (as referenced in 2 Timothy 3:16). We need to be cautious not to confuse the value of the text with the worthiness of its originator.

Which, of course, needs its own caveats even today for texts that are not “inspired” in the same manner as Scripture. For example, David is “inspired” in a manner that I would label as “without error” or “inerrant” when he wrote the Psalms of praise found in the text. A modern worship song may be “inspired” in a positive way, but can be wrong—some songs are really good, inspired, with one bad line in them! There is a difference.

However, on point, there is a challenge in addressing the character of the author of a text. On the one hand, David committed adultery and murder and wrote Psalms of praise; Saul persecuted the Church in its infancy and wrote much of the New Testament; James and Jude, brothers of Jesus, only show up in the Gospels as not believing in Him and write two important letters; Peter, Mark, Matthew all have issues in their background—and we do not discard their writings. On the the other hand, what do we do with others?

First, I would suggest that we set aside those writings received by the church throughout her history as inspired by God and in the canon of Scripture. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, Mark’s account of the Gospel, Ezra’s retelling of the building of the Second Temple, all of these fall under slightly different rules—rules driven by a belief in the inspiration of the text. The real question comes in things written more recently.

Sometimes only a hundred years more recently, like a 2nd century Church Father, or 1900 years more recently, like a nineteenth century minister. What do we do with those?

A couple of thoughts:

1. Compare someone’s “progressive” nature or “cultural” situation to where he or she is coming from, not where you are looking back from. A writer of the 8th century speaking of women as “surprising in their ability to have an intellect equal to men” was ahead of his time, not repressive and misogynistic. Saying the same thing now would be rude—but we live in a society that has had time to process such things.

That is not to say that some blind spots have to be ignored. Many of prior centuries views on race are so distant from what appears to be clear Biblical teaching as to confound us as to how the readers got there. But, honesty should compel us to admit we might have gotten it just as wrongly.

Do we toss all of the writings of ministers, poets, scholars of those eras? I would say we do not, but we must remember to check their lenses if we use them today.

2. The other side is one of character: while blind spots, even egregious ones, can be understood culturally, we cannot dismiss blatant, constant character failings. The authority of one who could never keep a marriage vow or was abusive to those in his care must be questioned, and typically rejected. It is unlikely that there is any one person, past the Apostles, whose contribution is so unique and so foundational that his (or her) work must be held onto regardless of their own character. Salvation by grace is not preached only in Luther or Calvin or Zwingli, for example, if one finds that any of the Magisterial Reformers were too wicked to trust their theology.

And the same can be said for songwriters, etc., for no one who writes is perfect. I am not stating that all should be sinless or discarded, but if someone is actively engaged (or, historically, was actively engaged) in a sinful lifestyle then their work should be heavily reconsidered. We sing “Amazing Grace” because John Newton wrote it after seeing his sin in slave-selling. Had he written it while in the midst of profiteering on human suffering, we should perhaps find a different song.

For the Sake of the Truth: 2 John

In Summary:

Well, we’ve hit a book that is just one chapter, so the summary will have to introduce the book and knock out the whole chapter in one fell swoop. Which should be easy, though it is not uncommon to write about 2 John and use more words than the whole of 2 John contains. In fact, take a minute and go read 2 John. I’ll be here when you get back in 5 minutes.

This letter, like four of John’s writings, is technically anonymous. It is written from “The Elder” and addressed to “The Chosen Lady.” How do we get “John the Apostle” (also, traditionally called “John the Evangelist,” as the author of the Gospel, or Evangel) from “The Elder”? Well, that’s a good question, dear reader, and it takes some examination. At this point, some 1900 years after the writing of 2 John, we can start as taking this as received tradition. When you look at it from that perspective, it’s like a replay of a football call: you accept what has been said, unless you find clear and convincing evidence to overturn the call. So you can start there, but you have to acknowledge two things: 1) it’s not explicit in the inerrant text, so you could be wrong; 2) even the early church was not certain that it was the same John.

