God’s Love and Our Love
There is little agreement among those who have made a serious study of 1 John as to how to divide 1 John 4:7–5:4, but most have understood 4:7–12 to center around God’s love for us and, in response, our love for one another. It is likely that the opponents of the Elder had stressed their love for God (cf. 4:10, 20), their devotion, piety, and mystical spirituality (cf. 1:6, 8, 10; 2:4, 6, 9; 3:18; 4:1). But the Elder thinks that it is God’s love for human beings which is foundational. It is the basis of love for one another and of any claim to love for God.
4:7 Love for one another was the writer’s theme in 2:9–11 and 3:11–18, and it will be treated one more time in 4:19–5:4. The writer’s style is to return often to his main topics for further exploration. This is also a key to understanding and interpreting 1 John. (See Introduction, “Outline or Structure.”)
In v. 7, the Elder urges his “beloved” (agapētoi; NIV, Dear friends) to keep on loving one another (agapōmen, a present tense hortatory subjunctive). The reason given for this command (cf. 3:23b) is that love comes from God (ek tou theou; just as the Spirit which confesses Jesus is “from God,” 4:2; and the readers and the author are “from God,” 4:4, 6; cf. 3:9: “born of God”). Because love has its origin in God, those who belong to God (4:4, 6) should demonstrate love in their relations with one another. It is the proof of their divine origin (cf. John 13:35, for love as a proof of being Jesus’ disciples), which v. 7 underscores by describing those who love as people who have been born of God (cf. 2:29–3:2, 9–10, where this term was first used of the Johannine Christians, and John 3:3, 5, 7).
Everyone who shows this kind of love (agapē) in action also shows that he or she has been born of God. The author wants to keep the issue of being God’s children a matter of practice, but he is not introducing, as some have tried to see here, some new way of becoming a Christian that operates outside of faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God (cf. John 20:31; 1 John 2:22–23; 4:2–3). For the author, agapē love can occur only among those who have come to know God’s love in Jesus Christ, which has made them God’s children (3:1–2, 16; 4:9–10, 19). So, those who love their brothers and sisters in the community of faith show not only that they are members of God’s family but that they know God as well. This knowing is not knowing about, informational or doctrinal, but is personal, relational knowing, the knowing among members of the same family (cf. 2:3–4, 13–14; 4:6; cf. 2:5; 3:24).
4:8 Verse 8 sets up a strong antithetical contrast to the affirmations of v. 7 and recalls the sharp polemic of v. 6:
Everyone who loves … knows God (v. 7)
Whoever does not love does not know God (v. 8)
Human beings are divided into two groups: people who know God (i.e., those who live in a right personal relationship with God through Jesus and have eternal life [4:15; 5:11–12; cf. John 14:5–9; 17:3]) and those who do not. The aorist tense of not know (ouk egnō) points not to the past but to the decisive and absolute character of the opponents’ not knowing God. The Elder is thinking primarily about those who claim to be Christians (there is no reflection in these verses on general human morality), like the former members of his community who seceded (2:19). His main point is that having or not having this relationship with God is clearly seen in how people treat each other: they either love with the love that comes from God (v. 7), or they do not. Agapē love is the evidence of authentic spirituality.
The most striking statement in v. 8 is the description of God’s essential nature as love: God is love (ho theos agapē estin; the same phrase occurs again in v. 16). The use of the predicate noun, love, points to a deeper reality than the use of predicate adjectives, such as “faithful and just” (1:9). It is more like the statement in 1:5, “God is light” (ho theos phōs estin), in which holiness or justice is viewed as central to the character of God, and not as a secondary attribute (cf. John 4:24: “God is spirit,” pneuma ho theos). All of God’s activity is characterized by righteousness and love. Since God is love, those who claim to know God should be actively and visibly at work for the highest good and well-being of others, and especially, as far as the Elder is concerned, of their brothers and sisters in the Christian community.
4:9 The profound affirmation “God is love” prepares the readers for the teaching in the rest of this section, but the theme shifts from God’s nature to God’s actions in history. “The God who is love (8) ‘loved us’ (10) and expressed his love by sending his Son to earth” (Stott, Letters, p. 164).
Verse 9 begins with another This is how (en toutō, “by this”) statement, which occurs twelve times in the letters of John (2:3, 5; 3:10, 16, 19, 24; 4:2, 9, 10, 13, 17; 5:2). Literally translated, v. 9a reads, “By this was manifested the love of God among us.” God, who is love, concretely and specifically showed his love in an event in history. God is “the God who acts,” and who always acts in a way consistent with his nature as holiness and love (1:5; 4:8). God’s act of love took place among us, i.e., in the living memory of those associated with the Elder and his community (see the “we” and “us” affirmations concerning the coming of the Word in 1:1–4). More broadly, God’s love was demonstrated on the plane of human history, as a public event. Therefore, v. 9b says that God sent his Son into the world (eis ton kosmon).
The specific activity which manifested God’s love was that He sent his one and only Son into the world. The sending was an act which began in the past and whose consequences extend into the present and beyond (apestalken, perfect tense; NASB: “God has sent”). “Sending” implies preexistence, that the Son has come from the Father into the human dimension of existence. This is a point Jesus made repeatedly in the Gospel of John, and which the Elder will make again in 4:10, 14. The Son is described as his one and only (autou ton monogenē). The term means “unique,” one of a kind (BAGD, p. 527). While there are many “children of God,” there is only one “Son of God.”
The love of God was seen not only in the sending of his Son into the world, but especially in the purpose for which the Son was sent: that we might live through him. Again, the “we” refers primarily to the members of the author’s community. While God loves the world (John 3:16) and has sent the Son to be its Savior (1 John 4:14) and “the atoning sacrifice … for the sins of the whole world” (2:2), God’s intention is realized only in those who believe in him and thereby gain eternal life (John 3:16). The world hated and rejected Jesus and his disciples (John 15:18–19; 1 John 3:13). This is the only use of the verb zaō, live, in the letters of John; it occurs frequently in the Fourth Gospel (e.g., 6:51, 57–58; 11:25–26). Here its aorist tense (zēsōmen) connotes “come to life,” the start of a lifelong process (Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, p. 242). Through him means “by means of him,” through who he is and what he has done.
4:10 This is love is literally, “in this is love” (en toutō estin hē agapē). That is, “this is the essence of love,” or “love consists in this.” God’s action defines what authentic love is. But first the Elder must say that real love is not defined by our love for God. It is not that we loved God (ēgapēkamen, perfect tense, “we have been loving”). The opponents have claimed to love God, know God, live in God, walk in the light, etc. They have flaunted their “superior spirituality” (they don’t even sin; 1:8, 10) before the remaining Johannine Christians. But proud human love for God, even “Christian love” (note the “we”) is a poor model. The only true standard of love is God’s love; it is that he loved us (ēgapēsen, aorist tense, “decisively, once and for all, loved”), and, as the proof and expression of his love, sent (apesteilen, aorist tense) his Son. This is the definitive expression of love. While the primary reference of we and us in this verse is to those who claim to be Christians, the context supports a broader, secondary application to humankind generally (v. 9, “world”; 2:2; 4:15; John 3:16). On the sending of the Son, see v. 9.
The key word in the last phrase of v. 10 is hilasmon (NIV, atoning sacrifice). It was used before in 2:2 with respect to Jesus’ effective provision for our sins. Given the reference to “the blood of Jesus” in 1:7, hilasmos must refer to Jesus’ death on the cross as a sacrifice for sins, analogous to OT atoning sacrifices. Such a sacrifice cleanses the beneficiary from the guilt of sin and effects reconciliation, or a restored right relationship with God, by averting God’s judgment on sin. It is, of course, as 4:9–10 make perfectly clear, God who has taken this action. God loved us and sent his own Son to reconcile us to himself through the Son’s atoning death for our sins. For our sins points to the need for an atoning sacrifice; without it we would be under God’s judgment and outside the sphere of life and salvation. We would not “have passed from death to life” (John 5:24; 1 John 3:14).
