This section of 1 John is unified by the idea of the children of God: who they are and how one can identify them by their lives. It is a passage dominated by ethics, particularly an ethical concern for righteousness and sin. It compares two “families”: the children of God and the children of the devil. In the background, as always, are the Elder’s opponents, the secessionists, whom he strongly contrasts to his own “dear children.”
The unit is built on a structure of four antitheses, four pairs of opposing statements:
A.
1. Everyone who does what is right
(2:29b)
2. Everyone who sins
(3:4a)
B.
1. No one who lives in him
(3:6a)
2. No one who continues to sin
(3:6b)
C.
1. He who does what is right
(3:7b)
2. He who does what is sinful
(3:8a)
D.
1. No one who is born of God
(3:9a)
2. Anyone who does not do what is right
(3:10b)
All of these contrasting pairs have the same grammatical structure: they begin with a definite article (often with pas) followed by a present tense participle (the participle in 3:9a is the perfect tense with the force of the present). Seeing this, it becomes clear that the subsection 3:1–3 is a parenthetical celebration of the reality of being God’s children, inside a larger unit concerned about what the lives of those who claim to belong to God should be like.
2:28 Just as the last unit began with an eschatological note (“this is the last hour,” 2:18), so does this one. Two common NT words for the return of Christ occur in this verse: phanerōthē and parousia. The former may be translated when he appears, an action of Christ himself, or “when he is manifested,” leaving the initiation of Christ’s return to the Father. The second term, parousia, coming, was used in the Hellenistic world for the visit of a king to a foreign province.
The link between this and the preceding verse is clear: the command continue in him is identical in both, though one would not know this from the NIV which uses “remain” in v. 27 and continue in v. 28. Perhaps the NIV translators chose to vary the reading because they sensed correctly that the author’s emphasis in v. 28 is different. He is thinking about his community remaining faithful to Christ, persevering until his return and not going the way of the secessionists. When Christ comes, because they have continued in fellowship with him, they will be confident (lit., “have confidence”; parrēsian may also mean “boldness”) and unashamed. (Note the implied antithesis between confidence and shame; cf. also 3:19–21 and 4:17–18). The little phrase before him suggests a scene in which believers personally appear before Christ, as people coming into the presence of a king, and react to him as ones who either already know him or have reason to fear for their lives.
2:29 Keeping the readers’ minds on Christ, the Elder now raises the subject of Christ’s nature or character. This will be his dominant theme throughout this section. He is righteous, or just (dikaios, cf. 1:9, where “God is faithful and just”; 2:1–2, where Jesus Christ is “the Righteous One”; and 3:7 which also refers to Christ as “righteous”). Righteousness is not just holiness or freedom from sin, but includes the OT idea of putting things right or making them just. Here the readers are reminded that the person whose character is like Christ’s (everyone who does what is right, lit., “everyone who is doing [practicing] righteousness”) has been born of God. The family likeness will be present. Those born of God will resemble Christ, because they will share a common characteristic: doing justice or practicing righteousness.
To be born of him, that is, born of God, is a profound idea. In the Fourth Gospel, those who believe in the Word “become children of God” and are “born of God” (John 1:12–13). Repeatedly, Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be “born from above” (3:3, 7), or be born of water and the Spirit (3:5, 8). In the letters of John, being born of God occurs in 2:29; 3:9 (twice); 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18 (twice). In two of these verses Jesus is the one who has been born of God (5:1, 18; cf. John 1:14, 18); the other times it is the Christian. To be born of God, one must believe that Jesus is the Christ and live a life of righteousness and love (2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:18; cf. Eph. 5:1, 2).
It is likely that the Elder’s opponents were also using the phrase “born of God” and were claiming to be God’s special children. Indeed, this may be another instance of the author using the opponents’ own language to refute them. He was confident that if one looked at the character of the secessionists, one would not see lives that reflected the righteousness of Jesus, and on that basis, their claim to be children of God would clearly be false.