However, the received tradition is based on a couple of usable clues. First, the authority evident in the letter itself suggests someone who is well-regarded by the church and needs no introduction. Unlike our “this man needs no introduction,” which we typically follow up with a “here’s the introduction,” apparently The Elder needed no introduction…and got none. Second, there are language similarities to 1 John and John, as well as theological themes in common. There is not a strongly compelling reason to think the tradition is wrong, but we should be careful hanging too much on authorship here.

The next question becomes: who is “The Chosen Lady?” You get two choices here as well. It’s either symbolic or literal. You’re either seeing a letter sent to a group symbolized by the term, or to a definite person who is the audience. The Church is often referred to as the “Bride of Christ,” which would legitimately result in this type of address. Further, The Elder addresses not only The Chosen Lady but also her “children,” and this is often taken as the church and those they have reached with the Gospel. Further, the closing verse of “the children of your chosen sister greet you” (2 John 13) could be an indicator that The Elder speaks of another congregation. We know that the early church used family terms to refer to one another and their fellow congregations.

However, it is also possible that The Elder (John) has developed a relationship with a believing family and is writing for the purpose of encouraging a specific lady and her children. Perhaps she has been a supporter of the ministry or is a believer who has recently had to relocate and needs both news of her children left behind (v. 4) and guidance for traveling teachers she will encounter at times (v. 9).

Either way, the message then comes to us, as written initially to a person or a congregation of the ancient world, and now we strive to apply it to our modern day.

In Focus:

With that in mind, while there are many quick truths here, put your focus on 2 John 10-11 about greeting those who do not abide in the teaching of Christ. The instruction is not to even bring those who teach falsehood into the home. This rejection of hospitality is notable: that was not the way of the world at the time. You provided hospitality to those in need or even those traveling about, even if you did not know the person. The exception were those who had deeply wronged your family.

And The Elder is instructing the Chosen Lady to treat false teachers in exactly that manner: they are wronging the family. Do not so much as let them in for lunch.

In Practice:

What does that look like for us?

First, what it does not look like: if the recruiting team for another religion knocks on your door and you bring them for a glass of water and to tell them about Jesus, then you are not violating this principle. That’s a good thing to do.

What should we not do? We should not do things like: send that snake-oil peddling Gospel-denying TV preacher $50 just “in case” or anything of the sort. We should not support those ministers who harm the family by being wolves in sheep’s clothing and abusing their authority or position.

We have to be discerning. Which requires us, as the people of God, to know the Word of God well enough to discern right from wrong and, as Spurgeon (I think) said, discern right from “almost” right. Remember that Truth is like asking if the power is on or off before you rewire the ceiling fan: there’s no “almost” or “maybe.” That wire is either hot or it isn’t. And if it is, you’re going to get zapped.

For the sake of the truth, we must know the Truth and hold to it.

In Nerdiness: 
Well, some of the nerdcontent is up there in the In Summary section, but a few more notes: if 3 John is written by the same person as 2 John, then we could consider the intro to 3 John in deciphering 2 John. 3 John is from “The Elder” to “The Beloved Gaius.” It would be logical that the formula in 2 John matches and “The Chosen Lady” is a name formula.

A Conquered World: 1 John 5

In Summary:

It’s taken me a long time to finish 1 John. Which is, honestly, somewhat odd because I’ve preached through 1 John several times and greatly enjoyed it. I do not remember who first suggested it, but I remember being advised that the best place to point a new believer in the Bible was to 1 John. Through these five short chapters, one can gather a background in the basics of Christian belief, the person of Jesus, and the way of walking with Him.

That being said, let us take a look at this last chapter.  John presents his closing arguments to the church. He is writing, per 1 John 5:13, to help them have confidence in the eternal life that comes through Christ. But that eternal life is not a “later-on” thing which holds no import in the current day. Instead, the beliefs underpin a changed life now. It starts with loving God, which is demonstrated by keeping his commands (1 John 5:3) but then goes on to “conquer the world,” (1 John 5:4). Conquest would be something clearly understood in the original time: the Romans were typically ruling over places that they had conquered at some point in the past, and that past was not too far away. John himself would have been well-aware of the life of Israel as a land conquered by Rome, and many in the churches would have been descended from those Rome had overrun.