4:11 Now the Elder draws the ethical consequences from God’s great act of love, of which he has been writing since v. 7. Dear friends (lit., “Beloved,” agapētoi) reminds the readers that they are loved, not just by the author but by God. Since is the correct translation of ei, not “if”; the case has been demonstrated in vv. 9–10. God loved: the aorist tense indicates the absolute and definitive quality of God’s love. As above, us is, for the Elder, primarily “we” who have come to know God’s love, without forgetting that God does love the whole world. The little word so (houtōs) deserves special attention. It can mean both “in this way” (as seen in God’s love in the previous verses) or “so much, excessively.” Both are true and make good sense in the present context. God’s love, not human love, is the model of authentic love (v. 10), and God’s gift of his only Son is an extreme act of love. God so loved us, both as to manner and as to intensity. This verse closely resembles John 3:16, and the entire passage (vv. 7–11) may be read as a commentary on it (Brown, Epistles, p. 519).
With God’s manifested (v. 9) love as the model and motivation, the community’s mandate is clear: we also ought to love one another. This resumes the thought of v. 7 and applies the lesson of vv. 7–10 to the relationships expected among God’s people. While those who have not experienced God’s love in Christ cannot be expected to love, we, the believing community, can and are. The verb ought (opheilomen) emphasizes love as our Christian obligation; we owe it as a debt (Rom. 13:8).
4:12 Verse 12 is concerned with the reality of God in daily life. This was an important consideration to the Elder’s readers. The secessionist false teachers were claiming a vital relationship with God (1:6; 2:6), intimate knowledge of God (2:4), ability to speak as a prophet by God’s Spirit (4:1–2), and love for God (4:10). They may even have claimed to have had visions of God, as later gnostic enthusiasts did. This undoubtedly left the Elder’s loyal followers wondering about the reality of their own relationship with God. But just as the author has proved false the schismatics’ earlier claims to be spiritually superior (1:6–10; 2:3–6; 2:9–11; 4:1–3; 4:7–8, 10), so in v. 12 he points his readers to the way to authentic spirituality. It is the theme of this section of 1 John: if we love one another.
The invisibility of God (No one has ever seen God; theon oudeis pōpote tetheatai) is affirmed five times in the Johannine writings (4:12, 20; John 1:18; 5:37; 6:46). The sentence in John 1:18 is nearly identical to 1 John 4:12a. The word order is different, and the writer uses a different, but synonymous, verb for “see” (theon oudeis heōraken pōpote). The word order is significant. God comes first, as if to say, “God, as God truly is, I am who I am.” God as invisible was also a common concept in the OT (e.g., Exod. 33:20) and in Judaism. But, just as in the Fourth Gospel, where Jesus makes the invisible God known (1:18; 14:7–9), so here in 1 John, love for one another brings the unseen God to concrete expression in everyday life. No one has ever seen God, it is true, but if we love one another, we and others experience the presence of God.
Verse 12 expresses this result of love for one another in two ways (i.e., the “if clause” in v. 12 has a double “then clause”): (a) God comes to dwell among us, and (b) God’s love is perfected among us. First, when we love one another (the author continues to have in mind primarily love among Christians within the community, which his opponents do not have, 2:9–11; 3:10b, 14–18; 4:8), God dwells (NIV, lives, menei) among us (NIV, in us, en hymin). The intimate relationship between the Christian and God has been frequently expressed in 1 John already: “Our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1:3). “We are in him” (2:5), and we “live (menō) in him” (2:6). “The word of God lives (menei) in you” (2:14). Faithful Johannine Christians “remain (meneite) in the Son and in the Father” (2:24). “The anointing [the Holy Spirit] you received from him remains [menei] in you” (2:27). The readers are urged to “remain (menete) in him” (2:27–28). “Those who obey his commands live (menei) in him, and he in them,” and “we know that he lives (menei) in us … by the Spirit he gave us” (3:24). There is a mutual abiding of the believing community and God, and the point of 4:12 is that the presence of the unseen God among us is the result of our love for one another.
The second result of love among Christians is that God’s love is made complete among us. The same expression was used in 2:5, and we face the same problem in understanding exactly what the author meant. Does his love (hē agapē autou, lit., “the love of him”) mean God’s love for us, our love for God, or God’s kind of love? In 2:5 the last fits the context best. Here God’s love for the community has been the main theme in vv. 7–11, so God’s love for his children may be uppermost in the author’s mind, but the qualitative definition (God’s kind of love) is not far from it. If the former is correct, then the Elder means that, though God is unseen, God is not unfelt. Our sense of the reality of God’s love for us grows and moves toward perfection. The Greek, teteleiō-menē estin, can mean “is being perfected,” with the emphasis, then, on the process of a maturing apprehension of God’s love.
Additional Notes
Within 4:7–12, the following divisions between verses have been suggested:
10/11: Brown, Epistles; Culpepper, 1 John; C. Haas, et al., Letters; Schnackenburg, Johannine Epistles; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John; Westcott, Epistles; Nestle; TEV
12/13: Brooke, Epistles; Bruce, Epistles; Bultmann, Epistles; Dodd, Epistles; Grayston, Epistles; Jackman, Letters; Kysar, I, II, III John; R. Law, The Tests of Life (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914, 3d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), p. 16; Marshall, Epistles; Smith, First John; Stott, Letters; M. M. Thompson, 1–3 John; A. N. Wilder, “Epistles”; UBS, NEB, NIV, NRSV, TEV
16a/16b: Brooke, Epistles; Brown, Epistles; Culpepper, 1 John; Perkins, Epistles; Westcott, Epistles; Nestle; UBS, NEB, NIV, NRSV, TEV (16b begins, “God is love”)
16/17: Bultmann, Epistles; Grayston, Epistles; Haas, Letters; Law, Tests; Schnackenburg, Johannine Epistles; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John; Stott, Letters; Thompson, 1–3 John
18/19: Bultmann, Epistles; Dodd, Epistles; Kysar, I, II, III John; Schnackenburg, Johannine Epistles; Thompson, 1–3 John; Wilder, “Epistles”; NIV, TEV
19/20: Brown, Epistles; Thompson, 1–3 John
20/21: Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John
21/5:1: Brooke, Epistles; Bruce, Epistles; Culpepper, 1 John; Grayston, Epistles; Houlden, Epistles; Jackman, Letters; Perkins, Epistles; Plummer, Epistles; Smith, First John; Stott, Letters; Westcott, Epistles; Nestle; UBS, NEB, NIV, NRSV, TEV
5:2/3 Schnackenburg, Johannine Epistles
As to what is the last verse of the unit, the following suggestions have been made:
5:3a: Law, Tests
5:4a: Brown, Epistles
5:4: Brooke, Epistles; Bultmann, Epistles; Culpepper, 1 John; Haas, Letters; Marshall, Epistles; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John; Schnackenburg, Johannine Epistles; Nestle
5:5: Bruce, Epistles; Dodd, Epistles; Grayston, Epistles; Jackman, Letters; Kysar, I, II, III John; Perkins, Epistles; Smith, First John; Stott, Letters; Thompson, 1–3 John; Westcott, Epistles; UBS, NIV, NRSV, TEV
5:12 Plummer, Epistles
Our divisions within this unit are based on the understanding that God’s love and our response to it unify vv. 7–12, that the chief issue in vv. 13–18 is assurance or confidence, and that 4:19–5:4a revolve around the theme of love among God’s children. As to ending the unit after the first half of v. 4, the justification is that v. 4b begins a new theme of faith and Christology with the announcement, “This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.”
Further, consistent with the author’s typical style, “overcoming the world” is the concept that overlaps or links the two sections.
4:8 On God is love, see Dodd, Epistles, pp. 107–10, for a profound discussion of God’s nature in Hebrew and Greek thought. The Swiss theologian, Emil Brunner, put love and holiness at the heart of his understanding of God’s essence; see E. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1949), pp. 157–204.
4:9 See G. E. Wright, God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital, SBT 8 (London: SCM, 1952).
For God’s sending of the Son used with apostellō, see, e.g., John 3:17, 34; 5:36; 6:29; 8:42; 10:36; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21; with pempō, used in John without distinction from apostellō, see, e.g., 4:34; 5:24, 30, 37; 6:38–39, 44; 7:16, 18, 28, 33; 8:16, 18, 26, 29; 9:4; 12:44–45, 49; 13:20; 14:24, 26; 15:21; 16:5; 20:21.