3:1 The idea of being born of God is so inspiring to the Elder that he exclaims (lit.), “Behold! What great love the Father has given to us that we should be called children of God!” He explores this theme for three verses before returning to the contrast between sin and righteousness begun in 2:29.
It is love which has motivated God to claim us as his children. While the two previous references to love (agapē; 2:5, 15) were to human love, this is the first reference to God’s love. (God’s love will be the author’s main focus in 4:7–10, 12, 16–18.) God’s love has been lavished on us. The perfect tense connotes love which has been and continues to be given to us, with the continuing consequence that we are called children of God. People are born into God’s family (2:29; John 1:13) and are given the right to become children of God because they have “received” the Word and have “believed in his name” (John 1:12–13). These are the people for whom Jesus died, including believers from “the Jewish nation,” as well as “the scattered children of God” (future Gentile believers), that he might make them one (John 11:52; 17:20–23; cf. John 10:16). Such people “do what is right” (1 John 2:29) and thereby show that they are in reality what God called them to be (and that is what we are!).
The Elder reinforces the divine origin of the believing community because its status as God’s children is unknown to the world; the surrounding culture does not see it and confirm it. The Johannine Christians must hold on to their true identity “against the stream.” But, in being unknown to the world and in having a secret identity, the community can take special pride, for prior to them Jesus (NIV, him) was also “unknown” to his contemporaries John 1:10–11; 8:19; 14:7, 9; 15:18–21; 16:3; cf. 3:32; 4:10; 7:27–28; 14:17; 17:25).
3:2 The emphasis in v. 2 falls on the temporal dimension, i.e., on now and not yet. The author has just forcefully affirmed that he and his readers are children of God (3:1); that is what they are now, in reality, at the present moment. What their future identity will be (lit., “what we shall be”) has not yet been made known. Paul says that “the creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed” (Rom. 8:19), and that “no eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor. 2:9). While there is much about our existence in God’s future of which we are and will remain ignorant until the right time comes, we can know something about it, namely, that we will continue on our present trajectory of becoming like Christ (cf. Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:49; Phil. 3:21): we shall be like him. Still children of God, we shall become more like “the One and Only” (John 1:14, 18) Son of God. The image of God lost in creation will be restored in Christ as we become like him, the New Man and New Adam (cf. Col. 3:10; 1 Cor. 15:45; Rom. 5:14).
This will happen when he appears (phanerōthē). Phaneroō is used in the letters of John to describe both the first (1:2; 3:5, 8; cf. John 1:31;) and second coming of Jesus (2:28; 3:2). The letters of John, written later in the first century than the Gospel (see the Introduction) and after the schism which has brought the “antichrist” to light (in the group of the secessionists; 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7), reflect a more vivid awareness of the return of Jesus; they have, compared to the Fourth Gospel, a heightened eschatology (2:18, 28; 3:2–3; 4:17). The Gospel of John, though unique in its strong emphasis on “realized eschatology,” has a place for a genuinely futuristic eschatology as well (cf. 5:28–29; 14:3).
The writer and his community expectantly look forward to the coming of Jesus (2:28). They believe that when he appears, they will be transformed to become like Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 15:51–52) and that this change will occur, at least in part, because we shall see him as he is. To see, to gaze upon, and to meditate upon what one sees is to move in the direction of becoming like that which preoccupies one’s attention. There will be a transforming vision at the return of Jesus in which believers will be purified of all that still separates them from complete likeness to Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18).
3:3 In v. 3 the author begins to return to his theme of a righteous life as the sign of authentic membership in the family of God. The eschatological hope (the only occurrence of the term in the Gospel and letters of John), grounded in him, i.e., in Christ/God, which he has just outlined, does not only offer his readers comfort and assurance about their future (needed because of the threat of the schismatic false teachers); it also has a present, practical application. Anyone who looks forward to a vision of Christ/God, the result of which will be to become like him, does not delay the process of transformation but purifies himself or herself now. Becoming like Christ/God begins now (note the ongoing present action of the verb). The change in view is holistic: moral, spiritual, attitudinal, and behavioral. The standard or model is Christ (as he is pure; cf. 3:5), or perhaps more accurately, in the light of the Christology of the Johannine writings, the model is God as revealed in the person, teaching, and life of Christ, God’s Son.
