1

The Johannine Epistles Toan Do

Introduction

Authorship, Date, Provenance, and Audience

First, Second, and Third John have long been considered part of the so-called “Johannine

literature” or “Johannine corpus.” The Gospel of John and sometimes the Apocalypse of John (or

Book of Revelation) share in this general classification of Johannine literature. Another common

designation, “Johannine Epistles,” is also used to refer to the inclusion of 1-3 John in the seven

canonical Catholic Epistles, the other four being James, 1-2 Peter, and Jude (the Letter to the

Hebrews is also occasionally included in this group).

John the son of Zebedee had been deemed, until recently, the author of all the Johannine

writings. This traditional attribution was primarily due to the mention of John – one of Jesus’

twelve apostles – in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 1:19; Matt 4:21; Luke 5:10) and also by the

name “John” in Revelation (1:1, 4, 9; 22:8). The writer of John 21 seems to put a seal of

authorship (an unimpeachable authority) on his writing through an appeal to “this” disciple as

eyewitness: “This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we

know that his testimony is true” (21:24; cf. 20:30-31). Similar in tone, and somewhat related to

the Gospel, the author of 1 John begins his writing: “We declare to you what was from the

beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and

touched with our hands, concerning the word of life. . . . We are writing these things so that our

joy may be complete” (1:1-4). These claims of authorship in John and 1 John are, however,

ambiguous. Here the critical issue is the identity of the author or even authors. In the Gospel, the

author, employed in the third person singular, seems to be the source of all that is written. In the

2

Epistles, however, the shift between “we” (1 John 1:4) and “I” (1 John 2:1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 21,

26; 5:15; 2 John 12; 3 John 13) certainly entangles the claim of a single author of the Johannine

writings.

The question regarding authorship, whether oral or written, of John’s Gospel, 1-3 John,

and Revelation has dominated scholarly discussion since the earliest circulation of the Johannine

writings. Justin Martyr (ca. 150 CE) in his Dialogue with Trypho claims that one of Jesus’

disciples named John wrote the Gospel and Revelation (cf. Rev 20:4-6). For Irenaeus (ca. 184-

200 CE), the identity of “this disciple” in John 21:24 is commonly understood as John the son of

Zebedee (cf. John 21:1-2); he is also the one who reclined on the bosom of Jesus (John 13:23;

21:20; cf. Ad. Haer. 3.1.1). By extension, this same John (son of Zebedee) is eventually

identified with the disciple referred to as the disciple Jesus loved, or the Beloved Disciple

(13:23-26; 19:25-27; 20:2-10; 21:2-7, 20-23, 24; cf. 1:35-40; 18:15-16). But nowhere does the

Gospel identify John the son of Zebedee with the Beloved Disciple. Until the nineteenth century,

commentators simply took for granted the identity of the author of the Johannine writings as

John the son of Zebedee.

The irony is, however, that nowhere in the Gospel or 1-3 John is the name “John”

explicitly mentioned or even identified with the son of Zebedee. In the Johannine corpus, the

phrase “the sons of Zebedee” occurs only once, and in passing, as among the seven disciples to

whom the risen Jesus appeared at the Sea of Tiberias (John 21:2). Strikingly, John 21:2, while

naming Simon Peter, Thomas the Twin, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, does not provide the

names of “the sons of Zebedee.” As a result, Johannine scholarship in the last several decades

has moved away from attempting to identify any particular “individual” as the sole author (and

3

source) of the Johannine writings. As a result, recent Johannine scholarship has moved away

from the traditional authorial attribution to a more complex understanding.

Although 1-3 John enjoy close affinities with the Gospel at the level of vocabulary and

writing style, the differences of senders and receivers in 1-3 John suggest that these writings

were written by different authors at different periods. Instead, various solutions, such as

community origins of the text of the Epistles and a chain of multiple sources/editors, have been

introduced. Some scholars speculate, for example, that the final form of the Fourth Gospel, as we

have it today, consists of three editions of composition with a distinct author for each edition. In

this hypothesis, the prologue (John 1:1-18) and the epilogue (21:1-25) can be intelligently argued

to be added later to the Gospel. Similarly, it is argued that 1 John has different authors at

different stages of composition. The early material of 1 John consisted, whether in whole or part,

of about 32 verses (1:6-10; 2:4-5, 9-11, 23, 29; 3:4-10, 14-15, 24; 4:7-8, 12, 16; 5:1, 4, 6, 10, 12),

while the other 73 verses were later inserted into the source by a redactor. Second John 5-6, 9

shares similar language with the 32 verses of the early source of 1 John. Similar to 2 John 1, 3

John 1 appeals to the “elder” (presbyteros) as the author of the epistle. An intelligent argument

for multiple authorship of the Johannine writings consists of various stages of the composition of

the Gospel, 1, 2, and 3 John. This argument would allow the authorship of 1-3 John to comprise

different individuals who wrote, redacted, and compiled the final versions as we have them

today. While such composite theories have much bearing on our understanding of the history of

composition behind the Johannine writings, they are hypotheses that cannot be proven. By virtue

of tradition and canonical history, 1-3 John have always stood as individual letters within the

Johannine literature.

4

It is possible that the early part of 1 John was composed prior to the final edition of the

Gospel; 2 and 3 John were written later, independently, with expressions reminiscent of the

language found in the Gospel and 1 John. The decisive argument in favor of this multiple-dates

proposal relies on the observation that 1 John is not a genuine letter, but an exhortation to the

Johannine Christians, while 2 John can be categorized as a general letter addressing a group of

Christians, and 3 John as a private letter written by an elder to Gaius. A sound explanation is that

the Johannine Epistles were composed separately and were circulated for both personal and

communal readings among the churches. The majority of scholarly opinion agrees that the final

form of the Gospel was completed around 95 CE. This approximate date gives a timeframe for

the Epistles to be written between 100 and 110 CE, or even later.