On monogenēs, see Marshall, Epistles, p. 214 n. 8.
Confidence Because of God’s Love
In this section of 1 John the Elder’s aim is to strengthen the spiritual confidence of his readers. “The writer passes from the facts to Christian consciousness of the facts” (Brooke, Epistles, p. 121). He appeals to the indwelling Spirit (v. 13), to the Father’s sending of the Son to save them (v. 14), to their confession of faith in Jesus as the Son of God (v. 15), to God’s love for them (v. 16), all as the means by which love is perfected among them (v. 17a). The result will be fearless confidence on the day of judgment (vv. 17b-18).
4:13 The original readers of this letter needed, almost desperately, to be assured of the authenticity of their relationship with God. They were under attack from a group of “super-spiritual” opponents, Christian (so they would have considered themselves) elitists who had seceded from their fellowship (2:19), whose claims about their own relationship with God were of the highest order (1:6, 8, 10; 2:4, 6, 9; 4:10), including the assertion that they spoke by God’s Spirit (4:1–3).
Under these circumstances (Grayston calls it “the dissidents’ religious browbeating”; Epistles, p. 129), the Johannine Christians needed reassurance (to know) that we live in him and he in us. The idea of living or abiding (menomen) in God was the closing topic of v. 12 and is the typical Johannine “link” between two separate sections. In v. 13, then, the author presents a second way to know that we have a mutually indwelling relationship with God. The first was by loving one another (v. 12). Here it is by his Spirit which he has given us. The same ground was also cited in 3:24. In 3:24 the aorist verb emphasized the once-for-all nature of the gift of the Spirit. In 4:13 the perfect verb emphasizes the Spirit’s continuing presence. The writer’s concern is not so much individual but community assurance. See the genuine plurals in 4:4, 6 (“you,” “we,” “us,”), 9 (“among us”), 12 (“in” or among “us”), and 13 (“in us,” or among us). It is at the corporate level that confidence has broken down.
4:14 Another reason to be confident is the historical fact that the Father sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. It is as if the Elder were saying, “Remember the incarnation! Remember John 3:16!” The verbs seen and testify are meant to ground the community’s assurance in the historical tradition of the Johannine community and of its eyewitness, the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 21:24). Our faith is based on an actual event, personally experienced (“heard,” seen, “looked at,” “touched,” “appeared to us”; 1 John 1:1–3), not on wishful thinking or on projected hopes. When the writer says, we … testify, he is standing with his mentor, the beloved disciple, and with the other elders and apostles, who witnessed “the Christ event.”
What they claim to have seen and the burden of their testimony is that the Father sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Two elements are present here: (a) the relationship between Jesus and his “Abba,” and (b) the Son’s mission of universal salvation. That Jesus was uniquely conscious of his special relationship of Sonship with the Father is witnessed to by the Synoptic Gospels (e.g., Matt. 11:27) and throughout the Gospel of John (e.g., 5:17–23; 6:43–46; 8:28–29, 42, 54–55; 10:29–38; 11:41–42; and most of chaps. 14 and 17). The disciples of Jesus saw, remembered this, and told others about it, so that it came to be recorded in the Gospel tradition. The Son’s message was the coming of the kingdom of God, entered into by allegiance to Jesus (Synoptics), or eternal life through believing in Jesus (John). In either case, in whatever language, the Son came to be the Savior of the world (cf. John 3:16–17). The Elder had already said that he was the “atoning sacrifice” “for the sins of the world” (2:2) and that the Son was sent “into the world that we might live through him” (4:9). The Son is the world’s Savior, in that he is the means by which its sins are forgiven, and he gives it eternal life.
4:15 The Elder’s third argument for strengthening the spiritual confidence of his readers is their own confession of faith in Jesus and its results. Verses 14 and 15 are linked together by their christological focus. While in v. 14 the community’s assurance rests upon the apostolic tradition’s witness to Jesus as God’s agent for salvation, in v. 15 it is their own response to God’s act in Christ that brings them into fellowship with God. That the latter is the author’s concern is shown by the repeated use of the language of mutual indwelling (v. 12: “God lives in us”; v. 13: “we live in him and he in us”; v. 15: God lives in him and he in God; v. 16: “lives in God, and God in him”). The readers require assurance of this fact, especially in the face of the attempted “spiritual imperialism” of the secessionist false teachers.
The way to assurance, then, is to confess (NIV: acknowledges; homologēsē) that Jesus is the Son of God. The emphasis is on the human name, Jesus. The gnostically influenced false teachers would have believed in the Son of God, a divine being from heaven. But that this supernatural figure was the fully human, come-in-the-flesh Jesus, they could not affirm (4:2; 2 John 7). We encountered the same pattern in 2:22, where the opponents might accept “the Christ” (defined their way, as a spiritual being), but they denied that this “Christ” was Jesus. In so doing, the Elder maintains, they deny the Son (and the Father as well; 2:23). But faith in the Son of God brings God to abide (menei) in the believer and the believer in God. In this verse the corporate assurance of vv. 12–14 is now also personal and individual.
4:16 In v. 16, the Elder returns to the topic of love, and in so doing he lays the fourth stone in the foundation of support for the community’s confidence in their spiritual standing. They can be confident because they are loved. This is something they have come to know (perfect tense, egnōkamen) and have come to rely on (perf. tense, pepisteukamen) over time and by experience (cf. John 6:69). This is the love which God has for us. The phrase for us, en hymin, can also be translated “in us,” emphasizing our consciousness of God’s love. Love from other sources may prove undependable; even brothers and sisters from one’s own community can turn in hatred and rejection (2:9–11; 3:10b–15, 17; 4:8a, 20), but God’s love can reassure our self-condemning (cf. 3:19–20) and uncertain (see the emphasis on “knowing” in 2:3, 5, 13–14; 3:19, 24; 4:2, 6, 13) hearts. God’s love is not turned on and off, present one day but gone the next, because God is love (cf. 4:8). Love is God’s essential nature. All that God does toward us all the time arises out of God’s love for us (cf. Rom. 8:35–39).
Therefore, whoever abides (NIV, lives; menei) in love, that is, in the same agapē love God is and has for us, lives in God, and God in him. Note the continuing emphasis on mutual indwelling and on assurance of fellowship with God that we have seen in this entire section (4:12b, 13a, 15b). God’s love and a life lived in that love ought to be ample assurance against our own doubts and the contradictions of others.
4:17 Verses 17–18 are a conclusion and an application of the Elder’s teaching on spiritual confidence. “First and foremost these verses extol the possibility of the gift of parrēsia (‘confidence’)” (Bultmann, Epistles, p. 74). In this way (en toutō) refers to the whole unit above (vv. 13–16) and all its grounds of assurance of fellowship with God. By the means described above, and especially by abiding in love (16b), God’s love is perfected (NIV, is made complete) among us. God’s love comes to completion or perfection when it realizes its objective in the believing community, and that aim is the full assurance that does not doubt acceptance and communion with God. For the author the ideal of complete or perfect love (2:5; 4:12, 17–18) is primarily a matter of the community’s (among us) sense of its being right with God, as they are being undermined by the attacks of the schismatic opponents.
The remainder of v. 17 and v. 18 apply the teaching on spiritual confidence to the coming judgment. The result of perfected or completed love to give us confidence (parrēsia, “boldness”) in the day of judgment. Because “we live in him and he in us” (vv. 12b, 13a, 15b, 16b), because we have the Spirit (13b), because we have the apostolic testimony to God’s sending his Son to save us (14), because we do confess Jesus as God’s Son (15), and, above all, because of God’s love for us (16), Christians can be assured that God’s day of eschatological judgment, like the coming of Christ, will find them “confident and unashamed” (2:28).
