15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For everything in the world--the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does--comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.
by James Merritt
Warren Wiersbe is one of the most popular and well known Bible teachers in all of the world. He once made this incredible statement: "After over forty years of ministry, I am convinced that spiritual immaturity is the number one problem in our churches." [1]
I heard a story of a little boy who fell out of bed in the middle of the night. When his mother rushed to his room to ask him what happened, he said, "I don't know. I guess I stayed too close to where I got in." So many Christians do that with their faith. For most of their Christian life they stay too close where they got in.
You see, we often think that "growing up is showing up." We think that if a person comes to church on Sunday morning, and perhaps even attends a Bible study group, and maybe even holds an official position in the church like deacon, or Sunday School teacher, or committee member, or a trustee, that he or she must be a mature Christian. Well I want you to know that some of the most immature Christians I have ever pastored never missed a Sunday morning church service. Some of the most immature Christians I know have been in the same Bible study class for twenty years, and some of the most immature Christians I know have held official positions in the church.
In fact, I would go a little further and say, in addition to what Dr. Wiersbe said, that the second greatest problem in the church is having spiritually immature people in places of leadership.
God wants you to grow up. Your Heavenly Father's goal is for you to mature and to become more like Jesus everyday. The sad truth is there are millions of Christians who grow older, but they never grow up.
Over and over and over we are told that God wants us to grow up.
"We are to grow up in every way into Him who is the head into Christ." (Eph. 4:15 ESV)
"So let us stop going over the basics of Christianity again and again; let us go on instead and become mature." (Heb. 6:1 NLT)
"Like newborn infants long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation." (1 Pet. 2:2 ESV)
"Grow in grace and understanding of our Master and Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Pet. 3:18 The MSG)
Growth is the goal of the Christian. Maturity is mandatory for every child of God. When a Christian stops growing he starts backsliding; you never stay the same. If you are the same Christian today that you were a year ago, you are not the Christian that you ought to be. I want to share with you in this message how you can attain spiritual maturity.
I. I Must Desire My Spiritual Maturity
You will notice in verses 12 through 14 of 1 John that he identifies three levels of spiritual maturity. In verse 12 he speaks of "little children." In verse 13 he speaks of "fathers" and also of "young men." Now I see the same thing when I look out at this congregation. Physically I can identify the children, I can identify the young people, and I can identify the fathers or the mature adults. But interestingly, I cannot equate physical maturity with spiritual maturity. In other words, you cannot determine the spiritual maturity of an individual by the physical maturity. I may be looking at a young person who, in his spiritual maturity, is an adult, and I may be looking at an adult who, in his spiritual maturity, is a child.
The Greek word for "children" in verse 13 refers to an immature baby. Now there is nothing wrong with being a baby. 1 Pet. 2:2 says, "We are to desire the milk of the word like newborn babes." But even though there is nothing wrong with being a baby, there is something wrong with staying a baby.
We have churches today that are unfortunately filled with baby Christians; people are spiritually are still in the nursery. That is a fitting description because the characteristic of a baby that is most descriptive is selfishness. Babies are completely self-centered. If they don't get what they want when they want it what do they do? cry. Whose needs do they care about?—their own. Whenever you give them what they want, do they ever thank you?—no. Do they ever try to help someone else?—no. Do they ever give anything except what they deposit in their diaper?—no. All a little baby does is take, and all a little baby cares about is himself. We are, from the moment we are born again into God's family as a baby, to begin to move on to the next stage of maturity.
John refers to the second category which is "young men." Now these are Christians who have moved from baby's milk to adult meat. They are beginning to learn that they are responsible for their own spiritual maturity. They are beginning to learn that God can speak to them through the Bible, and God can answer their prayers just like He can the minister or the pastor.
But the ultimate goal is to reach the stage of the "father." Now John repeats himself when he talks about fathers. He says in verse 13, "Fathers have known Him who is from the beginning." He says exactly the same thing in verse 14, "Fathers have known Him who is from the beginning." Now the ultimate mark of maturity is when you know God. You know not just the will of God, or the work of God, or the ways of God, or even the word of God; you know God. Because the more you know the Father, the more you are going to become like the Father.
There is obviously a process that one must follow to take you from being a baby to a young person to an adult. But spiritual growth is not automatic. If you're going to attain spiritual maturity, if you're going to grow, you've got to want to grow. You've got to decide to grow. You've got to make an effort to grow, and you've got to continue to grow.
Churches are filled with people who have not made the commitment to grow and they attend church all of their life as a spiritual baby. You see, an active member is not necessarily the same as a mature member.
The truth is that spiritual maturity is intentional. It requires commitment, effort, determination and work. Let me remind you again of 1 Pet. 2:2 in a different translation. "You must crave pure spiritual milk so that you can grow." (1 Pet. 2:2 NLT) A young man once came to the great teacher, Socrates, and said, "Socrates, will you be my teacher?" Socrates told the young man to follow him, and he turned and walked into the ocean.
The young man followed him into the sea, and they kept walking until the water was just touching their lips. Socrates then turned around and put both hands on the young man's head and pushed him under the water. The young man, wanting to be a compliant student, stayed there for awhile, but soon he began to spit and sputter, and thrash about trying to get air. All the while Socrates held him under the water. Soon the man began blowing large bubbles and thrashing about as wildly as he possibly could. Finally, Socrates took his hands off the young man who popped to the surface gasping for air, spewing water out of his mouth. He looked at Socrates and said, "Why did you do that?"
Socrates looked at him and said, "When you want to learn as much as you wanted to breathe, then I will be your teacher." When you really begin to crave spiritual growth like a baby craves milk, you will then begin to really grow and mature in the Lord Jesus Christ.
II. I Must Develop My Spiritual Maturity
Now in order to leave childhood you must become a young adult, and according to 1 Jn 2:14 the mark of a young adult is this: "I have written to you young men because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the wicked one." Now the word "abide" means "to live with." If you're going to grow as a Christian you must live with the word of God. You must live in the word of God. Then you will be able to live by the word of God. Let me be very plain. Unless you get into the word of God yourself on a consistent basis, you will never ever grow to full spiritual maturity. It's just this simple. Those who want to grow read their Bible; to those who don't won't.
I want to go further. If spiritual maturity is going to be a priority in your life, Bible study must become a priority in your life. You cannot read the newspaper for one hour, watch the television for three hours, read the Bible three minutes and expect to grow.
I wonder how many of you would claim to believe the Bible "from cover to cover?" [have them raise their hands] Now don't raise your hands when I ask this question, but how many of you have read the Bible from cover to cover? It's a shame that there are atheists and skeptics who have read the Bible from cover to cover and don't believe it, while there are millions of Christians who believe it from cover to cover but have never read it.
Do you realize that if you will read the Bible just 15 minutes a day you will read completely through it once a year? If you cut out one 30 minute television program a day and read your Bible instead, you will read through the entire Bible twice a year.
I heard a preacher say one time that the devil is not afraid of a Bible with dust on it. That is true. Just as no soldier is afraid of a sword that is still in its sheaf, the devil is not afraid of a Bible that is never opened. I can tell you for sure that big Christians are Bible Christians.
In reality this book is God's manual for maturity. 2 Tim. 3:16 says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Now each one of those purposes are very important. The Bible gives us doctrine so we can know what is right. It then gives us reproof so we can know what is not right. It then gives us correction to tell us how to get right, and then it gives us instruction so we can know how to stay right.
Suppose I have to drive from Atlanta, Georgia to Denver, Colorado to speak at a conference. Now to make sure I don't get lost I set down with a road map and plot my course. Let's imagine that Teresa is going to be my navigator. Well the correct course is like doctrine. It tells me what is right and will guide me to my destination.
Now suppose as I'm driving along Teresa is napping and not navigating (which is, by the way, what she usually does on a long trip), and I foolishly take the wrong exit. Now her sensitive navigational alarm clock tells her to wake up immediately. She says, "You shouldn't have turned there." Now that is reproof. She just told me I was not right. So I pull off the detour, turn the car around and get back on the main road. Now that is correction; I'm getting right. Then suppose Teresa puts that map on the seat, points to it and says, "Now follow this and you won't go wrong." That's instruction; telling me how to stay right.
You could do a lot of things that will help you along the road to spiritual maturity. But if you do not take time everyday to spend time with the word of God, so that you can hear the voice of the God of the word, you will stay a spiritual baby all of your life. Don't think that you can come to church once a week and let me spoon feed you 35 minutes worth of truth and that's all you need. Just as you eat food for your physical body everyday, you must eat the meat of the word of God for your soul everyday.
III. I Must Demonstrate My Spiritual Maturity
Now I want you to listen very carefully to this next statement: Spiritual maturity is demonstrated more by how you behave than it is by what you believe. If you believe, or say you believe, does not matter if you do not behave like you believe what you believe. "Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show it by his good behavior." (James 3:13 NASB) You see, sometimes we get the idea that if a person knows a lot about the Bible he or she must be spiritually mature.
I have known Bible study teachers who have a lot of head knowledge of the Bible, but they are not spiritually mature. In fact, Paul said in 1 Cor. 13 that knowledge without love puffs up. You see, maturity is not how much you know about Jesus in your head; it is how well you know Jesus in your heart, and how much you show Jesus in your life.
That's why the real mark of maturity is obedience. James said, "Do not deceive yourselves by just listening to His word; instead put it into practice." (James 1:22 TEV) Real maturity is not just learning what the Bible says, but applying it in different circumstances in your life.
Whether you are a preacher of the gospel like I am, or a Bible study teacher, or a group leader, remember this: The objective of teaching and preaching is not just to provide information, it is to change lives. God is a lot more concerned with your character than He is with your comfort. The way we get to demonstrate spiritual maturity is through the various circumstances that come into our lives. Because every time something happens to us, good, bad, or ugly, it gives us an opportunity to respond in the way God would have us to according to His word, and when we do that we build character.
The fruit of the Spirit, according to Gal. 5:22-23 is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. How does God produce the fruit of Spirit in our lives? By putting us in the exact type of circumstance to force us to bear the fruit that is needed in that particular situation. Do you know any people around you that you work with, or live next to that are unlovable? God wants to use those people to teach you how to love.
You ever had your heart broken by a girl or a guy, or a death in the family? God brings sorrow into your life to teach you joy. Anybody here in the middle of a storm, having difficulties, people upset with you, criticizing you? God is trying to develop peace within your heart. So the next time you are wondering why you're going through a difficult time in your life, just remember God is wanting to use that situation so you can demonstrate both to the saint and the sinner that you have the spiritual maturity to see it through God's viewpoint, and to handle it according to God's truth.
The Marines have a distinguished reputation for meticulously training their soldiers. All new recruits understand some of the rationale behind their training. One newcomer to boot camp was confused and even angered by the drill instructor's obsession for details. When holding their trays in the food line, each man was forced to hold his hands in a certain position. They were required to have their right hand on the bottom corner and their left hand on the top corner; all the while holding it flat against their chest. Whenever the men would fail to hold their tray exactly as instructed they were verbally chastised and ordered to do pushups.
They began to wonder why standing in line just to get food they had to hold their tray a particular way. Well, later when their weapons were issued, these men were amazed to see how they were instructed to hold their rifle whether they were running or marching exactly the same way they held their food tray. Now what seemed like insignificant repetition in the mess hall was actually critical training for the battlefield.
Many times we find ourselves in situations where we're having to respond in certain ways. We may not understand either the circumstance or our response. But God is using that to train us for the future, and to build character within us.
I heard about a man that took his young daughter to a carnival, and she ran over to a booth and asked for some cotton candy. When the attendant handed her this gigantic ball of cotton candy, the dad said, "Sweetheart, are you sure you can eat all of that?" The little girl said, "Don't worry, dad, I'm a lot bigger on the inside than I am on the outside." Well, that is what our Heavenly Father wants for you and me, that everyday we grow bigger on the inside than we are on the outside. We can do it through reading, receiving, remembering, and reproducing His Word through our life.
[1]Real Life, May-June, 1988.
As with the prologue to John’s Gospel, this prologue stresses that Jesus existed with the Father before creation and that he entered this world as a real human being who could be seen, heard, and touched. Jesus, the “Word of life” and “the eternal life,” came to bring people into fellowship with God, and with those who love him. Writing about these things brings great joy for John and his audience.
Obeying God (1:5–2:6): John’s message is that “God is light” (1:5) and that those who have fellowship with him walk in the light—in obedience to his word (1:5; 2:3–6). Ironically, the false teachers were claiming to be without sin (1:8, 10). Because those who strive to obey God still fall into sin, obedience also includes confessing our sins and relying on Jesus’s sacrifice and faithfulness to cl…
15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For everything in the world--the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does--comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.
The question of those claiming to be “without sin” is an intriguing one in 1 John. On one hand, it might appear that we have an alien gnostic group claiming perfectionism as a factor of direct access to God without need of the atonement. After all, the first commentary on John was written by Heracleon, a second-century gnostic, and the flesh-denying antichrists of 1 John 4:1–3 might point in that direction. This view has several problems to it, however. (1) The elder also speaks of the impossibility of sinning for anyone who is born of God (1 John 3:9), so this may be a simple extension of the elder’s own teaching. (2) Just because the second antichrists are docetists (Jesus just appeared to suffer and die—as fully divine, he did not), this does not mean they are gnostic heretics; they may have simply been Gentile believers with a Hellenistic worldview. (3) Being “without sin” may be a particular reference to something in particular not being wrong, not a reference to sinlessness proper. (4) The emphasis on the atoning work of Christ is asserted in order to get people to abandon the sin that he came to remove (1 John 3:1–10) and to love one another. Therefore, those claiming to be “without sin” in John’s audience are challenged with the commandment of the Lord to love one another (John 13:34–45).