In his letter to the Ephesians (ca. 110 CE), Ignatius of Antioch addresses one of the

central issues of Christology, namely, that some false teachers in Asia Minor had argued that

Jesus was not really human; rather, he only appeared to be human (a docetic Christology). The

Johannine Epistles also address a similar false doctrine by the antichrists (cf. 1 John 2:18-27;

4:1-6; 5:6-12; 2 John 7-11; 3 John 10). Such similarities have convinced scholars to propose that

1-3 John (and perhaps the Gospel) are ecclesiastical documents with their origins in the churches

in Asia Minor (present day western Turkey), perhaps around the important city of Ephesus.

Apart from the mention of Gaius as recipient (3 John 1, 13), the Johannine Epistles do not

address any particular Christian communities. For instance, the use of the second person plural

throughout 1 John suggests that the issues discussed in the epistle are written for several

Christian communities with which the author seems to be associated. Similarly, in 2 John:

although the author (“the elder”) writes to an elect lady or church (eklektē kuria) by calling her in

the third person singular (v. 1), he also refers to this lady/church in the second person plural (v.

5

12), thereby suggesting that the audience is not a single individual, but a number of Christian

communities collectively.

The history of the NT canon shows that 1 John began to be cited by Christian authors at

the end of the second century, while 2 John and 3 John received acceptance only in late third and

early fourth centuries, respectively. Evidently, the general nature of the audience in the Epistles

contributed to the inclusion of 1-3 John among the Catholic Epistles, a title given to them

because they are not directed to a specific audience.

Literary Characteristics and Historical Background

The format of ancient Hellenistic letters sometimes makes a distinction between a letter and an

epistle. A letter indicates a personal correspondence written in the style of common, non-literary

speech, while an epistle designates a more formal body of speech written in a more literary style.

In this regard, 2-3 John correspond to the former (i.e., to letters), while 1 John corresponds to the

latter (i.e., to an epistle).

Atypical of the literary genre of 1-3 John is the fact that none of these documents bears

the name of the author, as Paul’s letters do, or a pseudonym, as is the case with the Letter of

James and 1-2 Peter. Nonetheless, 1-3 John are not “fictional writings” but real epistles/letters

addressing concrete issues that arose within Christian communities; they also offer numerous

pastoral instructions to the community members. If the issues faced by Ignatius in his letter to the

Ephesians are clues to the occasion of writing, then 1-3 John were written (at least in part) to

address controversial positions in Christology. Indeed, these writings bear witness to a

significant group whose Christology sharply contrasts with that of the authors; these dissidents

are called “antichrists” (1 John 2:18-27; 4:1-6; 5:6-12; 2 John 7-11; 3 John 10). They allegedly

held that Jesus is not the Christ. These dissidents are characterized as “liars” or “pseudo-

6

Christians” (pseustēs). Although the authors do not provide a clear description of how the

Johannine community and the dissidents came to distance themselves from one another, the

phrase “they have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1, 5; 2 John 7) indicates that Christology

was a determining factor for some separation between early Christians who formerly belonged to

the same group of communities (3 John 10). This breakdown in christological agreement is

clearly embedded in the literary genre of the Johannine Epistles.

Theology

While some aspects of Christology may divide the Johannine community into “us” and “them,”

1-3 John share a well-established understanding of theology that urges the members to remain

united within the community.

(1) A Theology of Sin and Forgiveness. To have fellowship with one another (koinōnia)

entails walking together in the truth and the light (1 John 1:3-7; 2 John 4; 3 John 3). But this

fellowship does not exempt the community members from wrongdoing. In fact, the authors

acknowledge and emphasize the reality of sin (1 John 1:8-10). Denying one’s mistakes is

deceiving oneself, and thus making of Jesus a liar, since his blood has cleansed believers from

their sins. But, if the believers do sin (1 John 2:1; 5:19), Jesus acts as their Paraclete before the

Father. Jesus’ death serves as the expiatory sacrifice (hilasmos) for the forgiveness of sins (1

John 2:2, 12; 4:7-10).

(2) Appealing to the Old Commandment. Several times the authors appeal to the

“commandment” (entolē; 1 John 2:7-8; 3:22-24; 4:21; 5:2-3; 2 John 4-6) that the members are to

love one another (1 John 3:18, 23; 4:7-8, 19-21; 5:1-3; 2 John 1, 5; 3 John 1, 6). The emphasis of

the commandment that the members have heard from the beginning (1 John 1:1-4; 2:7; 2 John 5)

clearly echoes Jesus’ words to the disciples in the Gospel, namely, that they should love one

7

another (John 13:34-35; 15:15). The crucial difference between Jesus’ love command and that of

the authors of the Epistles is situational. In the Gospel, Jesus’ love command serves as a guiding

principle for the disciples to withstand external persecution; in his absence, they are to stand with

one another in love. In the Epistles, however, the appeal to Jesus’ love command is a reaction to

the antichrists’ departure from the community. The result of some members having left the

community has occasioned the authors to exhort the remaining members to love one another.

(3) A Theology of Love. While loving one another is each member’s responsibility, the

originator of all love is God. But exactly how God has shown his love to sinful humanity is

diversely understood among biblical authors. In 1-3 John, the correlation between divine love

and its manifestation is reflected through two theological concepts, hilasmos (1 John 2:2; 4:10)

and agapē (1 John 2:2, 15; 3:1, 16, 17; 4:7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19; 5:3; 2 John 6; 3 John 6).

Hilasmos signifies the death of Jesus, while agapē refers to God’s love for humanity shown in

sending his Son into the world to die as an expiatory sacrifice for human sins (cf. John 3:16-17).