One way of summarizing this is to say that we have confidence as we anticipate God’s judgment, because we are like Christ (lit., “as he is so also we are”). All six uses of ekeinos (him) in 1 John refer to Jesus (2:6; 3:3, 5, 7, 16). Being like him (cf. 3:2) means walking as he did (2:6), being a beloved child of God yet unknown by the world (3:1–2), not practicing sin and being righteous (3:5–7), laying down our lives for one another (3:16), and being born of God (5:18). In all these passages a direct likeness is drawn between Jesus and the Christian. Because we are like Christ, God’s beloved and obedient Son, we who are also born of God, loved, and obedient, can be confident in the judgment. In this world is mentioned in contrast to the coming era of judgment. If we are like him in this world, then we can be assured that on the day of judgment we will have nothing of which to be afraid.
4:18 The mention of the coming final judgment could cause some to be afraid. But fear is no part of love. If we know that, like Jesus, we are loved by God (3:1; 4:9–11, 16), then there is no cause for any fear before God, even though we will be judged. In fact, perfect love throws fear away (exō ballei ton phobon). Love drives out fear; the two are completely incompatible and cannot co-exist in the same consciousness. The reason for this is that fear has to do with punishment, and, although we will be judged (4:17; Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10; Heb. 9:27), we will not be punished or condemned (John 3:18; Rom. 8:1). In Johannine theology, the believer in Jesus has already passed from death (spiritual death and its concomitant punishment) to life (John 5:24; 1 John 3:14). If members of the community still harbor fear in their hearts, they have progress yet to make in being made perfect in love. The Elder urges perfection in love as a goal for spiritual growth, because (a) it is the result of obedience to God’s commands (2:5), (b) it comes from loving one another (4:12), and (c) it will provide the believer with assurance not only “in this world” (4:17) but in the world to come.
Additional Notes
4:13 The author feels the need to return to the subject of assurance frequently: 2:3–6; 2:12–14; 3:1–2; 3:19–24; 4:4–6; 4:13–18; 5:13–15; 5:18–20. It is one of the main themes of 1 John. See Introduction, “Outline or Structure,” for the others.
4:14 On the authorship of these letters and on the relationship between the Elder and other apostolic figures, see the Introduction.
On Jesus’ unique relationship with God there is a vast amount of literature. See V. Taylor, The Person of Christ in New Testament Teaching (London: Macmillan, 1958), chaps. 13 and 14; O. Cullmann, Christology, pp. 270–90; G. Kittel, “abba,” TDNT, 1964, vol. 1, pp. 5ff.; J. Jeremias, The Central Message of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1965), pp. 9–30; New Testament Theology, Vol. 1: The Proclamation of Jesus (London: SCM, 1971), pp. 61–68; Schnackenburg, Gospel, vol. 2, pp. 172–86; Ladd, Theology, pp. 159–72; Dunn, Christology, pp. 22–33.
An exposition of the contrasting yet often complementary approaches to Jesus and his message in the NT are found in various works of NT theology: Dunn, Unity and Diversity, pp. 11–59, 203–31; L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), vol. 2, pp. 16–30, 65–106, 176–78, 186–88, 216–24, 247–57, 280–84, 296–300; W. G. Kümmel, The Theology of the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), pp. 22–95, 255–333; Ladd, Pattern, pp. 41–86; Ladd, Theology, parts 1–2; L. Morris, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), pp. 39–55, 98–106, 120–27, 157–71, 225–47, 288–89, 293–94, 302–6, 317–19; J. Reumann, Variety and Unity in New Testament Thought (New York: Oxford, 1991), chaps. 4–5; and E. Schweizer, A Theological Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1991), chaps. 25–27, 29.
The term “savior” occurs only twice in the Gospel and letters of John, here and in John 4:42, appropriately on the lips of non-Jews, the Samaritans. The latter text also calls Jesus, “the Savior of the world” (cf. 1 Tim. 4:10). The Emperor Hadrian, A.D. 117–138, was called “the Savior of the world.” See Cullmann, Christology, pp. 238–45; and W. Foerster, “sōzō, etc.,” TDNT, vol. 7, pp. 980–1012.
Kosmos appears 22 times in 1–3 John. It has a “neutral” sense only in 1 John 2:2, 4:9, 14. “Material possessions” (ton bion tou kosmou) in 3:17 may be also, but the sense of bios in 2:16 is decidedly negative. Like Luke, the author of the Johannine letters may have viewed wealth as negative, not neutral. It might be used for good, but it is spiritually dangerous. The other occurrences of kosmos in 1, 2, and 3 John are 2:15–17; 3:1, 13; 4:1, 3–5, 17; 5:4–5, 19. On kosmos in the Johannine writings, see H. Sasse, “kosmos,” TDNT, vol. 3, pp. 867–98; Brown, Gospel, I–XII, pp. 508–10; Epistles, pp. 222–24, 323–27; and Ladd, Theology, pp. 225–27.
4:15 This language goes back to Jesus’ teaching on the vine and the branches (John 15:1–8), on the coming of the Holy Spirit (14:16–17), on his and the Father’s coming to live within the disciples (14:20, 23), and to his prayer in John 17 (vv. 21, 23, 26).
The verb homologēsē is aorist subjunctive, pointing to “the (single) basic public confession of faith that makes one a Christian” (Brown, Epistles, p. 524).
For the confession of faith in Jesus as the Son of God in the Fourth Gospel, see 1:34, 49; 11:27. For Jesus’ own teaching about himself as the Son, see 5:19–27; 6:40; 8:36; 10:36; 11:4; 14:13; 17:1; 19:7. For the Fourth Evangelist’s teaching about Jesus as the Son, see 3:16–17, 35–36; 20:31. The title is even more prominent in 1 John: 1:3, 7; 2:22–24; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 14–15; and 5:5, 9–13, 20. In 2:23, 3:23, 4:15, 5:5, 5:10, and 5:13 allegiance to the Son of God is presented as a confession of faith.
4:16 It is better not to break v. 16 into two parts and start a new section as many do. The thought is continuous from v. 13 through v. 18. It is all on spiritual confidence.
4:17 Earlier editions of the NIV did not contain the phrase In this way.
In v. 17, the grammatical construction, hina with the subjunctive, can be either a purpose or a result clause. The latter is more appropriate here, since it is the consequence of perfect love which is foremost in the author’s mind.
Verse 17 contains the only Johannine reference to “the day of judgment.” See Matt. 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:36, 41–42; Luke 10:14; 2 Pet. 3:7; Jude 6. In the early church writers, see 2 Clement 16:3, 17; Epistle of Barnabas 11:7; 19:10; 21:6. F H. Klooster, “Judgment, Last,” ISBE, vol. 2, pp. 1162–63; L. Morris, The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), and W. Schneider, “Judgment,” NIDNTT, vol. 2, pp. 361–68.
In the Gospel of John, ekeinos is used broadly of many people: John the Baptist (1:8; 5:35), Moses (5:46–47), Judas (13:26–27, 30), Peter (18:17, 25), and of the disciple whom Jesus loved (19:35; 21:7, 23). It also occurs in reference to the devil (8:44), to God (1:33; 5:37–38; 6:29; 8:42), to the Spirit (14:26; 15:26;16:8, 13–14), and to Jesus (1:18; 2:21; 3:28, 30; 5:11, 19; 7:11; 9:12, 28, 37; 19:21; cf. 4:25). The term completely lacks the distinctive usage of 1 John.
On the relation between the believer and Christ in this passage, see Dodd, Epistles, pp. 119–20.
Culpepper thinks that the Elder’s opponents did not think there would be any future judgment and that this led them to neglect the love command. The opponents criticized the Elder’s group for still living in fear of judgment and charged that they had no confidence in God (1 John, p. 93). Culpepper may be correct (Grayston holds a diametrically opposite view of the opponents’ eschatology; Epistles, pp. 95–97, 130) but 1 John gives us little evidence for the opponents’ eschatological views.
4:18 The only other use of “punishment” (kolasis) in the NT is in Matt. 25:46, at the end of the parable of the sheep and the goats with reference to eternal or eschatological punishment. On the relationship between fear and punishment, “the point of the author is that fear arises out of anticipation of one’s destiny in the final judgment” (Kysar, I, II, III John, p. 102).