1:5–2:2 · Those claiming not to be sinning:Like any good teacher, the elder employs the inclusive “we” as a way of addressing his second-person audience, “you.” He does this in verse 5 just as he has in each of the first four verses. Verse 6, however, turns the use of “we” to others. “If we say . . .” (NASB, RSV) is a way of confronting the claims of others, either in his immediate audience or among those his audience are having to engage. In listing the claims of some, the inclinations of all are addressed. While some of these claims are challenged as false in and of themselves, other admirable claims are confronted if they are not also accompanied by congruent behaviors. The first citation of what some might be claiming fits within this category.
In verse 6, those who claim to have fellowship with God but walk in darkness lie and do not practice the truth. Walking in darkness is not spelled out, but it likely refers to particular moral practices that are out of step with the elder and at least some leaders within the community. Conversely, the life-producing way forward involves “walking in the light” just as God is in the light, which avails the believer Christian fellowship and the cleansing blood of God’s Son, delivering believers from sin. Such an appeal, though, was apparently rejected on two accounts: those confronted probably were not convinced that their behavior amounted to walking in darkness, and therefore they claimed not to be sinning. This leads to the elder’s challenging of their defensive statements.
The next two statements regarding what “we say,” which are challenged by the elder, include claiming to “be without sin” (1:8) and claiming that “we have not sinned” (1:10). The elder challenges these assertions directly: if we claim to have no sin, “we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” To confess our sins, though, is to acknowledge the authenticity of our condition and to avail ourselves of God’s forgiveness and cleansing power (1:9). More pointedly, to claim that we have not sinned is “to make him [God] out to be a liar,” and to expose the fact that God’s word is not abiding in us (1:10). Again, the confronted might not have been claiming sinlessness proper, but the elder certainly raises the bar in hopes of getting them to acknowledge the darkness of their ways that they might be persuaded to walk in the true light of ways pleasing to God.
In the next sentence (2:1) the elder extends his ethical appeal to the entire audience: “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin” (NRSV); at the same time he emphasizes the availability of grace for any who might. He employs a word used for the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John—“helper,” or “advocate”—but here he uses it in reference to Jesus. This is a familiar Johannine term, and while the Holy Spirit is “another” counselor and advocate (John 14:16), Jesus is the original. Conversely, he then employs an unusual reference to the atoning sacrifice (Greek hilasmos; see also 1 John 4:10) of Jesus Christ the righteous one, which seems more Pauline than Johannine. In fact, the word never occurs in the Gospel of John. Of course, the redeeming work of Christ is not simply for the community’s benefit; it extends to the entire world, and that is the power of the gospel being proclaimed (2:2).
2:3–11 · The old commandment of the Lord: “Love your brothers and sisters!”: The true evidence of knowing Christ is incarnational: obeying his commandments, the chief of which is to love one another. To obey the original commandment of Jesus is to experience God’s love being perfected within (2:5). The elder now moves to the third-person singular in confronting the problematic community member. “Whoever says . . .” is the hook, and the three laudable statements listed are that one has come to know him (2:4), to abide in him (2:6), and to be in the light (2:9). To these positive claims to a believing relationship with Christ, the elder poses the true evidence of authenticity. Such a person will obey Christ’s commandments (2:4), will walk as Christ walked (2:6), and will not hate his or her brother or sister (2:9). Therefore, the true and outward evidence of the vertical relationship is the horizontal; the clearest measure of one’s abiding in the love of Christ is the demonstration of loving consideration for others. Anything short of that is darkness, blindness, and death.
2:12–17 · Love not the world!: Lest particular members of his audience feel singled out or left out, the elder now targets specific demographic groups in his audiences, covering the range of ages and relationships. To the “little children” (NIV “dear children”) he announces forgiveness in the name of Christ (2:12); to the fathers, he affirms their knowing of “him who is from the beginning” (2:13; cf. John 1:1–3); to the youth, he extols their conquering the evil one (2:13). This triad is followed, then, by a second. To the children, he writes to affirm their knowledge of the Father; to the fathers, he writes because they know “him who is from the beginning”; and to the youth he writes because they are strong and indwelt by the word of God, and because they have overcome the evil one (2:14). The repetition and the parallel references add emphasis to his affirming message: “Do not love the world or anything in the world” (2:15). Rather than spell out particular sins, however, the elder is content to leave the sins of worldliness general: the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and pride in wealth (2:16) cover the territory effectively. These drives do not come from the Father but from the world. And the world, along with its desires, is a fleeting reality, not an enduring one. Doing the will of God, however, leads to eternal life (2:17).
Walking in the Light and the Problem of Sin
The next two sections of 1 John are on the theme of walking in the light. The first section, 1 John 1:5–2:2, addresses the theme in relation to the issue of sin, while the second section, 1 John 2:3–11, focuses on walking in the light in relation to obedience, especially to the love command. The terms walk, light, and darkness occur throughout the section (1:5–7; 2:6, 8–11) and unify it. The Elder’s opponents are always present in the background. They have made certain claims (e.g., If we claim in 1:6, 8, 10; “The man who says” in 2:4; “Whoever claims” in 2:6; and “Anyone who claims” in 2:9) which the Elder must raise and refute. In 1 John 1:5–2:2 the theological and ethical principles of light and darkness are stated and then worked out in relation to the problem of sin. The Elder and his opponents view this subject quite differently. Perhaps the author begins his teaching with this subject because it was the one which was most troublesome spiritually to his community. It also allows him to introduce the incarnate Jesus in his role as redeemer from sin.
1:5 God is light. This is both a theological and a moral statement, i.e., it describes the essential nature of God, as well as God’s character in relation to humanity. Later (4:8, 16) the Elder will affirm that God is love. Here, though, the emphasis is first upon the character of God as good, pure, and holy. Light implies integrity, truthfulness, and authenticity. It is also the nature of light to shine, to manifest itself, to reveal, and this God has done in him who is the light of the world (John 3:19; 8:12; 9:5).
The author claims that this understanding of God is what Jesus taught; it is the message (angelia) which the first generation heard from him and now declares (anangellō; the same verb is translated as proclaim in vv. 2–3) to those who follow. It is also what they learned from observation of his life (John 14:9: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father”).
The last part of the verse strongly affirms, as if in bold contrast to an unspoken claim to the contrary, that there is absolutely no darkness in God. Light and darkness are favorite antithetical concepts in the Johannine writings (John 1:4–5; 3:19–21; 8:12; 12:35–36, 46; 1 John 2:8–11; cf. Rev. 21:24 and 22:5). Darkness stands for evil, sin, and impurity. It implies deceit, falseness, and inauthenticity. Light and darkness are ultimately incompatible, and, while in all human character and behavior there is gray, in God there is nothing unworthy, undependable, or morally ambiguous. God is light.
1:6 If we claim. The opening of v. 6 begins a series of three pairs of contrasting If-clauses (1:6a and 7a, 1:8a and 9a, 1:10a and 2:1b). The we is now not the special and limited “we” of the first generation of witnesses to the Word, so prominent in 1:1–5, but includes every Christian. (In each instance a claim from the false teachers is answered with the true Johannine teaching from the Elder. The secessionists, who have divided the community (1 John 2:19), have left a strong impression on the remaining Johannine Christians. In fact, they continue to visit the house churches of those loyal to the Elder to win them over (2 John 10–11). The Elder must counter their teaching lest he lose his flock.
The first claim of the schismatics is to have fellowship with God; yet at the same time they walk in the darkness. After the opening verb claim, which is in the aorist tense and marks a definite assertion, the tenses of the verbs are all continuous present: “we are having fellowship” … “we are walking” … “we are lying” … “we are not doing.” The author points out the falseness of a lifestyle, an ongoing pattern of behavior, characterized by such a contradiction.
To have fellowship with means “to live in communion with,” “to be in a right relationship with,” to be part of one body, unified, at peace, and sharing the same life. This is its sense in v. 3. It is the saving fellowship of union with God, akin to the Pauline “in Christ.” Such a close relationship cannot be maintained while a person (or group—the Elder has the heretics in mind) walks in the darkness. This phrase deliberately contrasts and recalls God is light from the previous verse. It implies moral, spiritual, and, for the Elder, doctrinal error. It is thinking and action that are inconsistent with the nature of God and that are incompatible with the claim to be in fellowship with God. Darkness and light are moral and spiritual realms. They are mutually exclusive. For the author, one is either in the light or in the darkness (cf. 2:9–11), just as one is either a child of God or a child of the devil (3:10; 5:19), either from God or from the world (4:5–6).
Lying and truth is another frequent contrast in the letters of John, and its first appearance is in v. 6. Those in the sphere of darkness lie and do not live by the truth. From the author’s viewpoint, their lie consists in the false claim to be in an ongoing, right relationship with God (to have fellowship with him) while they walk in the darkness. Since light, God’s nature (v. 5) and locus (v. 7), and darkness, the opponents’ situation outside the community of truth, are mutually exclusive, the secessionists are lying.
It is not just their words which are false; their lives are: “and we are not doing the truth” (lit.), or as the NIV insightfully translates it, we do not live by the truth. For the author(s) of the Gospel and letters of John, truth is not so much a set of propositions to be believed and confessed, as it is a way of life to be lived and put into practice (cf. 3:22). The standard for this life of truth is God’s revelation in Jesus Christ (John 14:6: “I am … the truth”).
1:7 If the behavior and attitude of the secessionists, described in v. 6, are unacceptable, what is the positive alternative? The Elder says, walk in the light: be continuously thinking and living in God’s sphere of being. Brother Lawrence might have said, “Practice the presence of the God who is Light.”
This is the only conduct consistent with the nature of God (as he is in the light). Rather than claim fellowship with God while walking in the darkness (v. 6), live in ongoing fellowship with God in the light. That is the only authentic alternative. Just as in the Sermon on the Mount God’s character is the pattern and model (Matt. 5:48: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect”), and just as Paul told the Philippians, “Let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27, RSV), so the Elder holds up a divine standard for human conduct.
Two consequences follow for those who walk in the light. They have fellowship with other true Johannine Christians, and they are purified from all sin. We would have expected the author to say that walking in the light issues in fellowship with God, in order to parallel v. 6. But he assumes that truth and moves on to a new one: it is only those who walk in the light who are truly members of the author’s community, and, by extension, of the Christian community at large. We saw above in v. 3 that part of the author’s purpose was to complete and to strengthen the circle of salvation. Those who broke with the Elder and with the truth and who have left the fellowship are in serious spiritual danger. They are now outside the community of life (vv. 1–3). Therefore, walking in the light keeps one in the community, in fellowship with other faithful believers.
The second result of continuous contact with the light is that the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. The closer one’s fellowship with God and with those who walk with God, the more aware one will be of sin in one’s life. The secessionists fled the light (cf. John 3:19–21), claiming continuous fellowship with God, while their pride, dishonesty, and lack of love belied them. They could not “own up” to their sins. But, the Elder teaches, if we persist in the light (confessing our sins, v. 9), we will discover that God loves us and has sent his Son to be “an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10).
The blood of Jesus refers to his sacrificial death on the cross. It is the Christian’s agent of purification and cleansing, and it draws its meaning from the Jewish sacrificial system. The Elder emphasizes, contrary to the opponents’ rejection of Jesus’ physicality, that it is the blood of Jesus which is the effective antidote for sin in the believer’s life, not denial of the existence of sin. In fact, this antidote keeps on working: the present tense of the verb katharizō stresses continuous purification.
The term sin or sins (hamartia) occurs seventeen times in the Gospel of John (the verb hamartanō occurs three times) and seventeen times in the much smaller book of the letters (all in 1 John; the verb hamartanō occurs a surprising ten times). Clearly the problem of sin vexed the Elder’s community. Most of the references to sin are in the singular, calling attention to the principle or fact of sin in human life (e.g., 1:8), rather than to individual acts of sin. Certainly, though, from all sin includes both. For the Elder, sin means lawlessness (anomia, 3:4) and unrighteousness (adikia, 5:17) or wrongdoing (NIV), any departure from God’s norm or standard of light as revealed in Jesus Christ.
1:8 The second claim of the secessionists is to be without sin (lit., “we do not have sin”). They claim that they do not need to be purified from sin by the blood of Jesus (v. 7), since they are sinless. They do not sin at all (v. 10). They do not see themselves as sinners in disposition or in practice. Some interpreters understand the claim in v. 8 as an assertion not to have a sinful nature or a principle of sin operating in one’s life (Brooke, Epistles, p. 17; Stott, Letters, pp. 81–82).
Why do the opponents believe that they are “without sin”? Perhaps it is because they believe that their exalted spirituality has put them in a state beyond sin such that they are free from it, or that it is irrelevant to them. In any case, they deceive (planaō, “lead astray” or “go astray”) themselves. Denying their sinfulness, they believe something about themselves that is contrary to the universal experience of human nature and patently not true in their particular case.
To be self-deceived means that the truth is not in us, i.e., in our hearts or inmost being. If it were, we would recognize and admit our condition, stay in the light, and be forgiven. “Our self-understanding is false” (Kysar, I, II, III John, p. 39).
1:9 If the opponents’ attitude and belief are wrong (vv. 6 and 8), the right approach to sin is to keep on walking in the light (v. 7) and to be honest about one’s sins (v. 9). If we confess our sins is the true alternative to claiming to be without sin. The word confess (homologeō) means, literally, to say the same thing, thus, to agree or to admit. When we confess our sins, we agree with God and the community that they are sins (which the secessionists would not do). Then our self-understanding is true, and we have the basis for an effective solution to the sin problem. Confession was likely not only in private to God but publicly to the community (cf. Matt. 3:6; Acts 19:18; Jas. 5:16; and Didache 4:14 and 14:1, an early Christian document written about the same time as the letters of John).