Special Issues

The unusually long form of 1 John, as compared to 2-3 John, raises a number of questions that

have import for understanding the history of the composition of the Epistles.

(1) The Presence of Christian Hymns. A number of passages in 1 John, if read separately,

could be construed as a homiletic, hymnic paraenesis that might have been circulated among

Christians. It is not accidental, for instance, that the eight verses between 1:5 and 2:2 form a

chiastic structure, and one sees in between a series of three pairs of antithetical statements (1:6 //

1:7; 1:8 // 1:9; 1:10 // 2:1). Similarly, another Christian hymn is detected in 1 John 2:28-3:12

(exactly 2:29b; 3:4a, 6a, 6b, 7a, 8a, 9a, 10b). Put together, these verses form a series of seamless

chiastic structures and a rich theology of Christian unity and admonition. These individual

8

passages may have been sung as homiletic exhortations. The presence of hymnic passages has

led some to hypothesize that the present 1 John is composed of Christian hymns. On the one

hand, it is critical to note that no extant manuscripts contain these hymns or exhortations apart

from their inclusion in 1 John. On the other hand, these hymnic passages can be read as a

significant reinterpretation of the Gospel’s message that Jesus, through his death-and-

resurrection and now being the Paraclete before the Father, was sung and proclaimed in liturgical

celebrations as the cleanser of our sins.

(2) Historical Background of the Antichrists. The pervasive mention of antichrists in 1-3

John has led some to argue that the authors address an essentially Jewish situation that eventually

ruptured the Johannine churches. Some who formerly belonged to the Johannine community

were Jewish Christians who withdrew from their initial confession of Jesus as the Messiah and

Son of God (1 John 2:18-28). As these left and returned to their former Judaic ways of life, the

authors wrote these Epistles to exhort those who remained to persevere and to love one another.

Again, while the attempt to identify the antichrists has a bearing on our understanding of the

history of the Johannine community, it remains an unproven hypothesis. The authors have no

intention of identifying this group more definitively than “antichrists.” Dissidence and apostasy

are inherent in every socio-religious group.

(3) A Collage of Multiple Sources. The length of 1 John can be plausibly explained as due

to a collage of multiple sources. The author who composed 1 John – whether one calls it a

homiletic exhortation, tractate, treatise, or epistle/letter – did so with creative thinking rooted in

rich theology, complex history, and community origins. As we have seen, this author is not

necessarily the same as the author of 2 or 3 John. In the commentary below, therefore, while

9

“John” or “the author” is used to indicate the author for each Epistle, the reader should keep in

mind the entire Johannine tradition and the canonical history behind the composition of 1-3 John.

Select Bibliography

Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles of John. AB 30. New York: Doubleday, 1982.

Culpepper, R. Alan and Paul N. Anderson. Communities in Dispute: Current Scholarship on the

Johannine Epistles. ECIL 13. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014.

Do, Toan. Rethinking the Death of Jesus: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Hilasmos and

Agapē in 1 John 2:1-2 and 4:7-10. CBET 73. Leuven: Peeters-Leuven University Press,

2014.

Lieu, Judith M. I, II, & III John. NTL. Louisville: WJK, 2008.

Painter, John. 1, 2, and 3 John. SP 18. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002.

Parsenios, George L. First, Second, and Third John. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014.

Perkins, Pheme. “The Johannine Epistles,” NJBC 62: 986-995.

First John

Plan and Outline

The previous sections treated the major topics in 1-3 John collectively. The following outline

highlights significant themes in 1 John.

Section I Prologue (1:1-4)

II God as light and his opposition to darkness (1:5-3:10)

A God is light without darkness (1:5-10)

B Jesus’ death as expiatory sacrifice for forgiveness of sins (2:1-2)

C Knowledge of God (2:3-17)

10

D Christ and the antichrists (2:18-27)

E God’s children versus the slanderer’s children (2:28-3:10)

III Love for one another (3:11-5:12)

A Gospel of love (3:11-24)

B Spirit of truth and of deceit (4:1-6)

C God as the author of love (4:7-10)

D Loving one another (4:11-21)

E Faith as conqueror of the world (5:1-12)

IV Epilogue (5:13-21)

Commentary

(I) Prologue (1:1-4)

The beginning of 1 John announces the good news regarding Jesus Christ, the Word of eternal

life. This so-called prologue is similar to that of the Gospel (John 1:1-18). The expression “from

the beginning” refers to the Word (logos), which is “the word of life.” This preexistent Word was

with the Father. The testimony of the author concerning this Word comes from his own

eyewitness. Now he wants to announce this good news to the community, so that they all may

have fellowship with one another. The author’s use of the first person plural “we” could refer to

the authoritative witness or to one who represents a community of people (1:1-4, 5-10). With the

later change to “I,” however, the difference in number could simply indicate a stylistic shift (2:1,

7, 12-14).

The four-fold “we have heard,” “seen,” “looked at,” and “touched” in verse 1 affirms the

physical existence of the logos. It also stresses the physical character of testimony concerning the

word of life: hearing has to do with ears, seeing and looking with eyes, and touching with hands.

11

The testimony is real and concrete, not abstract or fictional, thus reassuring the truthfulness of

the announcement. Hence, “what was from the beginning” refers to the preexistence of Jesus,

and also to the fact that this preexistent figure has been experienced in a physical fashion.

Verse 2 stresses the human life of Jesus as the revelation from God; this Jesus was with

the Father, but has been revealed to the author. Already John here emphasizes the real humanity

of Jesus as well as his preexistence with the Father. This dual characteristic of Jesus echoes the

Gospel’s description of the logos (John 1:1).

Repeating verse 1 somewhat, verse 3a reaffirms John’s intention to announce the good

news. But this time the announcement is followed by a purpose clause (hina), namely: he

announces the good news to the community so that the members may have fellowship with him.