Brown points out that in the Johannine writings there is no positive use of the term “fear” in relation to God. Phobos seems to have lost its positive connotations of reverence and awe (Epistles, pp. 530–31).
The 1984 edition of the NIV correctly changed “the man who fears” to the one who fears. Such corrections could have been made much more consistently throughout the NIV.
Love among God’s Children
While the theme of love continues in this new section, there is a definite shift of focus away from the concern for assurance (4:13–18) to the practice of love among God’s children, a message the Elder has proclaimed before (2:9–11; 3:11–18; 4:7–12). The tone of the unit is that of logical argument, in which the author compares and contrasts claims of love for God and love for one’s brothers and sisters in the faith, or the lack of it. The opponents are in mind throughout, as they have been in every earlier discussion of love. That the secessionist false teachers have proved their lack of love for their brothers and sisters in the community is the writer’s overarching assumption.
4:19 There is a strong contrast between v. 18 and v. 19, between fear and love. The we with which v. 19 begins is emphatic: “as for us, we do not fear, we love.” The author includes himself with his readers, urging them to positive action toward others (love), instead of self-preoccupying fear. By stating this ideal as if it were a present accomplishment, the Elder assumes the best of his community, and, as a result, motivates and encourages them to realize it. The verb for love, agapōmen, can be present indicative (we love) or a hortatory subjunctive (“let us love”). They are not much different in this context, and one’s choice depends on one’s view of the writer’s rhetorical strategy—to command or to encourage.
Does the author have in mind love for God or love for one another, when he says we love? He means both, all active love on the part of the believing community, whether for God or others. In fact, the absolute we love may both point back to v. 18, contrasting fear as our response to God, and point ahead to vv. 20–21, in which love for other Christians is in view.
How is it possible for us to have lives characterized by love? Because he first loved us is the author’s answer. The aorist tense of loved points to God’s once for all, decisive act of love in sending Jesus Christ as our Savior (vv. 9–10, 14; cf. John 3:16). It is God’s love which enables authentic agapē love among Christians. (While it is a worthy sentiment, the Elder does not have in mind generic, human love; he limits his argument to what is or ought to be happening among those who claim to be Christians). The self-sacrificing nature of divine love calls forth among believers the same grateful response of costly love (cf. 3:17–18) in return, both to God and to one another.
4:20 The phrase if anyone says is one of the Elder’s ways in this letter of referring to the claims of the secessionists (cf. 1:6, 8, 10; 2:4, 6, 9; cf. 4:2–3; 5:10). The “super-spiritual” false teachers were celebrating their love for God; they were claiming a level of intimate knowledge of and fellowship with God which the readers had not attained. I love God was on their lips (cf. 3:18), but their actions gave a contrary testimony. They thought it possible to love God, without raising the issue of love for others, especially other Christians. For them, the two matters were completely separable. Jesus did not find it possible to separate them. When he was asked what was the greatest commandment, he gave a double answer, including, inseparably, love for God with love for neighbor (Matt. 22:34–40). The Elder does not believe that they can be divided either. He argues that anyone who claims to love God is a liar, if such a person, at the same time, hates his brother. Note that, with this author, there is no middle ground of indifference to one’s brother nor merely inadequate love (Westcott, Epistles, p. 161). It is typical Johannine dualism to contrast absolutely love and hate. The latter means “to have no love for.” In 2:9 the Elder rejected the claim “to be in the light,” if the boaster “hates his brother.” Such a person is a child of the devil (3:10), a murderer (3:15), and a liar. One cannot both love God and simultaneously hate his brother, as the Elder’s opponents are doing. A claim to do so is patently false.
Why? Because, the Elder argues, it is easier to love the seen brother than the unseen God. At least it is easier to test the former than the latter. There is very little evidence possible for whether one loves God. Even worship, devotional practices, and commandment-keeping may be done for other motives. But there is abundant evidence possible for the authenticity of love for one’s brother, and it is more difficult to falsify, since love is primarily, not an interior state of the heart, but the visible commitment in action, going “out of one’s way,” to advance the highest good and well-being of others. The love is in the deed, first and foremost, and secondarily in its purpose. So, when the Elder looks at the opponents and sees them disregarding the well-being of his needy community (cf. 3:17–18), and, indeed, aggressively attacking them, this is prima facie evidence for the absence of any agapē love at all. If it is not there for the brother, it is not there for God. The very nature of agapē love demands that it include one’s brother or sister as well as God.
On God as not seen, cf. 4:12 and John 1:18. The verb for see is in the perfect tense indicating that the secessionists have known well, over a period of time, the needs of the brothers and sisters they are rejecting. The textual variant, substituting “how is he able to love” for “he” cannot love arose due to the copyists’ desire to make this verse conform more closely in style to 3:17. Cannot love is also the better attested text.
4:21 Verse 21 reinforces the teaching of v. 20 by citing a divine command which links love for God with love for one’s brother. Literally translated, v. 21a reads: “And this commandment we have from him.” Does “him” (NIV, he) refer to Jesus’ own linking of these commandments in Matthew 22:34–40 (par. Mark 12:28–31; Luke 10:25–28), or perhaps to the “new commandment” of John 13:34? Or is the Elder referring to God as the origin of this teaching on love for God and neighbor in the Torah (Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18)? While the author does not always separate clearly between God and Jesus in his writing, as we noted earlier in several passages (e.g., 1 John 1:5–7; 2:3–6; 2:26–29; 3:2–3; 4:17), the context here points to God as the source of the command to love one’s brother or sister. Indeed, it is God’s teaching which Jesus cites in the Synoptics and on which the “new commandment” (John 13:34) is based.
Whoever loves God recalls the claims of the opponents, as implied in 4:10 and stated explicitly in 4:20. They have touted their love for God, but the Elder warns that this profession is invalid when not accompanied by visible, active, practical love for one’s brothers and sisters in the community. Because they have not done this (2:9–11; 3:10b, 14–18; 4:8, 20), the secessionists’ claim to love God must be rejected, along with their claim “to be in the light” (2:9).
5:1 The opening verse of chapter 5 does not begin a new topic, but it continues the theme of the inseparability of love for God and for God’s children among those who claim to be Christians. That the Elder is speaking of love among Christians, and not of the broader concern of love for neighbor, is evident in the confessional language of v. 1: Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ.
This description of the Christian as a believer in Jesus as the Christ is very Johannine (John 11:27; 20:31; cf. 7:30–31; 10:24–25). We have seen it previously in the summary of Johannine faith in 3:23a: “to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ,” in the Spirit-inspired confession, “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (4:2), and in the community’s affirmation that “Jesus is the Son of God” (4:15; 5:5; cf. 2:23). Further, it is implied in the opponents’ denial that Jesus is the Christ (2:22) and in the refusal of the “spirit of antichrist” to “acknowledge Jesus” (4:3).
To believe that Jesus is the Christ is to believe that the one who came in the flesh (John 1:14), the fully human Jesus, is also the divine Son of God (John 20:31), the one who came from heaven (John 13:3; 16:28) as Revealer (John 1:18) and Redeemer (John 3:16–17). The Elder’s opponents do not accept this Christology.
Those who do accept and confess it are born of God. This description of the community as God’s children or born of God appeared earlier in 2:29–3:2 and 3:9–10 (cf. 4:4, 6). It serves to differentiate the true Johannine Christians from the children of the devil (3:10; cf. John 8:44), who have seceded (1 John 2:19).
The Elder uses of the concept of born of God as a way of showing why it is only logical to love both one’s brother and God. The author’s point depends on the sense of three forms of the verb gennaō in this verse. First, believers in Jesus are described as born of God (ek tou theou gegennētai, perf, pass.; lit., “has been begotten of God”). Next, God is “the one who begat” (ton gennēsanta, aor. act.). Finally, the expression, his child, is actually “the one who has been begotten of him” (ton gegennēmenon ex autou; perf. pass.). The Elder’s point, then, repeats the theme of 4:21 in different words: since every believer has been begotten of God, those who authentically love the one who begat (God) also love the one who has been begotten (one’s brother or sister in Christ). It would not make any sense to do otherwise, to claim to love the father while refusing to love his children. Yet this is precisely what the schismatics do. What Jesus said about husband and wife may also be said of love for God and for one’s fellow believer, “What God has joined together, let man not separate” (Mark 10:9).