3:4 After a three-verse celebration of being God’s children (3:1–3), the writer returns to the subject begun in 2:29. The first half of v. 4 contrasts the idea stated in 2:29b:
2:29b: everyone who does what is right
3:4a: everyone who sins.
Throughout this section (vv. 4–10) the Elder wants to show his readers how different are the lives of those who claim to be God’s children (the secessionists, the false teachers who left the community; 2:19) and those who really are (3:1–2).
Everyone who sins is more literally translated “everyone who practices sin.” The author’s emphasis is on the continuous, habitual commission of sin as a way of life, not occasional or unintentional sin. In 1:7–2:2 he already acknowledged that believers commit sins and that the way to deal with them is to be confessing them and to be receiving God’s forgiveness. But continuous, deliberate sinning breaks the law (lit., “practices lawlessness”; anomia). Ongoing, unconfessed sin is lawlessness, rebellion, an attitude, evidenced in action, that does not respect God’s standards. Such rebellion was expected in “the last hour” when the antichrist would arise and lead people astray (2:18). Just as Jesus also accuses his opponents in the Gospel of John of not practicing the law (7:19), so the Elder sees his opponents (the false teachers and “antichrists” who left the Johannine churches; 2:18–19) as lawless.
3:5 But such a rebellious attitude-in-action is directly contrary to God’s self-revelation in Christ. Verse 5 contains two affirmations about Jesus’ (he; ekeinos) relation to sin, both of which make it impossible for someone to claim to be in fellowship with God/Jesus while continuing to sin (cf. 2:6).
The first christological statement is that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. He appeared (ephanerōthē) is one of the writer’s favorite expressions for the first and second coming of Jesus (1:2; 2:28; 3:2, 8; 4:9; John 1:31; it is also used of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances in John 21:1, 14). The purpose of Jesus’ incarnation was to take away our sins (lit., “take away sins”; cf. 1:7; 2:2, 12; 3:8b; 4:10; John 1:29: “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”; 3:16–17; Rev. 1:5), not that we might be able to continue in them!
The second christological truth is that in him is no sin. This declaration of Jesus’ sinlessness goes back to John 8:46 (“Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?”) and to the portrayal of Jesus as the innocent, sacrificial lamb of Isaiah 53:7, 9. Other NT writers shared this conviction. Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us.” The author of Hebrews said that Jesus “has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin” (4:15), and that as our high priest he was “holy, blameless, pure” (7:26; cf. 1 Pet. 2:22, 24).
3:6 Verse 6 draws the conclusion toward which v. 5 directly points and applies the moral point of these christological affirmations. If what is stated about Jesus in v. 5 is correct, then it is impossible to claim (as the schismatics were doing) that they live in him, have seen him, or have known him, when they prove by their continued false teaching and rejection of love that they keep on sinning and continue to sin.
Verse 6 also contains the second pair of the four pairs of antithetical statements which form the structure of this unit (2:28–3:10) of 1 John:
3:6a: No one who lives in him …
3:6b: No one who continues to sin …
(The other pairs of counterposed statements occur in 2:29b/3:4a; 3:7b/3:8a; and 3:9a/3:10b.)
Living, or more literally, abiding in him (ho en autō menōn) is an important and characteristically Johannine spiritual reality. It is the central theme of John 15:1–10, abiding in Christ the Vine, and it is promised to “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood” in John 6:56, a clear reference to the elements of the Lord’s Supper. In the letters of John, the opponents claim to “live (menō) in him” (2:6), but this is contradicted by their conduct. The Elder’s loyal followers are urged to “continue (menō) in him” (2:28–29), and he promises that if “what they have heard from the beginning” abides in them, then they will abide in the Son and in the Father (2:24). See the discussion of these verses above (cf. also 3:24; 4:13, 16).