A change in meaning behind the use of the first person plural seems to occur between verses 3a

and 3b. From this moment onward, the message no longer concerns the author per se, but is

directed toward the community. The movement from “you” and “us” (1:3a) to “our fellowship”

(1:3b) indicates that fellowship with one another is community-based and mirrors the Father-Son

relationship (cf. John 17:21).

The prologue concludes with the author’s purpose in writing. With the direct object

“these things,” the stress shifts from “writing to you” (cf. 2:1, 7, 12-14) to the content of the

gospel, the proclamation of which completes the author’s joy. In John 20:31, the author similarly

states that “these [things]” are written not simply to the community but rather for their sake so

that, through belief in Jesus Christ the Son of God, they may have life eternal. In 1 John 1:4, the

focus of writing is on the announcement of the good news concerning Jesus Christ as the source

of eternal life with the Father. The sense of purpose dominates the completeness of joy in the

author’s writing.

12

Although brief, this introduction is composed of one long sentence, and the logic can be

difficult to follow. Overall, however, the prologue announces several themes that will play out in

the rest of the epistle: the author’s testimony, Jesus as the revelation of God, fellowship within

the community, and the author’s joy.

(II) God as Light and His Opposition to Darkness (1:5-3:10)

Having announced the good news concerning Jesus Christ, the Son of God, having affirmed his

solidarity with the community, and having stated the purpose of writing this epistle, the author

now moves to his first major treatment about God. John begins the first part of the epistle with

several topics in which he places God at the center. This part consists of five sections. First, John

states that God is light and contrasts light with darkness and sin (1:5-10). Second, he affirms that

Jesus acts as advocate before the Father for sinful humans (2:1-2). Third, he discusses how one

may come to know God by keeping his commandment (2:3-17). Fourth, he denounces the

antichrists because they deny the Father and the Son (2:18-28). Finally, he contrasts God’s

children with the devil’s children; the former enact righteousness, while the latter do not (2:28-

3:10). Throughout this section, the author develops many of the themes he introduced in the

prologue.

(A) God is light without darkness (1:5-10). An ancient way of comparing pairs of

opposing images is first to predicate something of the subject and then contrast it with its

opposite (e.g., 1QS 3:13-4:26; John 1:4-9; 3:19-21; 8:12; 9:4-5; 11:9-10; 12:35-36, 46). This

literary description is called dualism. John begins this section by reemphasizing the message

concerning God. The author predicates that God is light, and then contrasts that light with

darkness (1:5). Using this analogy, the author moves on to contrast freedom from sin with

slavery to sin (1:6-7), and the denial of sin with the confession of sin (1:8-10).

13

The message concerning God (1:5a). The term “message” (angelia) occurs here and in

3:11; it shares the root with “messenger” or “angel” (angelos). John refers this message to the

good news concerning God (cf. euangelion in Mark 1:1). This message that the author proclaims

is the same gospel that the community has already heard. The origin of this gospel could refer to

either Jesus himself or to the author of the Gospel (John 20:31; 21:24).

God is light (1:5b). This statement is one of three Johannine descriptions of God; the

others are God is love (1 John 4:8, 16b) and God is Spirit (John 4:24).

Light without darkness (1:5c). Just as light is the opposite of darkness, so in God there is

no darkness. The following verses show the ethical application of these opposing images.

Sin and sinlessness (1:6-10). Picking up the theme of fellowship from the prologue, John

argues that we cannot claim fellowship with God and Jesus while, at the same time, walking in

darkness. The pronoun “him,” from autou (v. 6), can refer to God or Jesus, but the author’s

emphasis on fellowship seems to reflect the unity between the Father and the Son (1:3; cf. John

10:30; 17:21). Just as the harmony between the Father and the Son is pure and void of darkness,

so our claim to fellowship with them should entail our walking in the light. Our mutual solidarity

and walking in the light go hand in hand and complement one another (v. 7a). The act of having

fellowship and walking in the light is not merely an individual project, but a communal effort

and manifestation. Some of the dissidents may have tailored their understanding of the

fellowship between God and Jesus so that it did not impact their relationship with others. In

response, John maintains that only when we walk together in the light does the blood of God’s

Son cleanse us from sin. With this argument, John makes his first reference to sin (v. 7b).

While God is light and void of darkness, we human beings are not exempt from every

stain of darkness. Darkness is a metaphor for sin, but darkness and sin are not the same. Because

14

God is light and thus without darkness, God is void of all sin. But while Christians may strive to

walk together in the light and without sin, we are not free from every sin. Thus, the reality of sin

applies only to Christians, not to God or to Jesus. The theological implication behind this

argument is that Christians cannot say they have no sin (v. 8a) simply because we are not God or

Jesus, and because we do not yet see God face to face (cf. 3:2-3). Some may deceive themselves

by denying the reality of sin, but John maintains that the claim of human sinlessness is deceit and

falsehood (v. 8b). Here the author stresses that our acknowledgement of sins leads to the

cleansing from sin through the blood of Jesus. The reason for God’s Son to spill his blood is that

our acknowledged sins may be cleansed and that our fellowship with God may be restored (vv.

9-10). The blood and death of Jesus serve as the sacrificial means for God’s forgiveness of

human sin. John will pick up this theme again in the next section.

(B) Jesus is our advocate before the Father (2:1-2). This brief section contains one of

John’s strongest christological claims concerning Jesus’ righteousness, his role as our advocate

before the Father, and his death as the expiatory sacrifice for human sin. John directly addresses

his audience as “my little children” (teknia mou v. 1a). The diminutive teknia occurs elsewhere

(John 13:33; 1 John 2:12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21); by adding the personal pronoun mou, “my,”

John emphasizes that what he is about to say intimately concerns his endeared community

members. Earlier, the purpose for writing “these things” was to fulfill the author’s joy (1:4);

here, his purpose for writing “these things” is to urge his community members to avoid every

occasion of sin (v. 1b). By calling them “my little children,” John’s exhortation to the audience

not to sin bears more weight. However, if anyone does sin, the entire community can rely on

Jesus, who is righteous and the Paraklētos (“advocate” or “Paraclete”) before the Father (2:1c).