5:2 This verse begins with the last of the writer’s eight This is how we know statements (2:3, 5; 3:16, 19, 24; 4:2, 13). They reassure the readers of their spiritual standing before God (we know him, 2:3; we are in him 2:5; we belong to the truth, 3:19; he lives in us, 3:24; we live in him, 4:16), to discern the presence of the Spirit of God (4:2), and to understand the nature of love (3:16; 5:2).
Specifically in v. 2, the object of our knowledge is that we love the children of God. All along the Elder has been urging his readers to love one another (2:10; 3:11, 14, 16, 18, 23; 4:7, 11–12, 21; 5:1), and he has made love for one’s brothers and sisters a criterion for distinguishing between his own faithful community and the misbelieving secessionists (2:9, 11; 3:10, 15, 17; 4:8, 20). But how does one know whether one is authentically loving the children of God (3:1–2, 10)? A variety of answers from within the epistle is possible: when we “lay down our lives for our brothers” (3:16), by having pity on our brother when he is in need (3:17), when we love “with actions and in truth” (3:18), and when we love like God does (4:10–11). Verse 2 adds: by (lit., “whenever,” at the same time, we are) loving God and carrying out his commands. One test of true Christian love is whether it comes from a heart that loves and is obedient to God. This, of course, is the reverse of the point made in 4:20–5:1, in which authentic love for God is seen in love for God’s children, one’s fellow believers. The two truths are complementary.
But we should also note that carrying out his commands (lit., “doing his commandments”), and not just loving God, is the evidence required. We are to “walk in the light” (1:7), keep his commands and obey his word (2:3–5; 3:24), “walk as Jesus did” (2:6), do what is right (2:29; 3:7), purify ourselves (3:3), not keep on sinning (3:9; 5:18), and keep ourselves from idols (5:21). But above all the commands of God are to believe in Jesus Christ and to love one another (3:23). There is also a certain circularity in the Johannine thinking about love and obedience (cf. 2 John 5–6). Those who truly love their comrades in the community will evidence this by a morally consistent and Christ-like character, one of the signs of which is love.
5:3 In v. 3 the author gives a reason for connecting loving God and keeping God’s commands, as he did in v. 2. He argues that love for God is expressed in obedience; that is how it is demonstrated. Jesus taught the same: “If you love me, you will obey what I command” (John 14:15); “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me” (14:21); “If anyone loves me, he (or she) will obey my teaching” (14:23); and “If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love” (15:10). The proof, perhaps the Elder would even say, the essence (this is), of love for God is to obey his commands. Compare 2 John 6: “And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands.” It is also the evidence of knowing God (1 John 2:3–5). The Elder believed that the heretical teachers could not produce this evidence of the authenticity of their relationship with God.
The last clause of v. 3 is an encouragement to obey his commands: they are not burdensome (lit., “heavy, difficult,” bareiai). Similarly, the yoke of Jesus (in contrast to the heavy yoke of the Torah), which disciples are called to take upon them, is “easy and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:30). The “teachers of the law and the Pharisees” (Matt. 23:2), in contrast, were accused of putting heavy (barea) loads upon the people’s shoulders, while being unwilling to help them (Matt. 23:4). His commands—the writer always has primarily in mind the love command—are not burdensome, because he strengthens us to carry them out, by his power (Phil. 4:13) and by his love (1 John 4:7, 19).
5:4a Directly continuing the thought of v. 3, the first clause of v. 4 gives the Elder’s reason for considering God’s commands not to be a heavy burden to the believer: everyone born of God overcomes the world. The description of the Christian as born of God (lit., “the one having been born from God,” to gegennēmenon ek tou theou) recalls v. 1. Membership in God’s family means having become God’s children by God’s will (John 1:12–13). The power of the new birth is present within them as they seek to “obey his commands.” Indeed, the neuter phrase “everyone begotten by God” points to the quality and inherent power of everyone who is born of God (Brown, Epistles, pp. 541–42). Doing what is right (2:29), not continuing to practice sin (3:9; 5:18), and loving one another (4:7) also arise out of the power of the new birth. What would be impossible in their own strength is “not burdensome” for those born of God.
Indeed, so powerful is the reality of the new birth that the believer (with the community of which the Christian is a part) overcomes the world. Here, the world is that hostile environment in which the Johannine Christians live, but which they are not of (John 17:11, 14, 16). Though God loves it (John 3:16), and Christ died for it (1 John 2:2; 4:9, 14), it has rejected and hates both Jesus and the disciples (John 15:18; 17:14; 1 John 3:13). It is where the false prophets, those deceivers and antichrists, went when they seceded from the community (1 John 2:19, 4:1, 3; 2 John 7), and there they found a sympathetic audience who listened to their views (1 John 4:5). Believers overcome the world by not loving the world “or anything in the world” (1 John 2:15); instead, they do “the will of God” (2:17) and rely on the Spirit of God who is in them and who “is greater than the one,” the spirit of antichrist (4:3) and of falsehood (4:6), ultimately, the evil one (5:19), “who is in the world” (4:4). Like Jesus (John 16:33: “Take heart! I have overcome the world”), and because his Spirit is in them (4:13), they too have overcome (lit., “conquered,” nika) the world.
The next section of 1 John, beginning with v. 4b, leaves the themes of love and obedience (4:19–5:4a) and emphasizes faith and Christology (5:4b–12).
Additional Notes
4:19 After we love some ancient MSS add either the word “God” (Sinaiticus and some versions) or “him” (K and L, ninth century, and the Byzantine witnesses). But they are attempts to improve the original reading, the absolute we love, as well witnessed by Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and the Vulgate. See Metzger, Commentary, p. 614.
4:20 For the opponents as liars, see 1:6; 2:4, 21–22; and cf. 1:8, 10; 2:26; 3:7; 4:1, 6c; 5:10; John 8:44, 55; see also Stott, Letters, p. 173.
On the superior attestation of cannot love, see Metzger, Commentary, p. 615. This reading is witnessed by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus over Alexandrinus, K, and L.
5:3 On v. 3c, cf. Deut. 30:11–14; Philo, Spec. Laws, 1.55, 299. Herm. Man. 12.4: “those who have the Lord in their hearts can also be the lord of … every one of these commandments. But to those who have the Lord only on their lips, but their hearts are hardened, and who are far from the Lord, the commandments are hard and difficult.”
5:4a The 1984 edition of the NIV changed “has overcome” to overcomes to reflect the Greek text more accurately.
Faith in Jesus and the Testimony of God
This section of 1 John opens with a celebration of victorious faith (v. 4b), describes that faith in relation to Jesus (vv. 5–6a), and undergirds it with teaching about the testimony of the Spirit (vv. 6b–8) and of God (vv. 9–11). Faith in that testimony has eternal consequences (v. 12).
5:4b In the author’s typical style, overcoming the world is the “link concept” between the previous passage (4:19–5:4a) and the new one. On the meaning of overcoming the world, see the comment on 5:4a above. The Elder begins with an announcement, a joyful proclamation: This is the victory that has conquered the world. Victory (nikē, the only time this noun occurs in the feminine form in the NT) comes from the same root as overcome, nikaō. It emphasizes “the means for winning a victory,” such as an emperor’s power that causes him to be victorious (BAGD, p. 538). So in 5:4b, the Elder implies that our faith is the power that has enabled believers to defeat the evil assault of the world. The tense of overcome in v. 4b is aorist; the victory of the believing community (our faith) was decisively accomplished in its rejection of the false teachers. In vv. 4a and 5 the same verb is used in the present tense, since the victory, once won, must be continuously realized as new attacks occur (Stott, Letters, p. 177).
Our faith could be understood as an abstract noun meaning “Christianity,” or “the content of what we believe,” and there can be no doubt that the content of faith is crucial for the author. His emphasis here certainly also includes the act of believing or trust, as both the verb in v. 5b and the importance of accepting/believing God’s testimony in vv. 9–10 show. It is the fact that the community actively believes God’s testimony concerning the identity of his Son that enables it to overcome the world and the schismatic false teachers who have gone out into it (2:19; 4:1; 2 John 7). For the Elder, believing and the right, or orthodox, content of belief are inseparable.