The author continues to use present tense forms of the verb (keeps on sinning: hamartanei; continues to sin: ho hamartanōn) to underline that he is talking about the habitual, unrepented of, practice of sin. “His objection is to a continued life-style and outlook on sin that is incompatible with being a Johannine Christian” (Brown, Epistles, p. 403).
Far from abiding in Christ, those who practice sin as a way of life have neither seen him nor known him. It is possible that no one in the Johannine community of the author’s day had physically seen or known Jesus during his life on earth, neither the Elder and his followers nor his opponents. Like 3:6, 3 John 11 claims that “no one who practices evil has seen God.” In what sense, then, did Johannine Christians claim to have seen God/Christ, a claim which they deny to their adversaries?
To see Jesus is to discern his real identity and to believe in him (Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, p. 164). This is a common theme in the Gospel of John (1:34; 6:36; 9:40–41; 12:37–46; 14:7, 9: “If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on you do know him and have seen him.… Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father”; 19:35; 20:29: in which the reference is to not seeing physically and yet believing, a different emphasis from the one in 1 John 3:6 and its parallels). To see him, then, is to recognize his true identity as the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:31), the one who came in the flesh (1 John 4:2; 2 John 7).
To see him accurately in this way is to “know him.” We have observed the repeated use of ginōskō in the Gospel and epistles of John to indicate spiritual perception, especially in the claim to have a true understanding and a close relationship with God/Christ (see, for example, 1 John 2:3–5, 13–14; 3:1; 4:6–8; cf. John 1:10; 6:69; 10:14, 38; 14:7, 9, 17; 16:3; 17:3: “this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent”). The Elder denies that his opponents, who reject the true identity of Jesus (2:22–23; 4:2–3; 5:10; 2 John 7, 9), have any authentic knowledge of God/Christ at all.
3:7 That the secessionist false teachers have been in the writer’s mind throughout this section is clear from the opening of v. 7: do not let anyone lead you astray. The Elder has already described the opponents as those who deceive themselves (1:8) and has warned the remaining Johannine Christians “about those who are trying to lead you astray” (lit., “those who are deceiving you”; 2:26).
The point of this admonition is similar to 2:29, and there is a nearly identical comparison to God/Christ. In 2:29 it was not entirely certain whether the Elder was referring to the Father or the Son with the pronouns “he” and “him.” In this verse the context strongly suggests that the antecedent is Christ (3:5, 8b). The author wants his readers to observe the conduct of those who are attempting to deceive them, not what they say but what they do. For it is the person who actually does what is right (lit., “practices righteousness” or “justice,” dikaiosynē) who truly is righteous (dikaios; “just”), not the person with the most exalted or spiritual-sounding claims. Who really lives a just life, a life that looks like the way Jesus lived (just as he is righteous; cf. 2:6, 29; 3:3, 5b)? Follow that person. The Elder is certain that the daily lives of his opponents will fall far short of the standard of Christlikeness.
3:8 The second half of the third pair of contrasting phrases which help form the framework of this section (2:28–3:10) is in v. 8; its partner was in v. 7:
3:7b: He who does what is right
3:8a: He who does what is sinful
This set of antithetical statements helps the writer make the bold contrast between the children of God (3:1–2) and the children of the devil (3:8, 10) that is the principal theme of this section of 1 John. These two groups, which are in fact the two sides of the schism (2:19), are his own loyal followers and the secessionist false teachers and their adherents. He who does what is sinful (lit., “the one who practices sin”) describes the Elder’s opponents, just as v. 7b described the ideal Johannine Christian as one who practices righteousness.