In Focus:

In focus, though, look at how this conquest takes place: 1 John 5:5 speaks of Jesus conquering. He is the One who has conquered not just by water but by water and blood, with the Spirit testifying to the truth of this. This should be understood as a reference to both the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus, showing this is how He demonstrated who He is and why He came.

This is not the type of “conquest” that many people were looking for. It is a conquest that starts with individuals converting from their self-driven kingdoms and surrendering to God. The change, the new kingdom starts within and works outward, loving God and loving one another.


In Practice:

What, then, do we do?

First, we need to get our focus right. Our conquest of the world starts with allowing God, through His Word and His Holy Spirit, to conquer us. That’s entirely different than forming political action groups or gathering to boycott, protest, or any other form of earthly structures. If we are not mastered by the Word of God, then we are in no shape to be part of God’s plan in the world around us. To get there, we must learn His Word that we may follow Him, that we may obey Him.

Second, let us keep in mind that we are conquering. That should put in our hearts a readiness for opposition. That opposition should be coming from the world, though, and not structured by our own hearts or our fellow conquerors.

Which brings us to point three: guess what you learn in the study of history? Most conquests fall apart not from lack of strength but because, internally, strife and division destroyed the unity and strength of the conquerors. And if you look at the church today, why do we not conquer? Disunity and strife. Strife from abusive leaders that should be removed, corrected, and guided to repentance. Division from church members who think the church is their property and not the property of the Living God. Strife from the tyranny of traditions and division from the chaos of trying to always embrace the new.

The solution is to be unified in the power of God, grounded in the Word of God.

In Nerdiness: 

A. There’s a textual criticism issue with 1 John 5:7, which most newer translations footnote with “late mss (for ‘manuscripts’) add testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8. And there are three who bear witness on earth:” followed by v. 8 as we have it in the text. Because those manuscripts are the foundation of earlier Bible translations, like the King James or the Geneva Bible, the first appearance here is that newer translations are removing part of Scripture. However, the other side of the debate suggests that, historically, at some point a scribe copying 1 John added the phrase, and the newer translations are restoring the original text. Which is accurate? I personally hold that the text is without error in its original form, so here I would say whatever and however the Holy Spirit inspired John to write, that was inerrant. If the Holy Spirit did not inspire the longer rendering, then it should be out.

And we can figure this out with some degree of certainty, but it is not a great place to camp out dogmatically. Textual criticism (the term for this branch of study) is a science, and as such remains open to new evidence, new methods. We can be certain, though, that no doctrine is at risk here. The doctrine of the Trinity is pretty explicitly spelled out in the later reading, but it’s not like it’s absent in the rest of Scripture. Plus, there’s a potential lean in the wrong direction of restricting the Trinity to Heaven only with that line rather than seeing the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit at work on earth. Still and all—don’t get overwrought by some of the textual questions. There are good scholars who take the Word of God seriously who spend their lifetimes on this stuff; not everyone with a textual question is a heretic out to destroy the faith. Many of the faithful women and men in Biblical Studies as an academic field are trying to make sure we understand fully rather than only through tradition.

B. John’s conclusion is quite different from Paul’s letters: there are no personal greetings here, no notes of travel plans. Just a final warning: beware of idols. It’s a good one for us, as well: guard yourselves from idols. An idol cannot do anything to you unless you embrace it.

Beloveds: 1 John 4

Dear readers: yes, it’s a blog post from Doug. You may have forgotten you subscribed, but I hope you’ll stick around.