5:5 The relationship between belief and the right content of belief is also evident in v. 5. The question with which the verse begins focuses on the person who conquers or defeats the world. That spiritually victorious individual is the one who presently and continuously believes that (note the emphasis on that, not on “believing in”) Jesus is the Son of God. Both the activity of faith and its object are included. This christological affirmation recalls others in 1 John. Jesus is “his Son” (1:3, 7; 3:23; 4:10, 14; 5:9–11, 20), “his one and only Son” (4:9), “the Son” (2:22–24; 5:12), “the Son of God” (3:8; 5:10, 12–13, 20), and “Jesus is the Christ” (2:22; 5:1). And it is identical to the confession in 4:15. For Johannine Christians Jesus as the Son of God implies a great deal: his divine nature (John 3:16, 18; 5:18; 10:30; 1 John 4:9), his being born of God (1 John 5:18), his preexistence (John 3:17; 10:36; 17:3, 5; 1 John 4:9–10, 14; cf. John 8:58), his union with the Father (John 3:35; 5:16–23; 10:30; 1 John 2:23), and, in fact, his deity (John 1:18; 1 John 5:20; cf. John 5:18; 10:33).
The emphasis in nearly all of the christological statements in 1 John falls on the name Jesus. The primary issue between the Elder and the false teachers who seceded is whether the human, “come in the flesh” (4:2; 2 John 7) Jesus is the same person as the divine Son of God. To confess that Jesus is the Son of God is to possess a faith that overcomes the world. This kind of faith clearly separates one from the heretical opposition which denies and rejects Jesus (2:22–23; 4:3; 2 John 7; cf. 3:1; 5:10).
5:6 Again, the Elder emphasizes the human name Jesus Christ. This is the one of whom he is writing, a specific, historical human being. He describes him in a way that the gnostically inclined opponents would have found repugnant, as the one who came by water and blood. Some MSS substitute “spirit” for blood, in order to make this verse more parallel with John 3:5; other MSS just add “spirit” to water and blood, but water and blood alone is well attested and is surely the original reading (Metzger, Commentary, pp. 615–16).
Understanding the text’s meaning has been a more difficult problem. Came by refers either to Jesus’ incarnation or to the whole course of his earthly life as one sent from God. Water may point to his birth or his baptism, or to the water that flowed from his side on the cross. Blood may refer to his death on the cross or to the “sacrament” of the Lord’s Supper. The pair of terms, water and blood, then, (a) may be sacramental, including both baptism and the Eucharist, (b) may comprise the whole of Jesus’ earthly ministry, from his birth or baptism to his death, or (c) may both refer to his death, when water and blood came from his wounded side (John 19:34).
While we cannot know fully what was in the author’s mind, the clues contained in the rest of v. 6 and in the Fourth Gospel incline toward some form of solution (b). Clearly, in the remainder of v. 6, the Elder is arguing against his opponents, who could affirm that the Son of God, the Christ, came by water only. They denied that the divine Son of God, the Christ, came by blood as well. While water can refer to birth (one possible interpretation of John 3:5–6), it is more likely a reference to Jesus’ baptism (John 1:29–34; the event itself is never narrated in John’s Gospel due to the continuing conflict with disciples of John the Baptist). One early Christian tradition identifies the opponents of the Elder with Cerinthus and his followers, who believed that “the Christ” came upon Jesus at this baptism but left him before the cross. They denied that the divine Christ could be truly human or suffer. Both the Elder and his secessionist adversaries accepted that the baptism of Jesus, the water, witnessed to his being “the Son of God” (John 1:34), but the Elder, and emerging orthodox Christianity with him, against the schismatic heretics, also affirmed that the Son of God came by, i.e., was divinely and savingly present through, his suffering and death on the cross, the blood.
To this the Spirit testifies. In the Fourth Gospel, the Spirit came down upon Jesus at his baptism, confirming to John the Baptist that “this is the Son of God” (John 1:32–34). At the cross, “the disciple whom he loved” saw the flow of blood and water from the side of Jesus and testified to it, “and we know that his testimony is true,” just as the Elder now emphasizes that the Spirit is the truth (John 19:34–35). This suggests that the Johannine community understood the Spirit to be giving testimony through the beloved disciple (Brown, Epistles, pp. 579–80). Note also that testifies is in the present tense, implying that the witness of the Spirit was not merely historical, in relation to Jesus’ career, but is ongoing, in relation to the life of the believing community, in fulfillment of Jesus’ promise in John 15:26, “he will testify about me.” The Spirit is “the anointing” which teaches the community all things, just as Jesus promised that “the Spirit of truth” would do (John 14:17, 26; 1 John 4:6). The Johannine writings consider all three persons of the Trinity, to use a phrase from later theology, to be the truth (God, John 4:24; Jesus, John 14:6; the Spirit, 1 John 5:6).
5:7–8 The For with which v. 7 begins shows the direct connection with v. 6. Jesus came by water and blood, and the Spirit testifies to this. That means there are really three that testify. There is no reason to interpret the significance of the three neuter nouns any differently than in v. 6. The water and the blood denote Jesus’ baptism and his death, the beginning and the end of his public ministry. To these saving, historical events the Spirit bore and bears witness. See the exegesis of v. 6. A minor motif here may be the requirement of the Jewish law for “two or three witnesses” to attest the truth (cf. Matt. 18:16; cf. Deut. 19:15). All three witnesses, in agreement (lit., “the three are unto the one”), point to Jesus and to his authentic identity as the Son of God and the Christ (vv. 5–6), in contradiction to the false teachers, who, while claiming to speak by the Spirit (4:1, 3), and perhaps also affirming the testimony of his baptism to his Sonship, denied the witness of the blood of the cross, which testimony the Spirit confirms (v. 6b). The witness of the Spirit may be mentioned first in the list of three, because it is through the Spirit that the community of faith recognizes the truth (v. 6) about Jesus (John 14:26).
The AV contains the following words which are not in any of the early MSS of the NT. They appeared first in some copies of the Old Latin version in the fourth century, probably as a marginal note which later found its way into the text. The added words, following testify (NIV; “bear record,” AV) are: “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.…” None of the best MSS of the letters of John include these words. All modern translations omit them or note that they are not original. See Metzger, Commentary, pp. 616–18.
5:9 Verse 9 begins a section (vv. 9–11) on the testimony of God concerning his Son. The NIV solves an awkward Greek construction by eliminating the first word of v. 9, “if.” Literally, this verse reads, “If the testimony of people (tōn anthrōpōn) we are accepting, the testimony of God is greater, because this is the testimony of God which he has testified concerning his Son.” The author’s point is logical, a form of the a fortiori argument: God is greater than his creation, humanity; therefore, if we accept human testimony about something, we ought also, or perhaps instead, to accept God’s. A secondary implied argument is that God’s testimony is testimony concerning his own Son; therefore, it deserves higher, or perhaps sole, priority.
What human testimony does the author have in mind? One clue is that it is testimony which we are accepting. In John 19:34–35 “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (cf. John 19:26) saw and gave testimony to the flow of blood and water from Jesus’ side. “His testimony is true,” and “he knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies that you may believe,” the editor/author of the Fourth Gospel says to the reader. The Johannine community itself was founded upon the witness and work of the beloved disciple. The community says of him in John 21:24: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.” Clearly, the Johannine Christians, including the Elder, accept the testimony of the beloved disciple. Yet even his reliable testimony is not to be compared with the testimony of God, a witness given concerning his own Son.
What does the author mean by God’s testimony? It is testimony which has already been given and which continues in force (the tense of the verb martyreō is perfect). Yet while the divine testimony has a past referent (what God has already said through the Spirit, the Paraclete, cf. vv. 6–7), it also looks forward in this passage to vv. 10–11 which explicitly explicate God’s testimony.
Behind this passage, to which it is the background, is John 5:31–47, a discourse of Jesus concerning valid testimony to his identity. John the Baptist (vv. 33–35), Jesus’ own work (v. 36), the Father (vv. 37–38), the Scriptures (v. 39), and Moses (vv. 45–46) are all witnesses to his identity and authority.