These two opposing sides are also different in origin. First John 2:29 made the point that the person who practices righteousness has been born of God. In 3:1–2 it was emphasized that the readers are indeed God’s children. Their character will be like Christ, a central teaching of 3:2–3, 5–7. But the antichrists (2:18, 22), who are trying to lead the readers astray (2:26) and who continually practice sin (3:4, 6.), have a different origin; they are of the devil.
The reason for this assertion is given in v. 8b: because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. If a life of continual rebellion (anomia, 3:4) and sin (3:6) characterizes the Elder’s opponents, it is clear that they became this way because of their association with the devil, for he has been a continual sinner from the first. The Elder probably has in mind Satan’s lies in the Eve/Satan story in Genesis 3:1–7 and Cain’s murder of Abel in Genesis 4:1–8 (cf. 1 John 3:12). Both are referenced in John 8:44, where Jesus says that the devil “was a murderer from the beginning.… he is a liar and the father of lies.” The secessionists’ character reveals their parentage, their family of origin, their spiritual roots.
Recall that in v. 7 the standard of righteousness is Christ, the one who “appeared so that he might take away our sins” (3:5). He also appeared (ephanerōthē, “was manifested”) for another reason: to destroy the devil’s work (cf. John 12:31; 16:11; Heb. 2:14). These two reasons for the first coming of Christ are parallel, since sin is and has been the devil’s work from the beginning. By conquering sin, Jesus destroys the evil effects of the devil’s work and overcomes his efforts to thwart the coming of God’s kingdom (or, in more Johannine terms, to prevent people from receiving and experiencing eternal life).
This is the first use of the full title, the Son of God, in the letters of John (4:15; 5:5, 10, 12–13, 20). “His Son” occurs in 1:3, 7; 3:23; 4:9–10, 14; 5:9–11, 20, while “the Son” appears in 2:22–24; 5:12; 2 John 9. Second John 3 has the more formal expression “the Father’s Son.” “Son of God” is a favorite Johannine title for Jesus; it is common in the Gospel of John as well. “The Son,” “the Son of God,” and “his Son,” as references to Jesus, occur 29 times in the Fourth Gospel, more than in all of Paul’s letters. They express the unique and intimate relationship between Jesus and God.
3:9 In v. 8 the writer described the origin of his opponents as “of the devil.” In v. 9 he contrasts this with the origin of his followers as born of God. He had made this point earlier in 2:29. Those who have remained loyal to the Elder and have not followed the false teaching of the schismatics are “the children of God” (3:1–2). But the emphasis in vv. 9–10 is on the quality of moral life of these two opposing sides. God’s true children, those born of God, will not continue to sin (lit., “does not practice sin”). Verse 6a affirmed the same truth with regard to those who live or abide in him: they do not keep on sinning.
The reason they do not, given earlier, was that it is inconsistent with knowing the righteous, pure, sinless, and sin-destroying God/Christ (2:29; 3:3, 5–8). In this passage a different explanation is offered. Such a person does not keep on sinning because God’s seed remains in him (lit., “his seed abides in him”). In fact, it is not possible to go on sinning, because he has been born of God. What does the author mean by God’s seed (lit., “his seed,” sperma autou)? Because of the parallel structure of 9a and 9b, God’s seed must be closely related to born of God.
9a: does not practice sin
because his seed remains (menō) in him
9b: is not able to go on sinning
because he has been born of God
It is possible that God’s seed are Christians who abide in him (i.e., God). But the idea of Christians being God’s seed is highly unusual; the Elder prefers “God’s children.” God’s seed is more likely a force or principle within the Christian (in him) which remains in him and causes him/her to be born of God. If one attempts to identify this indwelling, life-generating power more precisely, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, fits the picture appropriately (cf. 1 John 2:27; 3:24; 4:13; John 3:5, 8; 6:63a; 14:16–17; 16:7–8; 20:22). The meaning, then, is that the Holy Spirit, abiding in the Christian, keeps the Christian from the continual practice of sin. Because of the presence and power of the indwelling Spirit of God, the Christian cannot go on sinning, for the Spirit of God has caused him/her to be born from above (John 3:3, 5–7) or born of God.