There are (as in v. 7) two consequences of openly acknowledging our sins. God, who is faithful and just, will (a) forgive us our sins and (b) purify us from all unrighteousness. Literally, the verse says, If we confess our sins, he is faithful (pistos) and just (dikaios), with the result that he will forgive (hina aphē; hina with the subjunctive mood is here a result or consecutive clause) us the sins and cleanse (katharizō, purify; cf. v. 7) us from all unrighteousness (adikias).
He is God, as in vv. 6–7. His character is faithful and just. That is, he is true to his people and to his promises (especially to forgive on the basis of the blood of Jesus, v. 7), and he puts things right which are wrong (especially people, in a right relationship with himself). Faithful and just are terms which reflect God’s covenantal connection with his people (Brown, Epistles, pp. 209–10).
These qualities in God are seen as he acts redemptively toward those who humbly acknowledge their need (v. 9a). God forgives and cleanses his people from all their unrighteousness. These two verbs show that the problem of sin in one’s life cannot be solved by human action (v. 6, claiming to be right with God when one is not, or v. 8, denying that one is a sinner). Even confession only opens the door to an answer; it is not self-efficacious. God must act, and God does. As in all of Scripture, salvation is from God. The form of salvation here is forgiveness and cleansing from sin. The verbs are parallel and functionally synonymous. From all unrighteousness (adikias) recalls God’s character as just (dikaios v. 9b).
1:10 This is the third claim of the false teachers in chapter 1, all presented with the identical words If we claim (ean eipōmen). The assertion in this verse goes beyond that of v. 8. Not only do the opponents claim not to “have sin” as a principle or disposition within them, they claim not to have committed specific sins. Hence they do not need redemption by the “blood of Jesus” (1:7). Gnostically inclined, the death/blood of Jesus offended them, as did any “enfleshment” of the divine Christ (4:2; 2 John 7). Their own “perfectionism” and high, yet self-deceived, spirituality could do without the cross, as modern psychologies of self-actualization and “success” often do.
Such a claim (we have not sinned) has serious consequences. First, while the writer might have been expected to argue that such an assertion makes the claimant a liar, he goes beyond this to a more profound, and more spiritually dangerous, theological conclusion: to deny that one has sinned is to make him, God (as in v. 9), out to be a liar. (The same accusation and warning occurs in 5:10, this time with respect to believing God’s testimony about Jesus, his Son.) One does not only lie about one’s own condition, but, more seriously, one blasphemes God by, in effect, calling God a liar. This is so because God has said that we have sinned, and honest confession of one’s sins is prerequisite to benefiting from “the message” of salvation from sin and eternal life through Jesus’ death (1:5–7).
The second consequence of denying that we have sinned is that we “cut ourselves off from what he has to say to us” (J. B. Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English, p. 500). Literally, the text says, “and his word (logos) is not in us.” The word or logos of which the writer speaks is the same as in v. 1: it is the message or “word of life” which finds its embodiment in the person, words, and deeds of Jesus Christ (vv. 1–3), the Word made flesh (John 1:14). The Elder says that making this false assertion, as the secessionists do, means that they have separated themselves, not just from the community (1 John 2:19), but from the gospel: God’s life-giving word has no place in their lives. They are not, from the Elder’s standpoint, Christian believers, even if they originally claimed to be or still do. The right response to the reality of sin will be seen in 2:1b.
2:1 The first part of v. 1 is parenthetical, intended to remind the readers that what the Elder has written so far, about forgiveness and the purifying death of Jesus (1:7, 9), is not a license to sin. Just because sin is an inevitable reality and forgiveness is available does not mean that the believer should take a lenient attitude toward it. (Paul faced the same concern in Romans 6:1: “Shall we go on sinning that grace may increase?”) In fact, the author says that it is one of his purposes in writing (cf. 1:3–4) that the community will not sin, that they will completely reject sin as a way of living. The Christian ideal remains not to sin (John 5:24; 8:11; 1 John 3:6).
He calls his readers my dear children (lit., “my little children”). The Greek teknia is a diminutive expressing affection (Marshall, Epistles, p. 115). It also implies parental authority and is complemented by the possessive pronoun “my.” The Elder is very concerned about his community, not only because of the schism and false teaching, but also for their positive spiritual understanding and maturity. He also uses for the first time the first person singular, “I,” after using “we” throughout chapter 1.
The second half of v. 1 is the answer to 1:10 (just as v. 7 answers the claim in v. 6, and v. 9 responds to v. 8). Rather than assert that one has not sinned, the faithful must acknowledge (if anybody does sin; cf. 1:9) and recognize Jesus Christ as their solution. The rest of vv. 1 and 2 explain (in addition to 1:7) how this is so.
Jesus is described in a formal way with his title, Jesus Christ. This is in part because another descriptive title follows, the Righteous One, and because v. 2 is like a creedal statement. He is the Righteous One (also 2:29; 3:7; cf. Acts 3:14; 7:52; and 1 Pet. 3:18; as God is righteous in 1:9), not only in view of his sinless character (John 8:46) but because he saves and advocates for sinners.
He is our paraklētos, translated in the NIV as one who speaks … in our defense. The Spirit is the paraklētos in John 15:26 and “another paraklētos” in 14:16–17, in which it is implied that Jesus himself is the original. Before God, or in the presence of the Father (pros ton patera; cf. 1:2), Jesus intercedes for sinners and speaks on their behalf. The same function is attributed to him in Rom. 8:34 and Heb. 7:25.
2:2 The second part of the Elder’s christological answer to the problem of sins is that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice. He who is our advocate (paraklētos) is also our atoning sacrifice (hilasmos). Much debate has occurred over this word. Outside the Bible and in some OT passages it means to appease an angry or offended party (usually a divine being) with a sacrifice. Inside the Bible, including other OT texts, it means to expiate, cover, or remove the offense of sin. The context in 1 John clearly favors the latter. In 1 John 4:10 it is God who, out of love for the world, sends the Son as its hilasmos, and in 1:9 God is “faithful and just” and forgives and cleanses those who confess their sins. The NIV translation, atoning sacrifice, is a good one; it retains the idea of blood sacrifice (1:7) from the OT sacrificial system, while pointing to the purpose of Jesus’ death: reconciliation (at-one-ment) with God. Jesus is such an effective paraklētos “in our defense,” because he is “the Righteous One” and because his own death for our sins is the ground of his advocacy. He pleads with his own blood.
The Elder strongly emphasizes that Jesus’ atoning death is potentially effective not only for the sins of the community but for the sins of the … world. He even adds the word whole (holou) to underscore this further. Perhaps the gnostically inclined opponents understood the salvation which Christ brought as redemption or enlightenment for an elect few. It is certain that they would have found the author’s insistence on the importance of Jesus’ blood sacrifice in death a complete offense.
Additional Notes
1:6 The structure of 1:6–2:1 has been most clearly set forth in Brown, Epistles, p. 191.
In sociological terms, a schism is a form of disruptive or divisive social conflict, a kind of factionalism within a specific community or group. On the phenomenon of schism, see J. Wilson, “The Sociology of Schism,” A Sociological Yearbook of Religion in Britain—4, ed. M. Hill (London: SCM, 1971), pp. 4–5, and J. P. Gustafson, “Schismatic Groups,” Human Relations 31 (1978), pp. 139–54. On schism as it relates to the Johannine community, see Johnson, Antitheses, pp. 231–60.
Strictly speaking, the terms “heresy” and “heretical” belong to a later time when there was a more clearly established church-wide “orthodoxy.” But it is also appropriate within the Johannine frame of reference, since the Elder and his followers have well defined doctrinal views, based on the tradition of the Beloved Disciple and the Fourth Gospel. To deviate from this teaching is “heretical.” See W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971); H. D. Betz, “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Primitive Christianity,” Int 19 (1965), pp. 299–311; J. Bogart, Orthodox and Heretical Perfectionism in the Johannine Community, SBDLS 33 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1977); and J. D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1977).
While the false teachers may walk in the darkness, it would be a mistake to think of them as immoral or licentious. They are not like the Corinthian “gnostics,” for whom bodily life was spiritually irrelevant. In fact, as 1:8, 10 make clear, they claim a high standard of holiness. There is no list of sins which the Elder can cite against them. The only accusations of immorality or unethical conduct which the Elder ever directly makes against the opponents are lying and breaking the love command, both of which the opponents themselves would deny. The dispute which has divided the community is primarily doctrinal and personal, not ethical: the schismatics do not accept the community’s Christology, and they reject the authority of the Elder. The latter calls their claims “lies” and their secession from the group a rejection of the obligations of love among disciples.
The positioning of believers and unbelievers in opposing spiritual realms (darkness/light) is typical of the world view of the first-century Jewish group known as the Essenes. It may be found in a form closest to the Gospel and letters of John in the Manual of Discipline (or Community Rule, 1QS) and the War Scroll (or War Rule, 1QM) of the Dead Sea Scrolls. See G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1975), pp. 71–94, 122–48. Given the close similarities between the language and conceptuality of the Scrolls and that of the Johannine literature, some scholars think the Dead Sea writings or the movement which produced them influenced the Johannine community. See Charlesworth, John and Qumran and R. E. Brown, “The Qumran” Scrolls and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles,“New Testament Essays (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968), pp. 138–73.
The other occurrences of the contrast between truth and its opposites are in 1:8, 10; 2:4, 21–22, 26–27; 4:6; 2 John 1–4, 7. A thorough study of this language of contrast may be found in Johnson, Antitheses.
The concept of doing the truth is also common in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Jewish intertestamental literature. See I. de la Potterie, La vérité dans Saint Jean (2 vols.; AnBib 73–74; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1977, and A. Thiselton, “Truth,” NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 889–94.
1:7 The false teachers would not have welcomed this reference to Jesus’ full corporeal humanity, given their denial of his incarnation (4:2; 2 John 7).
In the Gospel of John, references to the blood of Jesus occur in John 6:53–56, a passage which recalls the elements of the Lord’s Supper, and in John 19:34, where the beloved disciple sees blood and water flow from the wounded side of the crucified Jesus. In the letters of John, the term appears three times in 1 John 5:6–7, a passage in which the author strongly affirms that Jesus “did not come by water only, but by water and blood.” The blood is an important witness to his identity. Finally, if the book of Revelation also comes from the Johannine community, which it almost certainly does, then there is further evidence of the importance of the blood of Jesus for Johannine Christology. In Rev. 1:5, Jesus “has freed us from our sins by his blood.” In 5:9, as the slain Lamb he has purchased with his blood people from every tribe and nation. In 7:14 the tribulation martyrs have “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” Finally, in 12:11 the saints have overcome Satan by the blood of the Lamb. While the Word of God appears in a robe dipped in blood in 19:13, it is likely not his own blood but the blood of his enemies. See also F. Laubach, “Blood,” NIDNTT, vol. 1, pp. 220–24.
Referring to Christ as Jesus, his Son includes the author’s preferred name for his human nature, Jesus, and a title that points in the Johannine literature to his deity, Son of God.
The 1984 edition of the NIV changed the phrase “every sin” to all sin.
1:8 In the Gospel of John “to have sin” means to be in a state of guilt. Thus, the opening If-clause may be translated, “If we boast, ‘We are free from the guilt of sin’ “(Brown, Epistles, pp. 205–6).
The schismatics not only are self-deceived about their spirituality, but they deceive others and lead them astray. In 1 John 2:26 the Elder has written “about those who are trying to lead you astray.” In 3:7 he warns, “Do not let anyone lead you astray.” In 4:5–6 he contrasts “the Spirit of truth” in those who “are from God” with “the spirit of falsehood” (planēs, error, deceit) in those who “are from the world.” 2 John 7 calls these people planoi, “deceivers.”
1:9 Confess occurs four times in the Gospel of John and six times in the letters. First John 1:9 is the only instance in which homologeō means to confess or admit sins. All of the other uses are in the positive sense of making a confession of faith, esp. in Christ. See John 1:20; 9:22; 12:42; 1 John 2:23; 4:2–3, 15; 2 John 7.
On confess, see O. Michel, “homologeō,” TDNT, vol. 5, pp. 199–220.
2:1 The Elder uses three different terms for his parentally caring yet authoritative relationship to the readers in his community: teknion, little child (2:1, 12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21; cf. John 13:33), teknon, child (3:1, 2, 10; 5:2; 2 John 1, 4, 13; 3 John 4; cf. John 1:12; 11:52) and paidion, child (2:14, 18; John 21:5). They are virtually interchangeable, though the Elder prefers teknion for his relationship to the readers and teknon for their relationship to God. See Brown, Epistles, pp. 213–15.
There is a shift in emphasis from the Spirit as the Paraclete to Jesus as the Paraclete probably because the opponents of the Elder also claimed to be prophetically inspired by the Spirit (4:1–2; R. A. Culpepper, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Knox Preaching Guides (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), pp. 20–21.
Jesus’ role as paraklētos is in contrast to Satan’s: “Believers now have someone who defends them before God instead of accusing them” (Brown, Epistles, p. 217; cf. Matt. 10:32). The name “Satan” means “accuser” (cf. Job 1:6–12).
2:2 See the history of the debate over the meaning of hilasmos in Brown, Epistles, pp. 217–22. First John 2:2 and 4:10 are the only two uses of hilasmos in the NT, although linguistically related terms occur in Luke 18:13; Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17 and 9:5.