The shift from the third person “anyone” to the first person plural “we” once again emphasizes

15

the community setting of Christian life. While the Christian may sin individually, any

wrongdoing will affect the entire Christian community. For John, sin is not individualistic;

rather, when sin is committed, it has wider effects. Moreover, Jesus’ intercession before the

Father is not only for individual Christians, but for the entire community.

As verse 2 demonstrates, Jesus’ advocacy is also universal (cf. “for the whole world”).

As the Paraclete on believers’ behalf, Jesus now stands with the Father. Earlier, John claimed

that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sins (1:7); now, he says that Jesus’ sacrificial death is

the expiatory means for the forgiveness of the believers’ sins as well as for the salvation of the

entire world (v. 2). The spilling of blood (haima) and sacrificial death (hilasmos) culminate in

Jesus’ standing and union with the Father. This harmony between Jesus and the Father echoes

John’s claim earlier in the prologue that Jesus is the logos and the eternal life (1:1-2; John 1:1-2).

The real effect of this Father-Son fellowship lies in Jesus’ efficacious, expiatory death for the

sake of our salvation. Because it is incumbent upon everyone to experience this effect, John

introduces a new theme in which he discusses the believer’s ability to know God.

(C) Knowledge of God (2:3-17). The phrase egnōkamen auton literally means “we have

known him” (cf. 4:7). The pronoun “him” could refer to Jesus or God, or perhaps to the Father-

Son relationship (cf. 1:2). While the claim to know God is not without difficulty, ignorance of

him leads to disaster (cf. Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 15:34). But Christians do know God if they know

Jesus (John 1:10-12; 14:8-9). Whereas in the Gospel, the disciples know God by knowing Jesus

(10:30; 17:21), in 1 John, the believers know God by keeping his commandments (2:3-4; John

14:15; 15:12). The author of 1 John develops this theme of God-knowledge around four

arguments: keeping God’s commandments (2:3-6), appealing to the old commandment (2:7-11),

addressing three groups (2:12-14), and denouncing the world (2:15-17).

16

Keeping God’s commandments (2:3-6). John previously made an assertion regarding

Jesus’ blood and expiatory death. This assertion implies that, unlike Jesus’ disciples who knew

God through physical contact with him, subsequent Christians know God and Jesus by keeping

his commandments (v. 3). Knowledge of God therefore is not an abstract idea, but is manifested

in concrete actions. Lip service counts for nothing when one makes a promise without fulfilling

it. In fact, John names such an insincere person a liar (pseustēs), and there is no truth in this

person (v. 4; Jas 1:23-24). The argument here is similar to the one concerning fellowship with

God (1:6). Just as we cannot say we have fellowship with God when we walk in darkness, so

also we cannot say we have knowledge of God when we do not keep his commandments.

Knowledge of God comes to fruition only when we keep his word (v. 5). The movement from

“keeping his commandments (entolas)” in verses 3-4 to “keeping his word (logos)” in verse 5 is

mostly stylistic. Insofar as there is a distinction, entolas refers to God’s ethical commands, while

logos implies the entirety of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. In effect, however, these terms

point to a fundamental tenet of Johannine theology, as a comparison with John 14:21, 23 shows.

The author’s focus is on the knowledge of God as manifested by keeping his word and/or

commandments. In reality, John says, God’s love reaches perfection in the person who keeps his

word. Put differently, the ultimate goal of our love for God is our constant keeping his word.

This mode of doing allows us to claim we have fellowship with God, just as Jesus is in

fellowship with the Father (2:6).

Appealing to the old commandment (2:7-11). That the author slips back to an “I” mode of

expression (cf. 2:1) suggests a stylistic variation, as does his shift from “my little children” in

verse 1 to “my beloved” (agapētoi) in verse 7 in addressing the Johannine Christians. The

author’s tendency to shift between words can seem puzzling. Whereas in verses 3-4 John uses

17

the plural “commandments,” he changes the expression to the “word” in verse 5. Instead of

keeping the plural “commandments,” the author now employs the singular “commandment” in

verses 7-8. John claims to write an old commandment (v. 7), but then immediately asserts he is

writing a new commandment (v. 8). Scholars agree that this “commandment” echoes Jesus’ word

to his disciples that they love one another (John 13:34; 15:12; cf. 1 John 3:23; 4:21; 2 John 5-6),

but the shift from “old” to “new” has received numerous scholarly explanations. This variation

could simply refer to the author’s tendency to make play on words. Oldness may imply that the

original disciples of Jesus received the commandment from the beginning (v. 7b), while newness

may refer to subsequent Christians who continue to receive this tradition. John is emphasizing

the commandment that is old to the first disciples, but new to the present Johannine Christians.

This explanation makes sense of John’s use of an imperfect verb eichete (“you were having”; au.

trans. of v. 7). The original tradition thus continues to be passed on from one generation to the

next.

John next explicates the commandment in terms of “hatred” versus “love,” and

“darkness” versus “light” (2:9-11). The ethical dimension of the commandment is that Christians

cannot claim that they are walking in the light while hating a fellow Christian. Hating one’s

brother or sister is the stumbling block that causes one to remain in darkness. In this sense,

darkness and hatred are equivalent and are the root of sin. Having exhorted his community to

love one another, addressing them as “my beloved,” the author next appeals to individual age

groups within the community.