5:10 Verse 10 continues the subject of God’s testimony begun in v. 9 and focuses on the human response to it. The passage contains three comparisons. First, the one who believes is contrasted, in typically Johannine antithetical style, with the one who does not believe. Second, there is a comparison of the objects of belief and of unbelief. The Elder contrasts believing in (pisteuōn eis) the Son of God with not believing (mē pisteuōn tō) God. Whereas we might have expected the contrast to be identical, instead, the author goes beyond the simple contrast to draw out its implication: the opposite of believing in the Son of God is not just denying the Son, but it is really unbelief in God.
Third is the comparison of consequences. For the one who believes in the Son of God, that person has this (lit. “the”) testimony in his heart (lit., “in himself”). The testimony is the witness of God “about his Son,” just spoken of in v. 9. For the one who does not believe God, the result is that such a person has made God a liar. The same charge was leveled in 1:10 against those who claimed “we have not sinned.” Clearly, the Elder has his opponents in mind in both places, and he elsewhere calls them liars in 2:4, 2:22, and 4:20 (cf. also 1:6; 2:21, 27). The last element of the “logic” of v. 10 is the writer’s reason for claiming that the unbeliever has made him (God) out to be a liar: it is because he has not believed (lit., “has not believed in”; ou pepisteuken eis) the testimony God has given (lit., “has testified”) about his Son.
The author claims, in v. 10, that people who believe in the Son of God, which includes the belief that the Son of God is Jesus (5:5b), have in themselves God’s testimony about his Son. This testimony includes the witness of the Spirit in vv. 6–7, but it primarily looks ahead to v. 11, where the content of God’s testimony is stated explicitly. Those who believe in God’s Son are inwardly assured by God’s Spirit that their faith is justified, that the one to whom they have committed themselves in faith is trustworthy, that they were “right to trust in Christ” (Stott, Letters, p. 184). The Elder’s opponents, denying what God has said about his Son, Jesus, miss God’s inward confirming testimony and remain “in the darkness” (1:6; 2:9, 11).
5:11 What is the testimony of God, which the writer has spoken of since v. 9? It is “testimony … about his Son” (vv. 9c, 10c). It certainly includes the idea that the Son of God is Jesus (v. 5), the one who came by both water and blood (vv. 6–8), which statements his opponents, the secessionists, deny. But the principal proposition in God’s testimony concerns the connection between his Son and life. This is the testimony presents the content of God’s witness, though, of course, it is not the whole content of what God has said concerning Jesus.
The testimony is contained in two closely linked affirmations: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. In 1 John 1:2 and 5:20 “his Son, Jesus Christ” is called eternal life (zōēn aiōnion). In 2:25, eternal life is what God has promised to those who acknowledge the Son (2:23) and remain faithful. “No murderer has eternal life in him,” but those who love their brothers and sisters “have passed from death to life” (3:14–15; cf. John 5:24). In the Johannine writings eternal life is a present spiritual reality, the qualitatively different life of the realm of God present in human beings who believe in Jesus. John 17:3 describes it as “that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” It is a gift from God (also from Jesus, John 10:28; 17:2); in fact, v. 11 speaks of it as given (edōken, aorist) at a definite time in the past, undoubtedly in the “Christ event.” Yet it also continues to be given in the present in response to faith in Jesus. It is given, the Elder says, to us, i.e., to those who have remained in the community of the faithful, not to the secessionists; they have not remained (1 John 2:19, 23–27), and they do not have eternal life (1 John 3:14–15).
The second part of the content of God’s testimony is the connection between the life and the Son: this life is in his Son (cf. John 1:4; 5:26). It is in the Son for two reasons: because the Son is life (1 John 1:2; 5:20; John 11:25; 14:6), as are his words (John 6:63, 68). He also is “the bread of life” (John 6:35, 48), and, as “the light of the world,” he is “the light of life” (John 8:12). Eternal life is also in the Son, because it is through faith in the Son (or by coming to him, John 5:40; or by looking to him, 6:40; or by eating his flesh and drinking his blood, 6:54) that one receives the gift of life (cf. 2:25; John 3:15–16, 36; 6:47; 20:31). God’s free gift of an eternally right relationship with God is inseparable from knowing and trusting Jesus Christ.
5:12 Having spelled out the nature and content of God’s testimony about his Son in vv. 9–11, the Elder in v. 12 makes clear the personal implications, positive and negative, of God’s decision to tie the gift of life to the Son. They are absolutely antithetical:
has
the Son
has
life
not have
the Son of God
not have
life.
The concept of “having the Son” (v. 12; 2 John 9), “having the Father” (2:23; 2 John 9), or “having God” (2 John 9) is unique in the NT. It connotes a close and secure relationship with God, but it also dangerously borders on possessing God for one’s own purposes, including polemic against one’s opponents. The idea of “having God” did occur in the intertestamental writings as a way of expressing the covenantal confidence of the Jewish people (see 3 Mace. 7:16; T. Dan 5:2).
In the letters of John, the Son is the single term of God’s covenant with his people, so that one’s relationship with him is decisive, both for one’s relationship with God and for whether one has or is bereft of eternal life. The same point is made in equally antithetical terms in John 3:36:
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life,
but whoever rejects the Son will not see life,
for God’s wrath remains on him.”
Note that in v. 12 the writer uses Son and Son of God synonymously. The second title reminds the readers that the Son and life both come from God.
Additional Notes
5:4b The link concepts in other passages are: “Son of God” and “life” in 5:12–13, “love” in 4:18–19, “living” in 4:12–13, “from God” in 4:6–7, “spirit” in 3:24–4:1, “truth” in 3:18–19, “love” in 3:10–11, “remain … continue” in 2:27–28, and the end of the age in 2:17–18. New sections clearly begin at 1:5, 2:3, and 2:12 without the use of linking ideas or phrases.
5:6 A full discussion of the various alternative interpretations of this verse may be found in Brown, Epistles, pp. 575–78.
5:7–8 / See Brown, Epistles, pp. 581–85 for a thorough discussion of the history of exegesis of this passage and a comprehensive presentation of “The Johannine Comma,” the additional words added to some early Latin MSS that made their way into the AV; “Appendix IV: The Johannine Comma,” Epistles, pp. 775–87.
5:9 / Brown argues (Epistles, p. 586) that the human testimony in the Elder’s mind is that of John the Baptist, to which the secessionists are appealing. While that is certainly possible, and John’s testimony is one of the witnesses to whom Jesus’ refers in John 5:33–35, much more directly stated in the Johannine writings is the witness of the Spirit through the testimony of the beloved disciple. In this passage, the author is not attacking the secessionists as much as he is reminding his readers of both human and divine witnesses to Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God.
On the concept of “witness” in the NT, see L. Coenen and A. Trites, “Witness,” NIDNTT vol. 3, pp. 1038–51; A. A. Trites, The New Testament Concept of Witness (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1977), and J. M. Boice, Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970).
5:10 The variation in the use of the Greek prepositions with the verb for believe does not yield any difference in meaning. It is typical of this author to vary his style of writing with no significance to the variation; Brown, Epistles, p. 589.
This verse, along with the rest of 5:6–11, John 15:26, and Rom. 8:16, formed the basis for the Reformation teaching on “the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.” Though the Reformers came to associate the witness of the Spirit with the authority of Scripture as God’s Word, the passage in 1 John does not do so, but emphasizes God’s witness in the believer concerning Jesus. On the “witness of the Spirit,” see G. W. Bromiley, ISBE, vol. 4, pp. 1087–88.
5:11 On the Johannine concept of eternal life, see Ladd, Theology, pp. 254–69; Schnackenburg, “The idea of Life in the Fourth Gospel,” Gospel, vol. 2, pp. 352–61; Brown, Gospel, I–XII, pp. 505–8; O. Piper, “Life,” IDB, vol. 3, pp. 124–30; Dodd, Interpretation, pp. 144–50.
For an alternative view of God’s testimony, see Marshall, Epistles, p. 242 and Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, p. 287.