This is the first use of kosmos, world, in the Johannine letters and, unlike most uses of the term in the Gospel and epistles of John, it is positive, or at least neutral (like John 3:16–17; 4:42; 8:12; and 1 John 4:14). The world is usually seen as the sphere of Satan’s activity (1 John 5:19) and, therefore, as opposed to God and God’s people (1 John 2:15–17; 3:13; 4:4–5; John 15:18–19). In his study of kosmos, Brown suggests that “the overall effect of such contradictory statements within the same works is to create a theological sequence wherein the divine intent is initially salvific toward the world, but people prefer darkness to light (John 3:19); and so ‘the world’ becomes the name of those who refuse Jesus and choose Satan as their father, ‘the Prince of this world’ (cf. 1 John 3:1, 10)” (Epistles, p. 224).
Walking in the Light Tested by Obedience
The next section of 1 John continues the theme of walking in the light begun in 1:5. In 1:6, 8, 10 the Elder dealt with the three false claims of the opponents with respect to sin. Now he deals with another trio of false claims, all of which relate to being in a right relationship with God/Christ: knowing God/Christ, v. 4; abiding in God/Christ, v. 6; being in the light, v. 9. In each instance, just as in the previous section, he answers them with a test of the claim’s authenticity: obeying Christ’s commands, vv. 4–5; walking as Jesus did, v. 6; loving other Christians, v. 10. All of the answers have this in common: they emphasize obedience or the Christian walk as the test of claims to a profound spirituality.
2:3 The NIV does not translate the opening Greek particle, kai. But, like the kai which begins 1:5 (which the NIV also does not translate), it marks the beginning of a new section. The rest of the verse literally says, “By this we know (present tense) that we have come to know (perfect tense) him, if we keep his commands.” The If-clause explains the expression “by this”: “this” is obeying God’s/Christ’s commandments. The Greek text’s “By this” (en toutō) does not occur in the NIV.
The issue in vv. 3–5 is knowing God/Christ. The word know is used four times in these three verses. First, the Elder states the general principle by which Christians are assured that they truly know God/Christ (v. 3); then he takes up the opponents’ false claim (v. 4) and refutes it (v. 5; Barker, “1 John,” p. 315). “Knowledge” was an important concern to the gnosticlike secessionists. The very name “gnostic” means “one who knows” (from gnōsis). This knowledge was special; it conveyed salvation. To know God is eternal life (John 17:3). It meant fellowship with God (1:6) and walking in the light (1:7; 2:9). But, how can one be sure that one really knows God/Christ? This was a question on the minds of the loyal Johannine Christians as they listened to the seceding teachers’ assertions. The Elder’s answer is as profound today as it was relevant then: we know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands.
The word obey in the NIV is tēreō. Its literal meaning is “keep.” It is a favorite Johannine term, occurring eighteen times in the Gospel and seven times in 1 John. It connotes both preserving or protecting, especially when its object is a person, and obeying or observing when its object is God’s or Jesus’ word(s) or commands (cf. John 14:15, 21–25). “Keeping his commands is the sure test that we have come to know God” (Culpepper, 1 John, p. 25). One’s claim must be validated by one’s conduct. The evidence is obedience.
What commands does the author have in mind? In the context of 1 John it can only be faith in Jesus and love for other Christians (1 John 3:23). There is no substantial evidence anywhere in the letters of John for any other moral or ethical concern. The opponents are never accused of other sins or immorality. They have violated the most fundamental standards of all, even if their lives appear morally upright: they deny that the human Jesus is the divine Christ, and they do not love their Christian brothers and sisters in the community.
2:4 Verses 4, 6, and 9 begin in the same way, a stylistic feature which is not clear in the NIV. All three verses quote or paraphrase a claim of the secessionists and introduce it with the formula “the one who says” (ho legōn). In this verse the claim is: “I have come to know him” (perfect tense). It is a claim to intimate, personal, saving knowledge of God. It is experiential, not merely intellectual. The perfect tense connotes a reality that began at some time in the past and continues on into the present.
Anyone who makes this claim and at the same time is not keeping God’s/Christ’s commands (especially to love others and to believe in Jesus, 3:23) is a liar. This is the same contradiction between confession and conduct which we saw in 1:6–10 (Kysar, I, II, III John, p. 45). In typically antithetical style, the author immediately contrasts the word liar with its opposite, truth, as in 1:6 (cf. 1:8; 2:21; 4:6). Such people (en toutō; lit., “in such a person”) lack integrity; they claim one thing in words, but its reality is not demonstrated by their actions.
2:5 Verse 5 is the positive contrast and answer to v. 4. It is not the disobedient person who truly knows God, but the one who obeys his word. The emphasis is on the continual present tense of the verb, “keeps on obeying.” His word (autou ton logon) is synonymous with “his commands” (tas entolas autou; NIV, what he commands) in v. 4. The antithetical style of the author is also seen in the contrast of truly in v. 5 with liar in v. 4.
The Elder’s opponents claimed to know God (v. 4), but their disobedience to God’s commands proved them false. In v. 5, the Elder affirms that the obedient Christian grows in the agapē (love) of God until that love is mature, perfect, or complete. Here, knowing God and growing in God’s love complete the parallelism between the verses. To know God is to experience agapē love, and such knowledge or love (also claimed by the opponents; cf. 4:10) is demonstrated by doing what God has commanded. “The proof of love is loyalty” (Stott, Letters, p. 96), and in the letters of John that means believing in Jesus and loving one’s brother or sister in the community of faith (1 John 3:23; cf. John 6:28–29).
Divine love is truly made complete in the person who obeys his word. Made complete translates teteleiōtai, another favorite Johannine term. It signifies a process of spiritual maturity which begins with faith in Jesus and ends at his appearing in becoming like him (1 John 3:2). Growing in love for God is an important part of spiritual growth, as is love for others, a point the author will make forcefully later (cf. 2:9–11; 4:20–21).
The last part of v. 5 looks forward, as the NIV punctuates it, to v. 6. This is how we know we are in him. The “how” is defined in the verse which follows. But we should take note that once again the subject is assurance (a confidence in short supply in the Johannine community because of the threat and boasts of the secessionists). How can we know that we are truly in a right relationship with God? This is what the phrase “to be in him” connotes. It means “fellowship … with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1:3), to “walk in the light, as he is in the light” (1:7), and to “know him” (2:3). But how can we know we are in him?
2:6 The Elder’s answer is a practical one: walk as Jesus did. This verse contains the fifth stated claim of the Elder’s opponents, the secessionists, who had denied the full humanity of Jesus (1 John 4:2; 2 John 7) and separated themselves from the community (1 John 2:19). They claim to live in him. Actually, the Greek original is stronger: they claim to abide or to dwell (menō) in him. Menō means to live in an ongoing, close, personal relationship with God/Christ. It parallels to live in “fellowship with him” (1:6), to “walk in the light” (1:7), “to know him” (2:3–5), and “we are in him” (2:5). The Elder’s opponents claimed to have this profound relationship with God/Christ unbroken by sin (1:8, 10), whereas the believer confesses sin (1:9) and counts on Christ as advocate (NIV, “one who speaks … in our defense” [2:1]) and “atoning sacrifice” (2:2).
The Elder insists that the opponents’ claim be tested by a life in imitation of Jesus. You must walk as Jesus did. This test, he is convinced, they cannot pass, because they do not keep God’s commands (2:3–4), as Jesus did. Above all, they do not love as Jesus loved (John 13:34). “The test of our religious experience is whether it produces a reflection of the life of Jesus in our daily life; if it fails this elementary test, it is false” (Marshall, Epistles, p. 128).
2:7 Walking as Jesus did (v. 6) leads the author to think of Jesus’ example and his “new command” of love (John 13:34–35). He addresses his readers as “beloved” (agapētoi; the NIV’s Dear friends misses the connection with the love command implicit in the address), loved not only by the Elder, but loved also by God (4:9–10) and by Jesus (John 13:34). With a play on the idea of the new command in John 13:34, he says that he is really writing to them not about a new command but about an old command, one which they have had ap’ archēs, since or from the beginning. Since the beginning refers to the founding tradition of the Johannine community in the teaching of Jesus, as remembered and passed on to them by the disciple whom Jesus loved, their founder. It means “since the beginning of the Christian movement, as we have known it” (cf. 1:1; 2:13–14, 24; 3:11; 2 John 5–6; also John 15:27, in which Jesus says to his disciples “from the beginning [ap’ archēs] you are with me”). This foundational teaching gave them a new command, to love one another “as I have loved you.” By now it is to them an old one.
He calls this command (entolē) the message (logos, or “word”; 1:1, 10; 2:5) which they heard (aorist tense, at a definite time in the past). The writer can use the words logos, entolē, and angelia (1:5; 3:11) for written and oral communication synonymously. The content of the message is, in this case, not the gospel (euangelion), a word which never appears in the Gospel or letters of John, but the ethical imperative to love one another.
2:8 But, in a sense, it is also a new command, both because it was called the “new command” by Jesus (John 13:34), and also because of the new age which has dawned with his coming. It is a command which belongs, not to the old era of the law of Moses, but to the new day of grace and truth in Jesus Christ (John 1:17). Stott points out that the new command was and remains new in emphasis (the whole Torah hangs on it; Matt. 22:40), in quality, as measured by Christ’s love for them (John 13:34), in extent, including enemies (Matt. 5:44), and by our continued, fresh, daily application of it to new circumstances (Stott, Letters, p. 98).
It is the latter sense which the Elder has in mind here, especially within the life of this community torn by schism and attacked by false teachers. Following the example of Jesus (“as I have loved you”), believers are to let the truth of love shine forth from their lives. Jesus and his disciples (of the first generation and today) are the streaks of dawn from the rising of a new era in human history, the kingdom of God inaugurated by Jesus Christ and bringing into time the age to come, ever longed for by the people of God (cf. Col. 1:12–13). When Christians love, there is evidence that the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining (cf. Eph. 5:8–9; 1 Thess. 5:4–8).
2:9 Verse 9 contains the sixth and final claim of the opponents of the Elder. It closely integrates the themes of light/darkness and love/hate in a profound moral and spiritual antithesis. These schismatic false teachers claim to be in the light. This is also implied in 1:5–7, where walking in the light in fellowship with God is at issue.
To be in the light is the equivalent of having fellowship with God (1:6), knowing God (2:3–4), being in him (2:5), and abiding in him (2:6), all claims which both the opponents and the author’s community are making of themselves. But the opponents’ claims are belied by their behavior. They “walk in the darkness” (1:6); they “lie and do not live by the truth” (1:6); they “deceive [themselves]” (1:8); they “make him [God] out to be a liar” (1:10); they do “not do what he [God/Christ] commands” (2:4); and they do not “walk as Jesus did” (2:6). In v. 9 the indictment against them is that they hate their brothers and sisters. Just as love is characteristic of those who truly walk in the light, so hate describes those who walk in the darkness.
What is this hatred to which the Elder refers? It was seen most profoundly in the deliberate schism or splitting of the community which the false teachers caused when they left the fellowship (1 John 2:19), but roots of it may have been put down earlier, since the author claims that “they did not really belong to us.” In fact “their departure showed that none of them belonged to us” (1 John 2:19). Hatred for their former brothers and sisters may also be evidenced by their claims to spiritual superiority (1:6, 8, 10; 2:4, 6, 9), by their lack of help for Christians in need (3:17–18), by their denial of the fundamental christological belief of the community, Jesus Christ come in the flesh (4:2; 2 John 7), and perhaps by their refusal to accept the Elder’s authority in matters of faith and practice (e.g., 3 John 9–10).
The Elder adds the little phrase heōs arti, translated by the NIV as “still” (NASB, “until now”). Those who live in hatred for their brother and sister Christians have yet to experience the light of the new age which has dawned in Christ; they are not yet in the Kingdom but are still in the darkness. They are living in an era that has passed, instead of in God’s new future which has come in Jesus.
The moral and spiritual differences between the Elder’s community of true, faithful, persevering believers and the secessionist false teachers could not be more profound.
2:10 Verse 10 states the positive alternative to the opponents’ claim to be in the light while “hating” their brothers. It is only the person who loves his brother or sister who also remains or abides (menō) in the light. One cannot be or stay in the light while cultivating negative, critical, and compassionless attitudes and actions toward other believers. The two spiritual states are incompatible. God is light; to live in the light is to walk in continuous fellowship with God (see also the comment on 1:5 and 2:9). But it is also to live in loving fellowship and community with one’s brothers and sisters in the faith. An otherworldly, self-isolated spirituality is not authentic life before God. Love among Christians is the touchstone of true discipleship (John 13:35).
The second half of v. 10 is difficult to understand. Literally, it reads: “and there is no cause for stumbling (skandalon) in him [or, in it].” The NIV translation is ambiguous. It seems to mean that such loving believers have nothing in their lives which will make them fall. There are two other options. It could mean that the Christian who loves others has or does nothing to cause others to stumble (Kysar, I, II, III John, p. 50), i.e., love excludes giving unnecessary offense. Or, thirdly, if the pronoun is translated as “it” instead of him (see NIV footnote), the meaning then would be that there is no cause for stumbling in it, i.e., in the light. Loving others is living in the light, a condition in which there is no cause for offense as long as one stays there. You can see where you are going morally and spiritually and, as a result, don’t fall yourself or cause others to do so (Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, pp. 61–62).
2:11 Verse 11 directly contrasts to v. 10 and returns to the negative side of the theme first expressed in v. 9: people who do not love brother and sister Christians are lost and blinded in the darkness, despite their claim (v. 9) to be in the light. Note the continuing use of pairs of contrasting words in this passage: light/darkness and love/hate. This kind of moral and spiritual antithetical language is used throughout the letters of John. The Elder sees the world and his community’s part in it in black-and-white, dualistic terms. He prefers to state situations in language which leaves no middle ground, no ambiguity, and no question. This way of speaking is characteristic of groups in crisis and conflict, as the Johannine Christians were due to both their earlier schism with Judaism and the recent secession of the gnosticlike false teachers (1 John 2:19).