In Summary:
It’s amazing, really, how much John packs into this chapter as we look at 1 John 4. He opens with the need to test the “spirits,” moves through the spirit of the antichrist, and then passes through to the importance of love for the family of God. It’s a well-packed chapter. 1 John has five of those, honestly, which make it one of the better “read this first!” sections of the New Testament. In fact, that’s usually my guidance to a new believer: start with 1 John. The Gospels give us the events of the life of Christ, the miracles and teachings that are key to understanding who Jesus is. 1 John, though, distills much of the Gospel and has deep truth for the long-time disciple of Jesus while still presenting great first step points for the new disciples.

The chapter breaks down into three major sections, each one opening with John’s preferred address for the church: “Beloved.” The first section challenges the church to test the spirits, because there are false prophets in the world. He then gives a basic test, and it’s a doctrinal one: is this spirit in agreement with the truth that Jesus has come in the flesh? (1 John 1:1) If not, then it is a false spirit. The real test of spirituality is right doctrine: you do not get closer to God through wrong-headedness about the person of Jesus.

The second “Beloved” section addresses God’s love for people, and features one of the top five most misquoted, context-removed segments of Scripture: “God is love.” That definition only works when you let God’s Word define love. It doesn’t work with a cultural love, a Hollywood love, or a personal quest kind of love. This love includes Jesus coming as the propitiation for sins: the sacrifice necessary to appease the wrath of God. Love, then, is seen in sacrifice. Connected with the first section, where we saw the importance of acknowledging Jesus came in the flesh, here we see that right doctrine also includes knowing Jesus came to die for our sins, and that the further test of spirituality is right love: your right doctrine is required and must be acted out in surrender to Jesus and His love shown on the cross.

The third “Beloved” section delves deeper into the love for one another that comes as a result of God’s love for us: we love one another because the love of God is in us. Right doctrine and right love for God results in a full love for God’s people. If you love God but cannot find a love that is sacrificial for His people, you are missing something.

In Focus:
In focus, though, let us look at 1 John 4:15: whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God abides in him, and he in God. If you have confessed Jesus is the Son of God, surrendered to Him as Lord and Saviour, then you are not simply “on your way” to God’s presence or hopefully traveling—you are there. You abide in God and God abides in you. Now, we will not attempt to resolve this issue right here and right now. I would say it falls under the wondrous mystery of how God works. But God is with you, right there, in whatever situation you are in, fellow believers. You are not abandoned, even if all the church has failed you, even if your closest loves have failed you. God abides in you, and you abide in Him. It’s a state of reality.

In Practice:
What do we do about it, then?

1. Learn to trust this as reality. Just like kids learning to walk, following Jesus is a learning to walk type of exercise. You need to remind yourself, daily, that you are in God and that God has not abandoned you. The best way to do that is to read your Bible, pray, and make a few notes about how God is at work in your life.

2. Because you are secure in God, take a chance or two in life. Love those who seem unlovable. Share what God has done in you and what He has taught you—love one another sacrificing your self-image and your pride; love one another by surrendering what you hold tightly inside so that others can see Jesus in you.

3. And since you are secure in the God who abides in you, stop chasing after every nut who claims to be spiritual. Test the spirits and see if God has really spoken through them—if they change the focus off the truth of the Incarnation of Jesus, that Jesus came, really, in the flesh, died for sinners, and rose again, move on. They’re either false or a useless distraction.

In Nerdiness:

1. The “Beloved”s are all in the vocative case in Greek. If you want to be really particular, they are substantive adjectives in the vocative case, plural in number, masculine in gender. The vocative is used primarily as direct address, like calling someone’s name. You could translate the single word Ἀγαπητοί as “Beloved ones that I am speaking to” or some other extended phrase, but this fits. Which is part of the nerd note here: what’s a “literal” translation? :) Further, what’s a “thought-process” translation? Greek is a gendered language, each word is masculine, neuter, or feminine, and that cannot be changed for modern understandings, so we have this reality: a group of anything but all women will be referred to with a masculine term. This masculine word is inclusive…unless, of course, one assumes that the early church was deliberately gender-segregated and the letters were only to the men in the church. Which, in turn, reads a culture onto the text that may or not be there.

