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.

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)

Joyous Doctrine: 1 John 1

In Summary:

Now we move forward into the Johannine Epistles. These are the three letters labeled 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John in the Bible. Tradition, including the manuscript evidence available with labels, ascribes the authorship of these letters to John, son of Zebedee and brother of James, one of the Twelve Disciples. There are also some connections in vocabulary and methodology between the Gospel of John and 1 John, especially, that suggest these have the same author. For a fuller look at the issues, take a read here The Writings of John by C. Marvin Pate. For simplicity’s sake, I will simply proceed on the assumption that these are written by John the Apostle. I see no harm to the interpretation of the text that way.

1 John does not read like one of Paul’s Epistles. We are not faced with the standard opening greetings, personal remarks, or even authorial declaration! John begins his letter where he also begins his Gospel: at the very “beginning.” (See John 1:1) Rather than identify himself by his calling, his ministry, or even his name, John highlights that he writes of what he has seen, studied, and touched. He establishes that his work is based on personal interaction with Jesus, here called the Word of Life. He goes on to make clear in this chapter that God has no darkness in Him, but that we all have a need for God because of our sin.

In Focus:

Where we could focus for a moment is on 1 John 1:4. Why here? John gives his reason for writing: so that his “joy may be made complete.” First off, let’s address the “we write….our joy….” concept here. In the modern way of speaking, we are accustomed to using a singular first-person pronoun because using the plural requires either multiple people or it’s a sign of self-importance like the “royal we” that is used by kings and queens. So, if we read that backward onto the text, our opinion of John will be skewed. Or we will search for the identity of those with him.

But you cannot do that with a text written in another culture, another language, and another millennium. You have to dig into how they wrote back then. There are two additional aspects of using “we/our” in place of “I/mine.” The first is actually that it was possible that an author was speaking on behalf of a larger group even if none is specified. For example, John writes as part of the “we” that is the church, to another part of the church. The other possibility comes back to fellowship: John is writing so that the joy of he and his audience will be complete. That is the view I would take here, that John is addressing the idea of fellowship and interaction between the church-at-large, and how he is writing to ensure his audience remains in fellowship with the Body of Christ at large.

This connects to his explanation of doctrinal issues in this first chapter: the eternal nature of Jesus and the untainted goodness of God. If the recipients of the letter undo the character of God or lose the divinity of Christ, they are moving so far from the faith that they will not be in fellowship any longer, they will not be able to count themselves in the Body of Christ any longer.

In Practice:

What does this mean for us?

First, note that there is joy to be found in getting doctrine right and together. We tend to think of doctrine as dry, dull, unhappy matters to attend to quickly so that we can do the fun stuff. But knowing the truth about God is joyful. It should bring us joy to think of the Eternal God and His untainted character. Especially if you look around and see some tainted characters in this world.

Second, note that we are part of a community of faith that needs us, and we need them. We are too quick to isolate ourselves, sometimes simply within our own churches, and miss the larger picture. In the same way, our churches tend to do that as well. Come up for air and look around: there are good things to celebrate in other places, and things to take warning of from other places.

Third, note that John is writing. He is communicating, with all effort to be clear, about what the church needs. We need to do the same thing: be clear about the Truth of Jesus, first of all, and about truth overall. We cannot work in hints and suggestions, or with unwritten, unclear ideas. Spread the truth plainly, that the joy of understanding may be known.

In Nerdiness: 

Nerd note 1: According to some of my sources (academic sources, not news-type sources, I just don’t want to list all the differing commentaries, Study Bibles, etc…), 1 John should be considered the first of John’s writings, and his Gospel comes later. Other sources flip-flop that and put the Gospel first. I’m inclined to agree that the Epistle came first. Some of the thoughts in the Epistle seem to be more fully developed in the Gospel, and knowing preachers, I figure if John had already written his Gospel, he would have just sent it instead of writing a new letter.

Nerd note 2: in 1:1, “Word of Life” is “Logos of Life” in Greek, using the same terminology that John uses in his Gospel about “In the beginning was the Word…” good parallel to take note of.