How dark the situation is for those, like the secessionists, who hate their brother or sister, is emphasized in a threefold way. They are in the darkness, they walk around in the darkness, and the darkness has blinded them. But “God is light” (1:5) and “is in the light” (1:7); therefore the opponents described here are not where God is. In 1:6 walking in the darkness was contrasted with walking in the light, or being in fellowship with God. Thus, the false teachers are not in communion with God. They do not know where they are going, despite their claims to possess knowledge (2:4). Like the Pharisees in John 9:39–41, the schismatics claim to see but actually are blind (cf. also the summary indictment of Jesus’ opponents in John 12:35–40.) Blinded by the darkness, these false teachers are likely not only to stumble themselves but to cause others to stumble. Thus, there is an implied contrast also with v. 10b.
Additional Notes
2:3ff. In this passage and elsewhere in 1 John it is not possible to know whether the author intends God or Christ when he uses the pronouns “he,” “him,” or “his.” A good case can be made for either person. The Elder may be referring to both. God/Christ will be used throughout this section.
2:5 Word (logos) and “commands” (entolai) are also used interchangeably in John 14:21 and 14:23. Logos can, of course, have a broader meaning, as we have already seen in 1:1 (where it refers to Christ, the Word of life), and in 1:10 where it is a synonym for the gospel, God’s message (angelia, cf. 1:5).
The Greek phrase hē agapē tou theou, “the love of God,” could be translated in three ways: as a subjective genitive (God’s love for the obedient Christian), as an objective genitive (the obedient Christian’s love for God), or as a qualitative genitive (God’s kind of love, divine love—the likely meaning in 2:5; Stott, Letters, p. 96). Given the fluidity of the language of the author, such fine distinctions as NT scholars make may be overly precise interpretation.
This is the first use of “love” (agapē) in the letters of John, where it occurs thirty-one times as a verb and twenty-one times as a noun. The term of fond address, agapētos, also occurs ten times. It is a high frequency word in these letters (one-fifth of the entire NT usage). For a detailed study of the use of agapē in the letters of John, see Brown, Epistles, pp. 254–57 and in the Gospel of John (Brown, Gospel, I–XII, pp. 497–99). Love is the free decision of one person to give himself or herself up for the highest good and well-being of another person without regard to reward. It is best seen in God’s love for humankind in the sending of the Son to be the Savior of the world (1 John 4:7–12).
The Gospel and letters of John contain nine of the NT’s twenty-three uses of the term teleioō, to “make complete, fulfill.” 1 John always uses it in relation to “love” (2:5; 4:12, 17–18).
We are in him. “To be in” (einai en) is one of the writer’s favorite expressions. It occurs eighteen times in these letters. See, e.g., 1:5 (“in him there is no darkness”), 1:7 (“as he is in the light”), 1:8 (“there is no truth in us”), 1:10 (“his word is not in us”), 2:4 (“there is no truth in such a person”), 2:5 (“we know that we are in him”). Kysar says that it describes “the relationship which determines one’s being,” or “the primary factor which shapes the behavior and character of a person” (I, II, III John, p. 46).
2:6 The secessionists’ earlier claims are in 1:6, 8, 10; 2:4, and the sixth claim occurs in 2:9, which ends the series of direct quotations of or references to the spiritual self-descriptions of the schismatic false teachers.
Menō, to live in, is a favorite Johannine term. It occurs forty times in the Gospel of John and twenty-seven in the letters of John. “Remain,” “abide,” and “dwell” are its primary meanings. The NIV translates it variously as “live” (1 John 2:6, 10, 14, 17; 3:6, 24; 4:12, 13, 15, 16; 2 John 2), “remain” (1 John 2:19, 24, 27; 3:9, 14), “continue” (1 John 2:28; 2 John 9), “be” (1 John 3:17), and leaves menō untranslated in 1 John 3:15. See the concise study of menō in Brown, Epistles, pp. 259–61.
The name Jesus is not in the Greek text; instead the special Johannine use of the term ekeinos appears. Ekeinos means “this one,” “that one,” or simply “he.” In 1 John it always refers to Jesus (3:3, 5, 7, 16; 4:17; cf. also John 1:18; 3:30; 7:11) and “was common as a designation in the circle of the author” (Bultmann, Epistles, p. 26).
2:7–8 These verses contain typical Johannine antitheses: new/old and light/darkness. New/old occurs only here and in 2 John 5, and never in the Fourth Gospel. Light/darkness is more frequent, occurring in the epistles here and at 1:5–7, and in the Gospel in seven passages (1:5; 3:19–21; 8:12; 9:4–5 [day/night]; 11:9–10 [day/night]; 12:35–36; and 12:46). John 1:5 refers, as in 1 John 2:8, to the dawning of a new age of light which the darkness cannot overcome. In 3:19 light has come into the world and divides humankind into two camps of moral contrast. Jesus declares himself to be that light in 8:12 (so also 9:5), while in 9:4–5 his time on earth is called “day” after which comes the “night.” Day/night occurs also in 11:9–10. The meaning is more difficult to discern but appears to be christological: “walk” by the day/light which is Christ. This is precisely the connotation of 12:35–36. Jesus has come into the world as light, so that those who believe in him may escape the darkness (12:46). On the antithetical language of the Gospel and letters of John, see Johnson, Antitheses, pp. 31–161.
2:9–10 Light / darkness and love / hate are also intertwined in the Manual of Discipline of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS), the language of which is closely related to the Johannine writings (see Charlesworth, John and Qumran). Cf. 1QS 1:9–10; 3:24–26; 4:5–13; Johnson, Antitheses, pp. 169–71.
When the Elder writes of love / hate for the brothers and sisters, he is referring exclusively to members of the Johannine community. He is wrestling with a local issue, albeit one which has relevant application today. There is no reflection on “love of neighbor” or “love of enemies” in the Johannine Gospel or epistles. The focus is on the importance of love among the threatened yet believing community, among disciples (cf. John 13:34–35; cf. D. Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988], pp. 124–31).
2:11 This social conflict-based cause of the antithetical language of the letters of John is explored in depth in Johnson, Antitheses, pp. 224–60. See the Introduction for discussion of the historical setting of 1–3 John.
There is a close parallel to 2:11 in John 12:35. Jesus warned those who had not yet put their trust in him (12:36) that “the man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going.” The Elder’s opponents had denied that the divine Christ was actually Jesus (1 John 2:22); they had not put their trust in him, and so, like those described in John 12:35 and 1 John 2:11, they walk in the darkness and have lost their way.
The Victorious Community and the World
This section of 1 John is composed of two distinct parts. Verses 12–14 describe the victorious Christian community, addressing three groups of family members: children, young men, and fathers. Verses 15–17 exhort this faithful community not to love the world but to continue to do God’s will in it. The author’s purposes in this passage are to strengthen the Johannine Christians’ confidence, so that it will not be further eroded by the secessionist false teachers, and to warn them against the kind of worldly compromise which characterized the opponents’ lifestyle.
Verses 12–14 have a special structure as the indented printing of the NIV clearly shows. There are several parallel structures in these three verses. Though one cannot tell this from the NIV translation, the first three sentences (vv. 12–13) begin with “I write” (graphō), while the last three sentences begin with “I wrote” (egrapsa). Further, three groups of persons are addressed, all viewed as parts of one family or community of believers, well known to the author: “children” (12a, teknia; 14a, paidia), “young men” (13b, 14c), and “fathers” (13a, 14b).
These groups may stand for different levels of Christian maturity or experience in the community, although the Elder can also call the whole community “children” (teknia in 2:1, 28; 3:7; 4:4; 5:21; and paidia in 2:18). What is said of each group also does not appear to be age- or experience-related but is true of the whole community. So referring to these groups is best thought of as a stylistic device that sets forth several truths about the spiritual victory of the whole Johannine fellowship.
The variation of the verbs for “write” is to be understood in exactly the same way. There is no significant difference in meaning between the author’s use of graphō and egrapsa. One of the characteristics of the aorist is definiteness: at most, then, v. 14 is saying “I am definitely writing to you because …” In fact, all the author’s uses of “write” in 1 John until 2:14 (1:4; 2:1, 7, 8, 13) are present tense (graphō), while all of his uses of “write” after 2:14 (2:21, 26; 5:13) are aorist (egrapsa), without any apparent change of significance (Brown, Epistles, p. 297). Stylistic variation is one of the chief literary characteristics of the Johannine writings as a whole (e.g., in John 21:15–17 of sheep/lambs and the verbs for “love” and “feed”).
It should also be noted that there is disagreement among biblical scholars as to the best interpretation of the word which the NIV translates “because” (hoti) in each of these verses. The same Greek word can also mean “that.” The connections between the halves of the sentences in all these cases would then be declarative rather than causal: “I write to you that …” rather than “I write to you because …” But, as Marshall puts it, “It does not make a lot of difference to our understanding of the passage whether we use ‘because’ or ‘that’ to introduce John’s statements” (Epistles, p. 136).
2:12 The decisive fact which the Elder here wants to underscore for his readers is that their sins have been forgiven. The past has been taken care of; they have been cleansed. Forgiven is in the perfect tense, implying an act begun at a specific point in the past (conversion) and whose effects continue on into the present (they stand forgiven). This forgiveness is renewed on a daily basis by confession (1:9).
Forgiveness is based on his name. It is on account of his name that the community enjoys its victory over sin. In 1:7 and 2:1–2 the writer states the christological foundation of forgiveness: “the blood of Jesus … purifies us from all sin” and “Jesus Christ, the Righteous One, … is the atoning sacrifice for our sins.” The name of Jesus is also the object of the believer’s faith in 3:23 and 5:13. It is by faith in his name (who he is and what he has done) that we are forgiven and have eternal life.
2:13 The second decisive victory of the Johannine Christians who have remained loyal to the Elder is knowledge of God/ Christ. The fathers (possibly a reference to the community’s more experienced leaders, but certainly representative of all Christians) have come to know him who is from the beginning. Their spiritual experience is not bogus but authentic. As the author writes in 2:3 and 2:5: “We know that we have come to know him” and “we know we are in him.” He grounds these true claims on the obedient, Christlike lifestyle of the readers, a verification the author’s opponents lacked. Thus, the community can be assured of its position before God; they do not need to be thrown into doubt and uncertainty by the false teachers.
Him who is from the beginning recalls 1 John 1:1, the Word of life, “which was from the beginning,” and John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word.” This points to Jesus as the one to whom the writer is referring. In 13c (NIV; Gk. 14a) the children are said to know the Father, while in 14a (NIV; Gk. 14b) the fathers know him who is from the beginning, a pointless repetition unless the two phrases refer to different persons.
The third victory of the Johannine community is conquest of the evil one. This is attributed to the young men. Brown translates neaniskoi as “young people,” a good reminder that all that is said here applies also to the women of the fellowship, though predominantly male terminology is used (Brown, Epistles, ad loc). Although young men may refer to a younger and less mature subgroup within the whole (Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, p. 70), representatively their victory is one in which all Christians share.
Overcome is in the perfect tense, again, as in all these verses, implying a past reality with continuing consequences. It is Christ’s past victory, by his death and resurrection, over the powers of evil and darkness which gives believers the victory today. They have conquered the evil one because Christ has done so, and they are in him. In 1 John 4:4 the “dear children” have “overcome” the false prophets who deny Jesus, and in 5:4–5 those truly “born of God” have “overcome the world” by their faith in Jesus as God’s Son.
The evil one in the Johannine literature refers to the devil, rather than to an abstract power of evil, though the two are clearly related. In John 17:15 Jesus prays that his disciples be kept from the evil one, while in 1 John 5:18 he fulfills his own request by keeping God’s children safe so that the evil one cannot harm them. “The whole world is under the control of the evil one” (1 John 5:19), who in John 12:31 is called “the prince of this world.” The murderer Cain belonged to him (1 John 3:12). It is this personified power, God’s ancient enemy, Satan (Rev. 12:9), whom the Johannine community has already overcome. Their victory is realized in the present because of what Christ has done in the past.
With v. 13c the cycle of addressees begins again. This time the dear children (paidia) are said to be victorious because they have known the Father, a favorite Johannine term for God. As in 13a, the issue is assurance of real spiritual knowledge in the face of the assertive gnostic false teachers who claimed a special and superior knowledge of God. The children, here clearly the whole community, need not worry or be confused. They know the Father; indeed they have known him from the beginning of their Christian experience until now (the thrust of the perfect tense). This true knowledge of God is authenticated by their obedience to God’s commands (2:3–4), proof the opponents cannot match.
2:14 The first half of v. 14 is nearly an exact repetition of v. 13a. Only the tense of the verb has changed. This change of tense is stylistic, as we discussed in the introduction to this section. At most it adds a note of intensity and definiteness to the assertion that the fathers have known him who is from the beginning, that is, Jesus, God’s Son, the Word (1 John 1:1; John 1:1). Although many theories have been offered concerning the Elder’s reason for repeating this assertion about the fathers in nearly identical terms, none of them are convincing, and the reason remains unknown.
The second half of v. 14 contains the final admonition to the community, addressed to the young men. The “because clause” contains three elements this time, only one of which is identical to v. 13b, the previous address to this subgroup: you have overcome the evil one. To this the writer adds two new descriptions of their victorious condition as God’s faithful community: (a) they are strong and (b) the word of God lives in them. The word strong refers to their spiritual strength, likely (in view of the mention of Satan) their ability to resist temptation (possibly the temptations to be mentioned in v. 16). But the source of their strength is the word of God which abides or dwells (NIV, lives; menei) in them. Here God’s word is, as in 1:10, the truth about Jesus, who is himself “the Word of life” (1:1). This saving message dwells in the young men and gives them strength to overcome the evil one. What is true of the young men is true of every member of the community, the Elder’s and the Christian community today.