3:10 Throughout this section of 1 John, the author has been distinguishing between two groups, the children of God (2:29; 3:1–2, 9), who are his own faithful followers, and the children of the devil (3:8), the secessionist false teachers and their disciples. He has repeatedly contrasted their ways of life, especially their attitudes and actions with respect to sin and righteousness (2:29; 3:3–4, 6–9). In v. 10 he offers a final test, a clear means by which to tell who is a child of God and who is not.
Literally translated, v. 10 reads: “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are evident (or manifest; NASB, ‘obvious’): everyone who does not practice righteousness (NIV, do what is right) is not from God (ek tou theou; NIV, not a child of God), also the one who is not loving his brother.”
The criterion of practicing or not practicing righteousness was mentioned previously in 2:29 and 3:7 (cf. 3:4, 8–9). It functions in v. 10, then, as a summary of the negative ethical aspect in the entire section. The new element is the return of the criterion of love for one’s brother. It has not been stated since 2:9–10. There it was a means by which to test “anyone who claims to be in the light” (2:9). Here it distinguishes the true children of God. The author may also understand love as a concrete expression of practicing what is right.
The Elder knows that the false teachers, who have split the community with their secession (1 John 2:19) and by their denial that the Christ is the truly human Jesus (2:22; 4:2–3; 2 John 7), do not meet the test of love. They have abandoned their brothers and sisters, split the community, caused economic hardship (3:16–18), rejected the Elder’s authority, and are actively trying to win over to their “heretical party” the remaining Johannine Christians.
In the Gospel and letters of John, the focus of love is within the community of believers. There is no command concerning love of neighbor or love of enemies, as in the Synoptic Gospels and Paul’s writings. What is at issue is love among Jesus’ disciples (John 13:34–35; 15:12, 17) and love among those who claim to be brothers and sisters in the same fellowship (1 John 2:9–10; 3:10–11, 14–18, 23b; 4:7–8, 11–12, 20–21; 5:1–2; 2 John 5–6; 3 John 6). Only God is said to love the world (John 3:16); Johannine Christians are not instructed to (1 John 2:15–17).
The last half of v. 10 also is a transition to a new section of the epistle which will deal with the subject of authentic love among Christians.
Additional Notes
This section and the two previous sections begin with an address to the community as the author’s children. The first section (2:12–17) describes the Elder’s community, the second (2:18–27) describes the secessionists, while the third (2:28–3:10) contrasts the two groups.
The structure of this unit has been illuminated by Brown, Epistles, pp. 417–20.
3:1 This is the only use of kaleō in these epistles; John 1:42 and 2:2 are the only instances in the Gospel. The word does not have for the Elder the theological significance it carries for Paul (cf. Rom. 8:30).
See the discussion of children of God in Brown, Epistles, pp. 388–91 and in R. A. Culpepper, “The Pivot of John’s Prologue,” NTS 27 (1980–81), pp. 1–31.
In this verse the world stands in antithetical relationship to the fellowship of obedient Johannine Christians, just as in 2:15–17 the Father and the world were opposing objects of the children’s love.
3:2 Now/not yet, another Johannine antithesis, makes its only appearance here in the letters; it is more common in the Gospel (2:4; 4:35; 6:17; 7:6, 8; 11:30; 12:16; 13:7, 36; 16:12–13, 25).
Phaneroō is also used in the Gospel of John of Jesus’ showing himself to his disciples after the resurrection (cf. 21:1, 14).
On the increased eschatological awareness of the epistles, see Brown, Community, pp. 135–38; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, pp. 93–101. On the eschatology of the Fourth Gospel, see Brown, Gospel, I–XII, pp. cxv–cxxi; W. F. Howard, Christianity according to St. John (London: Duckworth, 1943), pp. 109–15; Ladd, Theology, pp. 298–308.