How, then, do you translate it? Here, NASB, ESV, and KJV get it simplest: “Beloved” brings across the sense of the word. CSB and NLT’s “Dear friends” works for this word, but I think it loses a bit of the love repetition that John uses through the book (he uses words rooted in αγαπαω more than 25 times in 1 John).

2. Antichrist. We have to deal with this sometime: this word only appears in Christian writings, it may have been a word created by John—it only shows up in 1 and 2 John. (That’s right, the Greek word for “antichrist” is not in Revelation.) When you are trying to understand a word in Biblical studies (or any language, really), your first key to meaning is the pre-existing semantic range of the term: What did it mean when the author used it? You see the problem here, I am sure: there is no semantic range prior to the New Testament usage. Same with checking usage outside of the author in question: John is the only one who uses the term. That leaves two other good factors: context of the word and, if it’s a compound word (made up of known parts), looking at the individual parts to see what you have (this can lead us in questionable direction: take the English word “butterfly” as an example; the ‘butter’ part needs some research, though the thing does ‘fly,’ it’s not exactly a ‘fly’). The context gives us the idea that we are looking at a personal agent, and then the term parts are “anti” and “Christ.” Now, we have to remember that we need the Greek meaning of “anti” and not the English, so….generally, it means “opposite” or “in place of.” If you take the word “antichrist” apart and get its components, it means “something or someone opposed to or in place of Christ [the Anointed One].” I think the term “Christ” is definitely a personal title for Jesus in almost of all of its usage in the New Testament, so that’s what an “antichrist” is against, opposite, or in place of: the person of Jesus.

Because of Love: 1 John 3

In Summary:
John continues to emphasize the love of God for the church. Realize that this is John’s primary theme throughout 1 John: the actions of God are driven by His love. Why would this matter to John or the church in that era?

It matters because this is ultimate contrast between Christianity and the religions of the day, as well as the primary contrast between Christianity and the Judaism it formed from: God acts because of His own love for His creation. Greek and Roman myths, native and traditional religions, all had various gods and deities that operated for their purposes. Some acted on their truth, some acted on their love, some acted out of spite for the other gods in the pantheon!

But there were no major gods and goddesses that acted out of self-giving love. An all-powerful Deity that willing gave to those who, honestly, could not give anything back to Him? That was beyond comprehension. Every god of the age needed something back from his or her worshipers, even if it was just statistical support that this god was not irrelevant.

God the Father, though, does not act out of self-interest. Despite being the Almighty, His actions are on behalf of His creations.

Because He is love.

John draws the contrast between the hatred that is of this world, connecting it with Cain, with murder, and with death. His push, though, is ever God-oriented, pointing to the love that God gives us.

In Focus:
Love, though, is not an idle thought in John’s mind. God’s perfect love required Him to act, because it is impossible for love to be perfect without follow-up action.

And if we are going to love in response to the love of God, our first response is to love God with all He gives us. That love will show in our response to His commandments.

In Practice:
Practically speaking, there are two things here.

First, there is the need for us to get our motivation right. God’s love precedes our actions, and our love should precede our actions as well. Our actions should arise from a heart that is passionate to show the love God has placed within us. We should not act as if we are earning God’s love or developing a better standing before God but because we are already loved. Our motivation is gratitude.

Which leads into the second thing to get right: the actions that we use to show love. Since our motivation is gratitude, then our response should fit with what the One we are showing gratitude for desires. And this is made clear in God’s Word. This should be seen as liberating: you do not have to go out and try to figure out what to do for God! You can simply abide in His commandments (1 John 3:24) and trust that God meant what He said.

Beyond that, your creativity can shine through within the parameters God has set. He gave it to you, so utilize it. Let it work in His framework.


In Nerdiness: 
Just a brief reminder: when John speaks of the commandments of God, he’s using two sources:
1. First-hand knowledge of what Jesus commanded, which is what we find in the New Testament;
2. Learned knowledge of what God had commanded in the covenant, which is what we find in the Old Testament.

You may get some differences in application, and you get some fulfillments, but you do not know the character of God fully if you do not use all of His word.