2:15 Verses 12–14 have described the victorious, faithful community. The Elder has assured them of their wealth of spiritual resources: they are forgiven (12), they know Jesus (13a, 14a), they have overcome the evil one (13b, 14b), they know the Father (13c), they are strong, and the word of God dwells in them (14b). Now he warns them against losing what they have gained by compromising with the world. The Elder’s opponents are still in the background. In his view, they love the world, and the world loves them (4:5). They have given in to its desires and do not share their material possessions with their needy brothers and sisters (3:17). The faithful Johannine Christians are not to be like them.
Do not love the world. This is an odd command coming from the community which wrote, “For God so loved the world” (John 3:16). The resolution lies in different senses of world in the Gospel and letters of John. In this verse world is like “mammon” in Jesus’ saying about the impossibility of serving two masters (Matt. 6:24). Loving God and loving the world, in this sense, are mutually exclusive, like the Old Testament prophets’ insistence that Israel could not serve both Yahweh and Ba’al. The nation had to choose (Josh. 24:14–24; 1 Kgs. 18:21). James agrees in 4:4: “Friendship (philia, love) with the world is hatred toward God.” Here the world is Satan’s domain, in the control of the evil one (1 John 5:19). It does not mean “the created universe, nor the human race as such … but the life of human society as organized under the power of evil” (Dodd, Epistles, p. 39). The command is a present tense imperative connoting a way of life characterized by not loving the world, nor the things in the world (NIV, anything in the world).
Before the Elder clarifies in v. 16 what he means by anything in the world, he finishes v. 15 by stating the fundamental incompatibility of both loving God and loving the Satan-controlled world. One cannot do both. To love the world is to be devoid of love for the Father; the writer leaves no middle ground. Authentic love for God and “worldliness” cannot coexist in the same person at the same time. By this strong antithesis the Elder challenges his readers to purity of life (1:6, 9; 2:1; 3:3), especially so that there might be a difference between them and the “worldly” lifestyle of the false teachers.
2:16 The for at the opening of v. 16 indicates that v. 16 is giving a reason for the assertion in v. 15b that love for God and for the world are an impossible contradiction. Why? Because everything in the world (cf. in v. 15 “anything in the world”) has its origin not in the Father but in the world itself. God and the world are an absolute antithesis as sources of value. They stand over against each other like light and darkness, truth and error. The controversy which has pitted the Elder and his remaining loyal band of followers over against the popular false teachers has caused him to see the choices facing Christians in clear black-and-white terms. Just as one must choose which side of the schism one is on, so one must choose whether to serve and love God or the world (cf. Matt. 6:24).
What is everything in the world of which the author is thinking? He defines it in three phrases: the desire (epithymia) of the flesh, the desire (epithymia) of the eyes, and the boasting of what he has and does (lit., “the boasting in the life,” hē alazoneia tou biou). This is the essence of the “worldly” person; it is a way of feeling, looking, and expressing oneself. This approach to life is self-centered: the thoughts, decisions, and activities of everyday life are dominated by the cravings of one’s own “flesh” (sarx; NIV, the sinful man), the longings (NIV, lust) of one’s own eyes (TEV, “what people see and want”), and the personal boasting in material possessions (tou biou; cf. 3:17, where the phrase ton bion tou kosmou, lit., “the life of the world,” means the material possessions of this world, the physical resources which one could use to help people in need).
2:17 A further reason for not loving the world (v. 16 was the first reason) is that it is temporary, passing away, and impermanent, while the true Christian lives forever (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18). The focal point of the antithesis is now the believer (rather than God) and the world.
The world and its desires (lit., “desire”; cf. the two references to desire in v. 16) pass away (paragetai), in the sense that this age is ending and God’s reign is coming, just as “the darkness is passing (paragetai) and the true light is already shining” (2:8); indeed, it “is the last hour” (2:18), when the end-times “antichrist” who was supposed to come has already appeared (2:18; 4:3) in the form of the false teachers with their denial that the Christ is the fully human Jesus (2 John 7; cf. 4:2–3).
By contrast with the ephemeral world, the one who does the will of God abides forever. This description of the faithful member of the Johannine community derives from the Gospel of John. Jesus’ food is to do God’s will (John 4:34), he seeks not his own will but the will of the one who sent him (5:30), and he has come down from heaven to do not his own will but the will of him who sent him (6:38). The man born blind tells the Pharisees that God listens only to “the godly man who does his will” (in this context, Jesus; 9:31). Jesus’ true followers also do God’s will by looking to the Son and believing in him (6:40), and if they do God’s will, they will discover whether Jesus’ teaching is from God (7:17).
Such obedient, believing members of the Elder’s community will live (lit., “abide,” menō) forever. They are not like the world which passes away. The antithesis here is really between life and death. Johannine Christians have already passed from death to life (3:14–15; John 5:24). They have life through their faith in the Son, which those who reject Jesus do not have (5:12). This is part of the Johannine “realized eschatology,” in which formerly anticipated blessings of the age to come are now realized in the earthly experience of those who believe in Jesus. They do not wait to receive eternal life until the resurrection but have it as a present possession by faith in Jesus (John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47, 54; 11:26; 20:31).
Additional Notes
2:13 Realized eschatology is one of the principal theological themes of the Gospel and letters of John. Spiritual realities expected to happen only in the future reign of God have become a part of the present experience of believers in Jesus. Victory in the judgment, the defeat of Satan, the reception of eternal life, the indwelling of the Spirit, and other “events” were all viewed in Judaism as future hope, but the Christian community, especially the Johannine community, though also Paul, claims these blessings as available in the present to those who believe in Jesus. See G. E. Ladd, “Eschatology,” ISBE, vol. 2, pp. 136–37.
In editions of the Greek New Testament, such as the UBS text and Nestle’s, and in most modern translations, v. 14 begins at v. 13c. The NIV and NASB are exceptions.
2:14 On the repetitive language of 2:12–14, see Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, pp. 66–79.
2:16 “The desire of the flesh” (NIV, the cravings of sinful man) is a phrase common to Paul’s writings but does not occur elsewhere in John’s. In the letters of John, “flesh” (sarx) occurs only here, in 4:2, and in 2 John 7, where the reference is to the full humanity of Jesus, the incarnation (cf. John 1:14, “The Word became flesh” [sarx]), a teaching which the opponents denied. “Flesh” may mean “all that satisfies the needs and wants of human beings taken as such” (Brown, Epistles, p. 310).
Boasting (alazoneia) means pretentiousness, ostentation, or over-confidence. Here in 1 John this attitude is based on the security one feels in material possessions. It is exemplified by the rich man in Jesus’ story who said to himself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink, and be merry.” But of him God said, “You fool! This very night your life will be demanded of you” (Luke 12:19–20). The Elder believes that this “worldly” attitude is also characteristic of the secessionists.
Direct Matches
People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriage and divorce. Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6 17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.
Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the OT (Mark 10:1–12).
Children and parenting. Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.
Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.
Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.
The tangible presence of God, experienced as overwhelming power and splendor. The main Hebrew word referring to glory, kabod, has the root meaning “heavy” (1 Sam. 4:18), which in other contexts can mean “intense” (Exod. 9:3; NIV: “terrible”), “wealthy” (i.e., “heavy in possessions” [Gen. 13:2]), and “high reputation” (Gen. 34:19; NIV: “most honored”). When used of God, it refers to his person and his works. God reveals his glory to Israel and to Egypt at the crossing of the sea (Exod. 14:4, 17 19). He carefully reveals his glory to Moses after Israel’s sin with the golden calf in order to assure him that he will not abandon them (33:12–23).
In the NT the glory of God is made real in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14; Heb. 1:3). He is, after all, the very presence of God. When he returns on the clouds, he will fully reveal God’s glory (Matt. 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27).
The accomplishment of God’s purposes. This was most clearly expressed by Jesus’ prayer, “Not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42). Jesus stipulated in the Gospel of John that he was pursuing not his own will but that of God (5:19, 30; 6:38). God’s will is revealed in creation (Rev. 4:11), Scripture (2 Pet. 1:20 21), his standards (Ezra 10:11; Rom. 12:1–2; 1 Thess. 4:3), his calling (1 Cor. 1:1), and his purpose (Isa. 46:10).
Direct Matches
A word that appears in the KJV and also in the Douay-Rheims Bible (an English translation of the Latin Vulgate), translating the Greek word epithymia, and is generally, and incorrectly, understood as lust. More accurately, it describes an intense desire for anything, and it is not limited to sexual desire, as the contemporary definition of lust implies. Furthermore, there are some significant differences between Catholic and Protestant theological definitions of concupiscence. Most simply put, Catholics tie their understanding of concupiscence to the concept of the inclination to sin, but concupiscence itself is not sin. Protestants, on the other hand, generally tie concupiscence to their understanding of original sin; that is, concupiscence is original sin. Outside of theological conversation the word has fallen out of general public use.
One use of the term in the KJV occurs in Rom. 7:8, where Paul discusses the relationship between sin and the law. These verses in Romans are notoriously difficult for interpreters to explain, but in 7:8 Paul says that sin, which was defined by the commandment (Paul here means the Torah or Hebrew Bible), produced concupiscence (NIV: “coveting”). For Paul, sin is a force that becomes active only when the law is made known, because without the law, Paul says, sin is dead.
The KJV uses the term again in Col. 3:5 in another Pauline discussion about sin. In this passage Paul encourages his readers to “set your minds on things above” rather than on “earthly things.” Continuing in this line of reasoning, Paul says that his readers are to “put to death” a list of things, including concupiscence (NIV: “evil desires”).
The last use of the term by the KJV is in 1 Thess. 4:5, where Paul again admonishes his readers to live a holy life and to avoid concupiscence (NIV: “passionate lust”).
The Douay-Rheims Bible does not use the term in 1 Thess. 4:5, but it does (in addition to Rom. 7:8; Col. 3:5) in Rom. 7:7; James 1:14–15; 2 Pet. 1:4; 1 John 2:17.
The organ of visual perception. The eye is the lamp of the body, so that someone who has a sound or healthy eye can experience light, but someone with a deficient eye experiences only darkness (Matt. 6:22–23). Bright eyes signify alertness and good health (1 Sam. 14:27–29; Ps. 38:10), whereas dim eyes signify poor vision, often from old age (Gen. 27:1; 48:10; 1 Sam. 3:2). Blindness may be cured by opening the eyes (Isa. 35:5; John 9:14), although Paul was blind even with his eyes open (Acts 9:8). To lift or raise the eyes is to take a look around or look toward something (Gen. 13:10; 18:2; John 11:41). To turn the eyes from something is to no longer look at it (Ps. 119:37; Song 6:5; Isa. 22:4). Something hidden from the eyes is unknown (Num. 5:13; Job 28:21; Luke 19:42), but hiding the eyes from something is to ignore it (Isa. 1:15; Ezek. 22:26; cf. Lev. 20:4). The expression “before the eyes” signifies that an event has taken place in the presence of others, and they have witnessed it.
The eye is an important part of the body (1 Cor. 12:16–21). A defective eye disqualified a priest from certain duties (Lev. 21:17–20). A conquering army often gouged out the eyes of the defeated enemy (Judg. 16:21; 2 Kings 25:7), rendering them ineffective in battle (1 Sam. 11:2). Destroying Israel’s eyes is the first among many punishments listed for breaking God’s covenant (Lev. 26:16). Paul testifies that the Galatians cared enough for him even to pluck out their eyes in order to give them to him (Gal. 4:15). The importance of the eye highlights the importance of Jesus’ demand to pluck it out if it causes one to stumble (Matt. 5:29; 18:9).
Perception and enlightenment. Opening eyes is a theme that runs through both Testaments. At times, opening the eyes simply refers to making one aware of previously unknown information. It may be in this sense that the eyes of Adam and Eve are opened, since they become aware of their nakedness (Gen. 3:7). This same kind of opening occurs when God reveals a well to Hagar (Gen. 21:19), when Balaam sees the angel of the Lord standing in his way (Num. 22:31), and when the disciples on the road to Emmaus recognize Jesus (Luke 24:31). This sense is extended into the spiritual realm, so that the eye is used figuratively as the principal organ of spiritual perception. To open or enlighten the eyes in this sense involves one of the following: (1) allowing one to understand spiritual truth in the law of God (Ps. 119:18), prophetic utterance (Num. 24:3), or by the Spirit of God (Eph. 1:18); or (2) leading someone to repentance and conversion (Acts 26:18). These spiritual eyes may also be blinded or closed, hindering the person from repenting (Isa. 6:10; Matt. 13:13; cf. 2 Cor. 4:4).
The eye not only allows one to perceive the world but also helps others perceive the person. David has beautiful eyes, highlighting his handsome appearance (1 Sam. 16:12). Leah has weak eyes, a characteristic that is contrasted to the beautiful appearance of her sister, Rachel (Gen. 29:17). A bountiful eye reveals a generous spirit (Prov. 22:9). Haughty eyes reveal arrogance (Ps. 18:27; Prov. 6:17), as do eyes that are exalted (Ps. 131:1; Prov. 30:13). Eyes may reveal one’s pity for another (Ezek. 16:5), but in the administration of justice, the eye is not allowed to pity or spare, meaning that the law will be executed to its fullest extent (Deut. 7:16; Ezek. 5:11). The eye that mocks a father or a mother reveals a person who holds them in contempt (Prov. 30:17).