Addressing three groups (2:12-14). The structure of verses 12-14 forms a series of

parallels: little children (A // Aʹ), fathers (B // Bʹ), and young people (C // Cʹ). In the first parallel

(vv. 12a // 14a), the author employs the vocative plural of teknia and paidia to address the

18

“children”; both terms are diminutive forms and signify “little child” with an endearing

connotation. There is a change of referent in the use of teknia in vv. 1 and 12. In 2:1, he

addresses his community members as a whole, while in verse 12 he calls upon a particular group.

In keeping God’s commandment vis-à-vis knowing him, the children’s sins may be forgiven.

In the second parallel (vv. 13a // 14b), the author appeals to the “fathers” who have

known God from the beginning. Similar to 2:3 (cf. 1:1), this knowledge of God, manifested to

the disciples through Jesus’ ministry, is now passed on to the parents of young children. This

knowledge represents a long-standing tradition of the Johannine community. In the third parallel

(vv. 13b // 14c), the author calls on young adults because they have the capability to conquer the

evil one (ho ponēros). The abstract sense of evil may be drawn from John’s language of dualism.

Whereas the forces of darkness and hatred constantly lure young adults into temptation and sin,

they have the ability to resist such cosmic powers of evil because they have modeled themselves

after Jesus by abiding in his commandment. In effect, this series of parallels offers admonitions

to all members of the community.

Denouncing the world (2:15-17). The author begins this section with the command, “Do

not love the world” (v. 15a). Whereas in 2:2 John speaks of Jesus’ death as an expiatory means

of salvation for the entire world, in verse 15 he advises his community not to love the world.

While the term “world” (kosmos) occurs in both places, a subtle distinction should be kept in

mind. In 2:2, John asserts that Jesus’ sacrificial death serves as an expiation for the “sins” of the

community members; and the “world” may also have its salvation through his death. The

implication is that his blood has cleansed believers from all sins (1:7). “World” is used in a

natural sense.

19

In the context of verses 15-17, however, the author is not talking about the inhabitants of

the world in a neutral sense, but rather about the vices of people who cling to the values of the

“world.” The referent is now to dwellers of the “world” understood more negatively, so their

vices constitute what is in the world. Such vices derive from the desires of the flesh and the eyes,

and from the arrogance of seeking wealth (2:16; cf. Eph 2:3). Similar to the stumbling blocks of

darkness and hatred that cause one to sin, human vices are the roots of evil. Because these vices

come from people who belong to the “world” in this sense, they are not from the Father and thus

are against God. Whereas the Father and the Son are from the beginning and eternal life (1:1-2;

John 1:1-2), human vices belong to this passing world (2:17). While John denounces the human

vices of this world, he holds the conviction that the world (in a neutral sense) can also receive

salvation through Jesus’ sacrificial death.

(D) Christ and the antichrists (2:18-27). Having discussed the knowledge of God, the

author takes up a related topic. John warns against the antichrists as dissidents and discusses their

apostasy. He develops the overall theme in five arguments: the arrival of the antichrists at the last

hour (2:18-19), the holy-anointing that preserves true faith (2:20-21), a definition of falsehood

(2:22-23), an appeal to knowledge (2:24-25), and another reference to the holy-anointing that

teaches truth (2:26-27).

The arrival of the antichrists at the last hour (2:18-19). Once again, John addresses the

entire community. Similar to 2:1, John uses the endearing term “children” (cf. 2:12, 14). In

comparison with the phrase “on the last day” (en tē eschatē hēmera; John 6:39, 40, 44, 54;

11:24), the expression of “the last hour” (eschatē hōra) here in verse 18 (2x) does not imply an

eschatological warning, but refers to an imminent reality. The author of 1 John seems to envision

the immediate arrival of the antichrists. In fact, the perfect tense gegonasin “[they] have come”

20

implies that these false Christians have already made their appearance in the community. While

the expression “antichrists” is peculiar to 1-2 John (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7), the NT

speaks of discipleship in connection with apostasy (cf. John 6:66; 1 Cor 11:19). The fact that

both 1-2 John attest to this terminology suggests that these antichrists are people who formerly

belonged to the community, but now “went out from us” (2:19). Because they have left the

Christian community, John denies that these dissidents have ever had any true association with

his community.

The holy-anointing preserves true faith (2:20-21). Associating the way of the antichrists

with falsehood (pseudos; v. 21), John maintains that the remaining community members know

the truth. Knowing the truth seems to have a durative sense, since the present perfect oidate can

be translated as “you have known” or “you know.” John supports this argument by stating that

true Christians possess an anointing (chrisma) from “the Holy One” (v. 20). In this instance, the

Holy One can refer to God, Jesus, and/or the Holy Spirit conferred upon one’s baptism. Different

readings in the Johannine writings support such implications (John 3:5; 6:69; 16:13; 1 John 2:1;

5:6-8; cf. 2 Cor 1: 21-21). The stark contrast between the antichrists and the true Christians is

that the former walk in falsehood, while the latter have been anointed with the Spirit of truth (cf.

John 14: 15:26; 16:13).

Defining falsehood (2:22-23). After introducing falsehood, John characterizes its

practitioners with the term “liar” (pseustēs). The move from the abstract “falsehood” to the

concrete “liar” suggests that John is speaking of the known and ongoing fact of schism and

apostasy. Although verse 22 reads like a rhetorical question, John’s intention is quite simple.

John identifies the liar with the one who denies that Jesus is “the Christ” (ho Christos), that is,

“the Messiah” (literally, “anointed one”). For John, while Christians possess a chrisma from the

21

Holy One (2:20), Jesus himself is the Holy One and the Son of God (1:2; 2:1; cf. John 1:1-2;

20:31). Thus, denying that Jesus is the Christ means falsifying his divinity, and the denier thus

denies both the Father and the Son.