Brown believes that the last three pronouns in this verse, him, him, and he, refer to God, not Christ, and that the relationship between the last two clauses cannot be decided with certainty. All we can know, he says, is that we shall see God as he is and be like God (Epistles, pp. 394–96). The Elder’s ambiguous (to us) use of pronouns in reference to God/Jesus throughout 1 John means that there may be no clear separation here between Christ and God in the writer’s mind (Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, pp. 145–47.
3:3 Brown argues that the him in v. 3 is a reference to God (Epistles, p. 397). Bruce, Epistles, p. 88, and Stott, Letters, pp. 124–25, defend “Christ” as the intended referent; and Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, p. 149, sees “God in Christ” as the best solution.
3:4 This is the only occurrence of anomia in the Gospel and letters of John. The Johannine literature does not usually measure the rightness or wrongness of one’s actions against the standard of God’s “law” (nomos) in the OT, as was done in other Jewish and Jewish Christian communities. In fact, several verses in the Gospel of John appear to relegate the law of Moses to Jesus’ Jewish opponents as “your law” (8:17; 10:34; 18:31; “their law,” 15:25), and Jesus’ adversaries are portrayed as claiming the law as their special possession (7:19a, 49, 51; 12:34; 19:7).
3:6 As was discussed in the Introduction and in the comment on 1:1–4, what the author and his community are claiming is continuity with those who had heard, seen, and touched Jesus, not that they had actually done so themselves.
3:8 Jesus accused his opponents of being of the devil in his debate with “the Jews who had believed in him” (John 8:31) and who claimed to be children of Abraham (8:33, 37, 39) and children of God (8:41). On the contrary, Jesus replied, “You belong to your father, the devil” (8:44).
This way of speaking of the purpose of the coming of the Son of God is more characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels than of the Gospel of John. In the latter, overcoming the works of the devil (8:41) or Satan plays a minor role, whereas in the Synoptics one of the chief manifestations of the kingdom of God is Jesus’ breaking the power of Satan (Matt. 12:28). Exorcisms, for example, are non-existent in the Fourth Gospel, but they are common in the Synoptics.
On the different yet compatible expressions of the core of NT theology in the Synoptics, John, and Paul, see G. E. Ladd, The Pattern of New Testament Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968).
On the title Son of God, generally, see O. Michel, “Son of God,” NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 634–48; M. Hengel, Son of God (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976); O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), pp. 270–305; J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), pp. 12–64. On its use in the Gospel of John, see R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, 3 vols. (vol. 1: Montreal: Herder/Palm, 1968; vols. 2–3: New York: Seabury/Crossroad, 1980, 1982), vol. 2, pp. 172–86; L. Morris, Jesus is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), pp. 89–106.
3:9 This is the only occurrence of seed (sperma) in the letters of John. The three occurrences of it in the Fourth Gospel are “seed of David” (7:42) and “seed of Abraham” (8:33, 37). In Rev. 12:17 the dragon, Satan, makes war with the “seed” of the woman.
On the relationship between sin and the Holy Spirit in the Gospel and letters of John, the Spirit convicts of sin (John 16:8) and moves the Christian to confess sin (1 John 1:9), and to claim continually the advocacy of Jesus, who takes away the sins of the world (2:2, 12; 3:5). The Johannine ideal is not to sin (2:1; 3:6) but to practice righteousness (2:29; 3:7), though the Elder recognizes that Christians do sin, and he speaks forcefully against those who claim that they do not (1:8, 10). Christians are to “walk in the light” (1:7) by the power of the indwelling Spirit (3:9) and to claim the blood of Jesus which keeps on cleansing us from all sin (1:7).
3:10 The proselyting activity of the secessionists is especially evident in 2 John 7–10.
On the meaning of love in the Fourth Gospel and the epistles of John, see F. F. Segovia, Love Relationships in the Johannine Tradition, SBLDS 58 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1982); Brown, Community, pp. 131–35.