Direction and evaluation. The eye also serves as a symbol for direction, care, and vast knowledge. Since the eye allows one to see, it helps set the proper course forward, physically (Num. 10:31) or spiritually (1 John 2:11). The fact that God’s eyes are always upon the land of Israel demonstrates his care for it (Deut. 11:12). Likewise, his eyes are always upon the righteous, ready to help them (Ps. 34:15). Especially in apocalyptic literature, the many eyes of the living creatures are symbols of God’s omniscience (Ezek. 1:18; Rev. 4:6), while the eyes of God in general are symbols of his awareness (1 Kings 9:3; Jer. 32:19; Amos 9:8; Heb. 4:13).
Finally, the eyes are associated with evaluation. The eyes of God often represent his favor or disfavor (Gen. 6:8; Deut. 21:9; 2 Kings 10:30). Those who evaluate themselves in their own eyes are often led astray because the eyes can lead to sinful lust (Num. 15:39; Deut. 12:8; Judg. 17:6; Prov. 3:7; 1 John 2:16).
In classical Greek, “world” (kosmos) communicated the idea that the external universe is a well-ordered system. In early Greek usage, the term was used with reference to specific types of social orderings, such as the seating order of rowers (Homer, Od. 13.77), the order of soldiers (Homer, Il. 12.225), and well-ordered political states such as Sparta (Herodotus, Hist. 1.65).
Created World
In the OT, the notion of the created “world” departed from the Greek understanding specifically in that creation is never seen as an independent entity controlled by an impersonal, all-embracing order. Rather, the universe, usually described with the phrase “the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1; 2:1, 4; Ps. 113:6; Jer. 10:11) or at times the “all” or “all things” (Ps. 103:19; Jer. 10:16), is always understood in its relationship to its creator: “He who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited—he says: ‘I am the Lord, and there is no other’ ” (Isa. 45:18). Here, the “world” (“earth”) refers to the material elements that make up the planet (see also Jer. 32:17; Zech. 12:1) and the sum total of the entire universe (cf. Acts 17:24). Even in the account of creation in Gen. 1:1–2:4, where many of the elements of the physical world are mentioned (waters, firmament, stars, etc.), the primary intent of the account is to convey that God is Lord over everything because he is the Creator. Often these created elements that make up the world are praised not for their own inherent beauty, but as a testimony to the majesty, supremacy, and omnipotence of the Creator (Pss. 8; 19:1–6; 33:6–9). In Ps. 148:3–6 the elements within the natural order (kosmos) are instructed to praise God: “Praise him, sun and moon; praise him, all you shining stars. Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for at his command they were created, and he established them for ever and ever—he issued a decree that will never pass away.”
Though not providing a comprehensive description, the OT does at times refer to how the world is constructed as a whole. The “vault” (Gen. 1:6–20 [RSV: “firmament”]) of heaven separates the waters above from the waters below (which are restrained by God’s sovereign care [Gen. 1:7; 7:11; 49:25]), and this area or chamber rests on “pillars” (Job 26:11). At times the earth is described as a disc with the sanctuary as its center point (Judg. 9:37; Ezek. 38:12), which rests on pillars (Job 9:6). There is an underworld, from which there is no return (Job 10:21); however, the OT does not engage in the kind of speculation regarding the underworld as is evident in the Greco-Roman tradition.
Earth and Its Inhabitants
The term “world” conveys other nuances in the Bible. It often refers to the inhabitants of the earth or the place of human life: “He rules the world in righteousness and judges the peoples with equity” (Ps. 9:8 [cf. Pss. 96:13; 98:9]); or, “Come near, you nations, and listen; pay attention, you peoples! Let the earth hear, and all that is in it, the world, and all that comes out of it!” (Isa. 34:1). Also, in the Gospels “world” is used in this way: “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?” (Mark 8:36). Matthew 4:8 refers to all the kingdoms of the world. Also the expressions “coming into the world” (John 1:9; 3:19), “in the world” (John 1:10; 2 Cor. 1:12), and “leave this world” (1 Cor. 5:10) can be understood as referring to the sphere of human life.
Ungodly Culture and Worldview
“World” can also refer to something more than the material world or humanity in general; it can refer to the entire cultural value system or world order that is hostile toward God. The “world” is a common biblical way of referring to the ungodly worldview and lifestyle that characterize human life in its rebellion against the Creator. The course of the world is profoundly affected by fallen humans, through whom death came into the world and rules over it (Rom. 5:12). Therefore, Paul can claim that “the whole world” has become guilty before God (Rom. 3:19), and even the created world is affected by such rebellion (8:20–22). Paul especially links “this world” with “this age” (1 Cor. 3:19; 5:10; Eph. 2:2 NET), which God has judged (Rom. 3:6). John declares that Satan is the “prince of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). Paul refers to Satan as the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4 ESV, NRSV, NASB), who is able to blind individuals to the truth and who animates human rebellion (Eph. 2:2). In this sense, God and the world are strictly separate: “Don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God” (James 4:4). Because of this call to an exclusive relationship with God, believers are mandated to resist and even confront the world. Followers of Christ must not be taken captive by philosophy or the “elemental spiritual forces of this world” (Col. 2:8, 20), since, as Paul says, “the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal. 6:14).
But it is the world that designates the location and object of God’s saving activity. Indeed, God sent his Son into this world in order to reconcile it to himself (2 Cor. 5:19). Jesus, the sacrificial Lamb of God, “takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). Out of love for this world, God sent his Son (John 3:1), not to judge it but to save it: “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him” (John 3:17).
Although believers live in the world (1 Cor. 5:10; Phil. 2:15) and must have dealings with the world, ultimately they are not of the world (John 17:14). Remaining in Christ, believers are able to demonstrate in the world the belief and practice of the new commandment to love (John 13:34; 15:9). Therefore, Christians must maintain a critical distance from the world’s system: “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world” (1 John 2:15–16 [cf. James 1:27; 4:4]). Believers are to avoid the seductive power of the world and not abandon themselves to it; they are to follow their Lord in proclaiming God’s project of reconciling the world to himself through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:18).
Secondary Matches
A word that appears in the KJV and also in the Douay-Rheims Bible (an English translation of the Latin Vulgate), translating the Greek word epithymia, and is generally, and incorrectly, understood as lust. More accurately, it describes an intense desire for anything, and it is not limited to sexual desire, as the contemporary definition of lust implies. Furthermore, there are some significant differences between Catholic and Protestant theological definitions of concupiscence. Most simply put, Catholics tie their understanding of concupiscence to the concept of the inclination to sin, but concupiscence itself is not sin. Protestants, on the other hand, generally tie concupiscence to their understanding of original sin; that is, concupiscence is original sin. Outside of theological conversation the word has fallen out of general public use.
One use of the term in the KJV occurs in Rom. 7:8, where Paul discusses the relationship between sin and the law. These verses in Romans are notoriously difficult for interpreters to explain, but in 7:8 Paul says that sin, which was defined by the commandment (Paul here means the Torah or Hebrew Bible), produced concupiscence (NIV: “coveting”). For Paul, sin is a force that becomes active only when the law is made known, because without the law, Paul says, sin is dead.
The KJV uses the term again in Col. 3:5 in another Pauline discussion about sin. In this passage Paul encourages his readers to “set your minds on things above” rather than on “earthly things.” Continuing in this line of reasoning, Paul says that his readers are to “put to death” a list of things, including concupiscence (NIV: “evil desires”).
The last use of the term by the KJV is in 1 Thess. 4:5, where Paul again admonishes his readers to live a holy life and to avoid concupiscence (NIV: “passionate lust”).
The Douay-Rheims Bible does not use the term in 1 Thess. 4:5, but it does (in addition to Rom. 7:8; Col. 3:5) in Rom. 7:7; James 1:14–15; 2 Pet. 1:4; 1 John 2:17.
To appropriate the thought or behavior of others. God warns Israel not to imitate “the detestable ways of the nations” (Deut. 18:9; cf. Exod. 23:24; Lev. 18:3). Israel’s desire for cultural assimilation, leading to idolatry, incurs divine judgment (2 Kings 17:15; Ezek. 20:32; 25:8). The NT carries forward this warning to Christians, who must embrace their citizenship in heaven (Phil. 3:20; cf. Rom. 12:1–2; James 4:4; 1 John 2:15; 5:5, 19).
Inversely, to imitate the humility of Christ, complete submission to the will of God, regardless of the cost, is a core virtue (Phil. 2:1–11; Titus 3:2; cf. Matt. 11:28–30). Paul invites others to imitate him as he imitates Christ (1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Thess. 3:7–9; 2 Tim. 3:10–12). By obeying Christ, a disciple imitates God (Eph. 5:1–2).
Imitation incarnates faith. To this end, Jesus spends time with his disciples, allowing them to observe his way for approximately three years before submitting to the painful conclusion of God’s will for his earthly ministry (Mark 3:14; 14:36). Jesus commands his disciples to imitate his washing of their feet, a task normally reserved for the lowest household slave (John 13:12–20), and to pick up their own crosses (Mark 8:34 pars.). “A student,” he reminds them, “is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40).
The kingdom of God is a major theme in the Bible. While the theme is most fully developed in the NT, its origin is the OT, where the emphasis falls on God’s king-ship. God is king of Israel (Exod. 15:18; Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5; Isa. 43:15) and of all the earth (2 Kings 19:15; Pss. 29:10; 99:1–4; Isa. 6:5; Jer. 46:18). Juxtaposed to the concept of God’s present reign as king are references to a day when God will become king over his people (Isa. 24:23; 33:22; 52:7; Zeph. 3:15; Zech. 14:9). This emphasis on God’s kingship continues throughout Judaism and takes on special significance in Jewish apocalypticism and its anticipation of the kingdom of God in the age to come, which abandoned any hope for present history. Only at the end of the age will the kingdom of God come. This idea of God’s kingdom is further developed throughout the NT.
The Synoptic Gospels
In the Synoptic Gospels the phrase “the kingdom of God” occurs over one hundred times in Mark, Luke, and Matthew (where “kingdom of heaven” is a synonym for “kingdom of God”). Three views have been defended regarding whether and to what extent the kingdom of God was present in Jesus’ ministry. In other words, how are we to interpret the phrase “kingdom of God” in the Synoptics? The three views are consistent eschatology, realized eschatology, and inaugurated eschatology.
Consistent eschatology. Albert Schweitzer, a biblical scholar from the late nineteenth century, first popularized consistent eschatology. Here, “consistent” means consistent with the apocalyptic Judaism of Jesus’ day, which interpreted the kingdom of God as something coming in the future. Judaism at the time of Christ divided history into two periods: this age of sin, when sin rules, and the age to come, when the Messiah is expected to bring the kingdom of God to earth. Schweitzer concluded that an apocalyptic understanding of the kingdom was foundational not only for Christ’s teaching, but also to understanding his life. Thus, Schweitzer maintained that Jesus believed that it was his vocation to become the coming Son of Man. Initially, Jesus revealed this messianic secret only to Peter, James, and John. Later, Peter told it to the rest of the Twelve. Judas told the secret to the high priest, who used it as the grounds for Jesus’ execution (Mark 14:61–64; cf. Dan. 7:13).
According to Schweitzer, when Jesus sent out the Twelve on a mission to proclaim the coming kingdom of God, he did not expect them to return. The Twelve were the “men of violence” (cf. Matt. 11:12) who would provoke the messianic tribulation that would herald the kingdom. Whereas some earlier scholars believed that one could only wait passively for the kingdom, Schweitzer believed that the mission of Jesus was designed to provoke its coming. When this did not happen, Jesus determined to give his own life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45) and so cause the kingdom to come.
According to Schweitzer, Jesus took matters into his own hands by precipitating his death, hoping that this would be the catalyst for God to make the wheel of history turn to its climax—the arrival of the kingdom of God. But, said Schweitzer, Jesus was wrong again, and he died in despair. So for Schweitzer, Jesus never witnessed the dawning of the age to come; it lay in the distant future, separated from this present age.
On the positive side, Schweitzer called attention to the fact that the message of Jesus is rooted in first-century apocalyptic Judaism and its concept of the kingdom of God. This connection is still foundational to a proper understanding of biblical prophecy and the Gospels today. On the negative side, Schweitzer’s selective use of evidence and rejection of the historicity of much of the Gospel tradition resulted in a skewed perspective on the present dimensions of Jesus’ eschatology.
Realized eschatology. In contrast to futurist eschatology, where the kingdom of God awaits a final consummation at the end of history, realized eschatology views the kingdom of God as already realized in the person and mission of Jesus. The futurist aspects of Jesus’ teaching are reduced to a minimum, and his apocalyptic language is viewed as symbolic of theological truths.
The person most responsible for advocating this position is British scholar C. H. Dodd. In his 1935 book Parables of the Kingdom, he focused on Jesus’ teachings that announced the arrival of the kingdom with his coming. For instance, in Luke 11:20 Jesus says, “But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (cf. Luke 17:21; Matt. 13). Eschatology becomes a matter of the present experience rather than any kind of future event. The kingdom has fully come in the messianic ministry of Jesus.
Most interpreters have criticized Dodd’s realized eschatology for ignoring Jesus’ teachings that point to a future consummation of the kingdom (e.g., Matt. 24–25; Mark 13). When all of Jesus’ teachings are considered, futurist eschatology balances realized eschatology. To be sure, the kingdom arrived with Jesus, but Jesus himself taught that history still awaits a final completion. The kingdom of God is both “already” and “not yet,” which leads us to the third view of the relationship of the kingdom of God to the ministry of Jesus Christ.