Appealing to knowledge (2:24-25). To counter the liar’s christological falsehood, John

once again appeals to the community’s received knowledge of God from the beginning – the

belief in God and Jesus. John argues that Christians will receive God’s promise of eternal life

(1:2) if this knowledge remains with them.

The holy-anointing teaches further truth (2:26-27). Whenever the term “writing” occurs

in 1 John, a sense of purpose follows (cf. 1:4; 2:1, 7, 8, 12, 13 [2x], 14 [3x], 21, 26; 5:13). John

concludes this section on the Christ and the antichrists by affirming that the reason for writing

“these things” concerns an ongoing possibility of false Christology among the believers. The

chrisma that Christians receive from the Holy One will lead them to further truth.

(E) God’s children versus the slanderer’s children (2:28-3:10). John continues the

treatment of God by contrasting God’s children with those of the slanderer. John develops this

contrasting image in four arguments: Christ’s revelation at the parousia (2:28-29), the author’s

confidence in who and what we are (3:1-3), a definition of sin (3:4-6), and a summary statement

contrasting God’s children with the slanderer’s (3:7-10).

Christ’s revelation at the parousia (2:28-29). This unit is closely connected to the

previous one. The theme of abiding and remaining in God through Christ is further elaborated

with the promise of Christ’s second coming at the end of the age (parousia). Christ’s revelation

to believers, however, does not occur without condition. The requisite for receiving this

revelation is twofold: ongoing fellowship with God and Jesus, and our doing righteousness.

22

Confidence in who and what we are (3:1-3). Earlier John maintained that knowledge of

God is gained through keeping his commandments (2:3). Such knowledge separates the

Johannine members from the rest of the world because the latter’s inhabitants do not know God.

Echoing the argument against the antichrists (2:22), John states that these non-believers had

never accepted God (cf. John 1:12). Knowledge of God gives believers access to becoming

God’s children. John understands that becoming God’s children is a quality characterized by

“love” (agapē). The phrase potapos agapē, which may be rendered “how great [is the] love,”

describes well this quality of being made God’s children. Although the fullness of this great love

is yet to be revealed until Jesus’ parousia (3:2; cf. 1 Cor 13:12; 2 Cor 3:8), Christians may dimly

experience this quality through our confession of God and Jesus (John 14:8-9). Thus, the real

effect of Christians’ knowledge of God does not lie in theoretical discourses, but ought to be

manifested in praxis, namely: God’s children are to keep his commandments by doing love for

one another and by confessing Jesus as the Son of God.

Defining sin (3:4-6). Literally, verse 4a reads that “everyone who makes/does sin

makes/does lawlessness,” while verse 4b declares that “sin (hamartia) is lawlessness (anomia).”

If John has in mind that lawlessness is the opposite of God’s commandments (2:3), then the act

of sinning is equivalent to the refusal to keep the commandments. Lawlessness therefore takes

place when a person refuses and rejects God’s commandments. Whereas Paul employs anomia

as a frame of mind (Rom 6:19), John defines lawlessness as a committed act (ho poiōn tēn

hamartian).

God’s children vs. the slanderer’s (3:7-10). Having emphasized the making or doing of

sin, John now associates the act with slander. Although the NRSV translates ho diabolos as “the

devil,” the phrase can also be rendered as “the slanderer.” In this rendering, verse 8a literally

23

reads that “everyone who makes sin is from (ek) the slanderer, because the slanderer sins from

the beginning.” Echoing the argument against the “liar” (2:22), John refutes here the falsehood of

the slanderer, because slandering involves false testimony regarding Jesus Christ the Son of God

(John 8:44). For this reason, John maintains, the Son of God was made known so that he might

destroy the acts of slandering. The ministry of Jesus is the testimony of God’s revelation (John

5:31, 36; 8:14). In reality, God’s children sharply differ from the slanderer’s children in that the

former know God by confessing that Jesus is the Christ, while the latter have never known God

because they deny this Christology.

John’s statement in verse 9, “Those who have been born of God do not sin,” seems to be

in tension with what he claimed in 1:6-10. The tension, however, is more apparent than real. In

the present passage, the author is emphasizing his conviction that God, through Jesus, has

defeated the power of sin. This is manifested in believers’ being forgiven, made God’s children,

and filled with God’s Spirit. The point made earlier, in 1:6-10, is that we can at times fail to live

according to this conviction. In that case, honest acknowledgement of sin and turning to God’s

mercy leads to forgiveness through the expiating blood of Jesus.

Having developed his treatment on God in the first half of the epistle, John takes up a

new major theme in the second half: the theme of love.

(III) Love for one another (3:11-5:12)

Peculiar to 1 John, the noun angelia (“message”) occurs here for the second time. In 1:5, John

uses the term to discuss the good news concerning God (1:5-3:10). In 3:11, he employs it to treat

the gospel of love (3:11-5:12). This second part contains five sections. First, John explains what

love means (3:11-24). Second, he contrasts the Spirit of truth with the spirit of deceit (4:1-6).

Third, he insists that God is the author of love (4:7-10). Fourth, he applies this concept of love to

24

action: we ought to love one another (4:11-21). Finally, he explains that faith conquers the world

(5:1-12).

(A) The gospel of love (3:11-24). In the gospel concerning God, John contrasted God

with darkness (1:5). In the gospel concerning love, John now exhorts his readers to love one

another.

Love and hatred (3:11-12). The author recalls the figure of Cain (Gen 4:6), the only

reference to the OT in this epistle (cf. Jude 11). If there is no darkness in God, there is also no

hatred in love. John evokes Cain’s hatred of his brother, which leads him to murder his brother.

While John does not mention the name Abel (cf. Matt 23:35; Luke 11:51; Heb 11:4; 12:24), the

reader is to infer that Cain and Abel are the two sons of Adam (Gen 4:1-16). The comparison of

Cain’s deed with evil suggests that murder (sphazein; “to slaughter”) is not just a frame of mind

but manifests itself in violence. In its manifestation, therefore, hatred is entirely absent of love.