Attitudes and Actions: 1 John 2

In Summary:
John continues his letter by giving his overall purpose in writing the church. He wants them to not sin—simple enough, right? After all, who would want to continue sinning after meeting the grace of Jesus?

John’s concern, though, is that his church, his friends, will still sin. Perhaps because they are still new to the faith, new to the idea of what it is to follow Jesus. Perhaps because even those who have been in the faith for a while will still stumble and fall. There are two things, though, that John knows about his audience: they are human, which means they will fall short of perfection; they are loved by God, which means they should also have hope.

Yet there must have been those who looked at the grace of God and understood it to mean that they could do anything at all. After all, there was inexhaustible grace and they were released from the law, so all things were permissible, right?

Here is an important aside: John’s readers do not have the rest of the New Testament at this point. They have the Old Testament and the oral teachings of the Apostles, with perhaps some of the earlier writings of the Church. (Everything we deal with in dating the New Testament writings is an estimate, based on our understanding of when various events happened and how they are reflected in the writings.)

So the church John writes to is not in possession of Galatians or Ephesians as reminders of grace. They do not have Romans as an instruction on the importance and use of the Law in the church. They just have what they’ve been told—and now John is trying to help round out the ideas they have heard. He writes to the church about the importance of obeying God.

In Focus:
His focus is on the church members showing love for one another as evidence that the light is shining and the darkness is fading away. One cannot hate his brother and claim to be filled with the love of God, and John’s continued expression of how love looks through the behaviors of the church. The world, he says in 2:17, is passing away. So loving the things of the world is a pointless exercise.

Instead, the love of the church should be spent on those within the family of faith. Now, it is important to get this right about that idea: John’s instruction is not to neglect the community around the body of Christ, but rather an emphasis point. As Jesus Himself said, the church would be known by the world because of its love for one another (John 13:35). The love within the community should have been visible to the wider world, and been something that the world around the church wanted to encounter. Further, it was a genuine love, and those who show love for some will naturally overflow that onto others.

And finally, the church recognized that all people were made in the image of God. Once they accepted that as the reality of the world around them, then it was natural to show love to those they encounter.

Now, what is this love? It is to work to bring others to follow Jesus, in line with His commandments and His ways. Love is to treat others as Jesus would treat them: with grace, mercy, and righteousness.

In Practice:
What do we do about this?

First, we need to look at our own lives: do we love one another? Our actions within churches suggest that we do not. If we are being self-serving or demanding, then we are not showing love. If we are using the church for our own purposes and not surrendering to God to be used for His purpose, we are not showing love to one another. There are too many examples of abuse and wrongdoing in the church to count these days—and those are just the big moments!

How do you approach your relationship with your local church family? Do you look forward to being with and supporting one another? Or are you there because you have to be, and those folks better stay out of your way on a bad day? Or, do you not even have a local church family? You need one. None of them are perfect, but you need one anyway.

Second, we need to look at how we live out our faith in the world around us: does the love we live for the people within the body spill out into the streets around our churches?

Is it possible that our actions reflect an attitude that puts us in the position of anti-Christ in the life of others? Keep in mind that the actual term here means “before Christ” or, perhaps, “in the way of reaching Christ.”

Could that be where we sit with our own demands and methods?

In Nerdiness: 

“Paraclete” is the term translated as “Advocate” in 1 John 2:1. Origen (3rd Century) connects this title to both Jesus and the Holy Spirit, highlighting both intercessor and comforter. It’s a term that is used of the Holy Spirit in John 14:26 (and the verses following in 15 and 16 that refer to the Spirit) and not many other places in Scripture. This is a place where you do get toward the idea by breaking down the parts of the compound word: “Called with” is good, “called alongside” is perhaps better here, and so we get the “one who is called alongside” as the idea. Some suggest a legal concept, thus tying into “Advocate” like an attorney is an advocate, but it may be simpler than that and be anyone who does not have to be involved in someone’s difficulties but joins in to help because he can. (some info from BDAG, some from ACCS)