Inaugurated eschatology. The third view, inaugurated eschatology, is commonly connected with the twentieth-century Swiss theologian Oscar Cullmann. Like others before him, Cullmann understood that the Jewish notion of the two ages formed an important background for understanding the message of Jesus. According to Judaism, history is divided into two periods: this age of sin and the age to come (i.e., the kingdom of God). For Jews the advent of the Messiah would effect the shift from the former to the latter. In other words, Judaism viewed the two ages as consecutive. According to Cullmann, Jesus Christ announced that the end of time, the kingdom of God, had arrived within history (see Mark 1:15 pars.; esp. Luke 4:43; 6:20; 7:28; 8:1, 10; 9:2, 11, 27, 60, 62; 10:9, 11; 11:20; 13:18, 20; 16:16; 17:20–21; 18:16–17, 24–25, 29; Acts 28:31). Yet other passages suggest that although the age to come had already dawned, it was not yet complete. It awaited the second coming for its full realization (Luke 13:28–29; 14:15; 19:11; 21:31; 22:16, 18; 23:51; Acts 1:6). Hence the adjective “inaugurated” characterizes this eschatology. Such a view is pervasive in the NT (see, e.g., Acts 2:17–21; 3:18, 24; 1 Cor. 15:24; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; 1 John 2:18). So for inaugurated eschatology, the two ages are simultaneous: the age to come exists in the midst of this present age. Christians therefore live in between the two ages until the parousia (second coming of Christ).
We may break down the data in the Synoptic Gospels regarding the “already/not yet” aspects concerning the kingdom of God in this manner: Mark, probably the first Gospel written, records Jesus’ programmatic statement in 1:15: “The time has come. . . . The kingdom of God has come near.” Mark, along with Luke and Matthew, then goes on to demonstrate that Jesus’ miracles, teachings, death, and resurrection inaugurated the kingdom of God. Yet it is also clear from Matthew, Mark, and Luke that the final manifestation of the kingdom has not yet happened. We may draw on Luke as representative of all three Synoptics. Luke’s Gospel indicates that the kingdom was present for Jesus (Luke 7:28; 8:10; 10:9–11; 11:20; 16:16; 17:20–21), but it also awaited the second coming for its completion (6:20–26; 11:2; 12:49–50, 51–53; 13:24–30; 21:25–29; 22:15–18, 30). The same dual aspect of the kingdom pertains to Luke’s second volume, Acts. The kingdom was present in Jesus’ ministry and now through his disciples (Acts 1:3; 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23–31), but it will not be completed until Christ comes again (1:6; 14:22).
The Gospel of John
John’s Gospel has only three references to the kingdom of God. Nicodemus was told by Jesus that he needed to be born again to enter the kingdom of God (3:3–5). Yet Jesus’ kingdom is not worldly in nature, but spiritual (18:36). Although the Gospel of John contains both the present (“already”) aspect and the future (“not yet”) aspect, the focus is clearly on the present. This is why many scholars label the Fourth Gospel the “Gospel of Realized Eschatology.” This emphasis on the “already” can be seen in John in the following ways: (1) Eternal life, or entrance into the kingdom of God, can be a present possession (3:5–6, 36; 6:47, 51, 58; 8:51; 10:28; 11:24–26). (2) The eschatological promise of sonship is granted to the believer in Jesus now (1:12–13; 3:3–8; 4:14). (3) The general resurrection has already begun (5:25). (4) The Spirit, the gift of the end time, currently indwells believers (7:37–39; 14:15–31; 15:26–27; 16:5–16; 20:22–23). (5) Final judgment is determined by one’s present response to Jesus (3:19; 5:22–24, 27, 30–38; 9:38; 12:31–33). (6) The spirit of antichrist has already entered the world scene to oppose Christ (6:70; 13:2, 27). (7) Jesus’ death on the cross seems to absorb some elements of the messianic woes or aspects of tribulation. In other words, Jesus’ passion was where the end-time holy war was waged, and his death and resurrection began the end of the forces of evil (15:18–16:11).
On the other hand, the Gospel of John also includes some typical future (“not yet”) aspects of eschatology. For example, the future resurrection is still expected (5:26–30). Likewise, the future second coming of Christ is alluded to (14:1–4; 21:22). Admittedly, however, the “already” aspect of the kingdom of God seems to overshadow the “not yet” perspective in the Fourth Gospel.
Pauline Literature
The phrase “kingdom of God” and/or “kingdom of Christ” occurs twelve times in Paul’s writings.
Rom. 14:17 – kingdom of God (present tense)
1 Cor. 4:20 – kingdom of God (present tense)
1 Cor. 6:9-10 – kingdom of God (2x) (future tense)
1 Cor. 15:24 – kingdom of Christ/God (present/future tense)
1 Cor. 15:50 – kingdom of God (future tense)
Gal. 5:21 – kingdom of God (future tense)
Eph. 5:5 – kingdom of Christ/God (future tense)
Col. 1:13 – kingdom of the Son (present tense)
Col. 4:11 – kingdom of God (present tense)
1 Thess. 2:12 – his [God’s] kingdom (future tense)
2 Thess. 1:5 – kingdom of God (future tense)
Three observations emerge from the chart: (1) The kingdom of Christ/God is both present and future, already here and not yet complete. This is consistent with the Gospels and Acts. (2) Christ and God are, in at least two instances, interchanged, suggesting equality of status between them (cf. Eph. 5:5; Rev. 11:15; 12:10). (3) In 1 Cor. 15:24 we find the most precise description of the exact relationship between the kingdoms of Christ and God: the interim messianic kingdom begun at the resurrection of Christ will one day give way to the eternal kingdom of God. Such a temporary kingdom is attested to in apocalyptic Judaism and may underlie Rev. 20:1–6.
Christians therefore live in between the two ages, in the messianic kingdom.
Hebrews and the General Epistles
Hebrews and the General Epistles continue the theme of the “already/not yet” aspects of the kingdom.
Hebrews. The following ideas associated in Second Temple Judaism with the arrival of God’s kingdom are seen by the author of Hebrews to have been fulfilled at the first coming of Christ: (1) the appearance of the Messiah of the last days indicates the dawning of the kingdom of God (1:2; 9:9–10); (2) the great tribulation/messianic woes that were expected to occur in connection with the advent of the Messiah are now here (2:5–18; cf. 5:8–9; 7:27–28; 10:12; 12:2); (3) the outpouring of the Holy Spirit has happened (6:4–5); (4) the manifestation of the eschatological high priest at the end of history has taken place in Jesus (7:26–28), who has also established the new covenant of the last days (8:6–13). Compare the preceding statements in Hebrews with that author’s explicit mention of the presence of the kingdom of God in 12:18–28. And yet the kingdom of God is not yet fully here. The church continues to suffer the messianic woes, as is evidenced in the intermingling of Jesus’ suffering of the great tribulation with the present afflictions of the Christian (2:5–18; 3:7–4:6; 5:7–6:12; 10:19–39; 12:1–2; 13:11–16). Furthermore, the exhortations to persevere in the faith that punctuate the book of Hebrews (2:1–4; 3:7–4:13; 5:11–6:12; 10:19–39; 12:14–29) are a familiar theme in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature.
The General Epistles. The main message of James is that the last days are here (1:2; 5:3) and with it the messianic woes (1:2–12; 5:1–12). Therefore, believers will need to faithfully endure the great tribulation until the second coming of Christ. But there are two indications that James also teaches that the kingdom of God has dawned in the midst of the great tribulation. First, Christians experience even now the eschatological quality of joy (James 1:2–3; cf. Joel 2:21–27). Second, Christians also share in the end-time gift of wisdom (James 1:5–8).
First Peter is similar to James with regard to its inaugurated eschatology. Thus, the church suffers the messianic woes/great tribulation (1 Pet. 1:6, 11; 3:13–17; 4:12–19; 5:1–9). Nevertheless, the age to come/kingdom of God has broken into the midst of this age, as evidenced by the eschatological joy and God’s protective power that it brings (1:5–6).
Second Peter does seem to stress the “not yet” aspect of the kingdom of God. Thus, the kingdom of God still waits to be entered (1:11), is hindered by end-time apostasy (2 Pet. 2), and has been postponed (3:1–10). Yet the “already” aspect of the kingdom is not entirely absent. This is evidenced by the fact that the transfiguration of Christ on the mountain was a display of the coming power and glory of the age to come, a glory revealed to the disciples on the mountain and now communicated to all believers (1:16–19).
Jude is devoted to alerting Christians to the reality that they are in the midst of the end-time holy war (vv. 3, 20–23), as can be seen by their struggle with the false teaching of end-time apostasy (vv. 5–19). Nevertheless, because believers possess the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit, they will prevail to fully enter the kingdom of God (v. 20).
The Letters of John attest to the overlapping of the two ages—that is, inaugurated eschatology. Thus, on the one hand, the spirit of antichrist is here (1 John 2:18; 2 John 7), along with the false teaching that it breeds (1 John 2:20–29; cf. 2–3 John); but on the other hand, the Johannine community has the end-time anointing of the Holy Spirit, which preserves believers from evil and deception (1 John 2:20–21; 3:1–10). Moreover, Christians presently have eternal life through Christ, one of the blessings of the kingdom of God (1 John 5:11–13).
Revelation
The “already/not yet” aspects of the kingdom of God are manifested in Revelation in the following way: the kingdom of God has already dawned in heaven, but it has not yet appeared on earth. Regarding the former, it is clear from 1:9; 5:1–14; 12:1–6 that Jesus’ death and resurrection inaugurated the advent of the kingdom of God in heaven. Thus, Jesus obediently underwent the messianic woes on the cross and was then raised to heavenly glory, triumphant over the great tribulation. There in heaven, Christ reigns as the invisible Lord over all (including Caesar). But that the kingdom of God has not yet descended to earth is clear in Revelation from two present realities. First, even though Jesus has endured the great tribulation/messianic woes, his followers continue to face many trials (chaps. 6–18). There is no deliverance for them from such affliction until the return of Christ in glory (chap. 19). The only possible exception to this is the divine protection of the 144,000 (chaps. 7; 14). Second, the kingdom of God has not appeared on earth; that event awaits the parousia (chap. 20 [assuming that the premillennial interpretation of that chapter is the most viable reading]). In all of this, it seems that the messianic woes/great tribulation are the divine means for purging the earth in preparation for the future arrival of the temporal, messianic kingdom (chap. 20). After Christ’s one-thousand-year reign on earth, this temporal messianic kingdom will give way to the eternal kingdom of God and its new earth and new heaven (chaps. 21–22). It must be acknowledged, however, that interpretations of chapters 20–22 greatly vary, depending on whether one takes a premillennial, amillennial, or postmillennial perspective.
Conclusion
The preceding data thus seem to confirm that the most apt description of the relationship between the two ages and the kingdom of God that informs the NT is inaugurated eschatology: with the first coming of Christ, the kingdom of God/the age to come dawned, but it will not be until the second coming of Christ that the age to come/kingdom of God will be complete. The church therefore lives in between the times. That is to say, the age to come has broken into this present age, and it is only through the eye of faith that one can now perceive the presence of the kingdom of God.
- Federal law making it 'nearly impossible' for states to verify voter citizenship, Texas AG says
- Dallas Pastor Steve Lawson removed from ministry over 'inappropriate relationship with a woman'
- Just before Sabbath: Hezbollah fires 150 rockets at northern Israel within one hour
- SBC to sell headquarters in Nashville amid legal expenses from sexual abuse investigation
- 'Tabloid trash': NC GOP candidate Mark Robinson denies report he made lewd posts on porn site
- Christian mom sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan
- 'A hinge of history': Global Day of Prayer for America comes amid a ‘season of distress’
- Family, friends still searching months after Tennessee pastor goes missing without a trace
- Lake Country Church pastor wrongfully fired for looking at inappropriate images, attorney says
- Pastor Mark Driscoll refuses city order to take down 'Jesus Christ 24' sign: 'We will not comply'
- Brazilian Evangelicals Are Split on Lausanne’s Legacy
- Becoming a Church for People of All Abilities
- Don’t ‘Spiritually Bypass’ Your Church-Hurt Neighbor
- SBC to Sell Nashville Headquarters to Cover Cost of Abuse Cases
- Seminary Professor Accused of Secret Second Marriage
- These Christians Have Not Given Up on North Korea
- Mobilizers See Millions of Future Missionaries in Overseas Filipino Workers
- Sports Betting Has Become Too Prevalent for Christians to Ignore
- You Can Turn Off the News and Still Be a Good Citizen
- God at the Bottom of the Glass
- Watch: Jasprit Bumrah Sets Up Bangladesh Opener, Knocks Back Off-Stump With Devastating Nip-Backer | IND vs BAN | Cricket News Today
- Allie Beth Stuckey on how 'toxic empathy' is affecting churches
- New study links brain network damage to increased religious fundamentalism
- Aaron Hernandez wrote message on forehead before death with 'blood drawn on cell walls'
- Hall of Fame NFL Coach Tony Dungy Slams Kamala Harris for Abortion Comments: ‘What Faith Are You Talking About?’
- Corinth: The Sex Capital of Ancient Greece
- Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to appear at Nassau Coliseum Sunday, with protest planned outside
- Judo Champion Nemanja Majdov Banned After Making Sign Of The Cross At Paris Olympics
- Dallas pastor Steven Lawson fired for 'inappropriate relationship' with woman
- Evangelicals boldly endorse Kamala Harris
- Pope Francis Is Turning Certainty on Its Head
- How Opus Dei Conquered Washington, D.C.
- Maybe It's Time for Jewish Self-Segregation
- Kamala Harris Steps Up Outreach to Mormon Voters in Arizona
- Trump's Planned Visit to Pennsylvania Catholic Shrine is Canceled
- Maybe Kamala Harris is Not 'Pro-Life' — But Her Policies Are
- These Christians Have Not Given Up on North Korea
- Christian Mom Sentenced to Death for Blasphemy in Pakistan
- Don't RETVRN
- The Illusion of Status Quo