Model of love (3:13-18). Reference to the “world” (kosmos) implies its inhabitants, not

the cosmos per se. John warns his audience not to be surprised of the world’s hatred toward

Christians, even to the point of killing them. The stark contrast between the world’s inhabitants

and Christians lies in the conviction that, by loving one another, the Johannine members no

longer taste death but experience real life in God. Modeled after Jesus who, because of his love,

laid down his life for his friends (John 15:13; cf. 10:11, 15), Christians are called to do the same

for one another. True love is not lip service, but concretized in action by sharing material needs

with others (vv. 17-18).

Confidence of heart (3:19-22). The idiomatic expression of “by this” (en toutō) is typical

of 1 John (cf. 2:3; 3:19, 24; 4:2, 6, 9, 10; 13, 17; 5:2). In the context of 3:19-22, the phrase

recalls what John has just mentioned in 3:18 that Christians ought to love one another. Love

25

(agape) in Johannine literature always takes the form of action. By doing acts of love, the

community members are assured that they possess the Spirit of truth (John 4:23). This

knowledge of truth and of God is not a prize given to us by another person, but is revealed to us

in our hearts. In doing love (en toutō), our hearts have come to the realization that we have

fellowship with God and Jesus.

Commandment of love (3:23-24). John early employed entolē (2:3-6) to signify our

keeping God’s commandments. There the reader was reminded, by implication, of Jesus’ word to

his disciples in the Gospel that they are to love one another (John 13:34; 15:12). Now the author

explicitly links this entolē to Jesus’ teaching. Recalling his love command has a twofold purpose:

(1) love has to be manifested in actions; and (2) in doing love, as contrasted to hatred (cf. 3:11-

12), Christians can drive out their own hatred of others. The section concludes with John’s

reassurance that our knowledge of God’s dwelling in us (John 1:11) comes through the Spirit

received upon our baptismal entrance into the community. The conclusion also prepares the

reader for John’s next discussion of the spirit of truth and of deceit.

(B) The Spirit of truth and of deceit (4:1-6). John does two things in this discussion: (1)

he distinguishes the spirit of truth from the spirit of falsehood (4:1-3); and (2) he distinguishes

Christians from the inhabitants of the world (4:4-6).

Test the spirits (4:1-3). Because everyone can appeal to the Spirit, John maintains that

Christians must put the spirits to the test. In using the phrase “you have been anointed by the

Holy One, and all of you have knowledge” in 2:20, the author says that the anointing of the Holy

Spirit imbues Christians with a gift of knowledge. In this context, knowledge is a process of

spiritual discernment; it is not a given or to be taken for granted. Christians are therefore called

to distinguish true knowledge from falsehood. Just as there is only one true God as opposed to

26

many false gods, so also there is only one true Spirit (to pneuma) as opposed to many false

spirits (ta pneumata). The true spirit is the Spirit of God (to pneuma tou theou).

Although it is the task of every Christian to test and distinguish the true Spirit from the

false one, the ability to make this distinction is difficult. John gives one criterion in verse 2: “By

this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the

flesh is from God.” He then explains the opposite of this criterion in verse 3a: “And every spirit

that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist.” In 2:22, John

relates falsehood to the denial that Jesus is the Messiah. Here in 4:2, falsehood is analogous to

the denial that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. Notice how the author affirms the dual nature

of Jesus, who is God’s Anointed One and who has come in human flesh (1 John 1:1; John 1:11,

14).

Belonging to God or to the world (4:4-6). Calling his community once again “little

children,” John draws their attention to the fact that they are from God (cf. 3:2). With the Spirit’s

anointing conferred on their baptism (2:20), the Johannine members have overcome the spirits of

falsehood. The phrase nenikēkate autous (“you have conquered them”) in verse 4 probably refers

to the pseudo-prophets (pseudoprophētai) referred to verse 1. They are the world’s inhabitants

and deceivers who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in human flesh. The key to

discerning between the spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood lies in the confession of Jesus.

(C) God is the author of love (4:7-10). This section serves as the center of John’s

treatment on love. Not only does he provide the source of love, but he also explains how that

love is manifested. For John, the author of all love is God himself (3:11-5:12). The arrangement

of verses 7-10 presents John’s rich theology of love. The overall argument is developed around

the meaning of divine love (agapē), which constitutes the primary theological motivation for

27

God to send his Son into the world to be the expiatory means for human sins (4:10; cf. John

3:16-17). In recalling John 3:16-17, the author also appeals to the greatest manifestation of love

that Jesus showed by laying down his life (cf. John 15:13). As the sent One from God, Jesus has

inculcated in his disciples and thus all subsequent Christians the model of divine love. For John,

God is not only the author of all love, but also is the exemplar of doing love.

Let us love one another (4:7-8a). In John 13:34 and 15:12, Jesus commands his disciples

to love one another in the same way that he has loved them. In the context of 1 John, Christians

are to love one another while awaiting Jesus’ parousia (2:28-29).The exhortation to this mutual

love is inspired by the fact that love has its origin in God. The present participle of ho agapōn

(“the one who loves”) anticipates that love should be manifested in action. The act of love

distinguishes the Christian who “knows God” from the person who does not (cf. 2:3-5; 3:1, 11).

God is love (4:8b). This short sentence reaffirms verse 7b that love is from God and is

thus considered one of the divine attributes. Similar expressions occur elsewhere, namely: God is

light (1:5b) and God is spirit (John 4:24). Love, light, and spirit each describe who God is and

what God does, as John shows in verse 10 below. Just as pneuma can mean “air,” “breath,” or

“spirit,” so the triple description of God as love, light, and spirit point to his divine attributes. In

Johannine theology, that God is love, and not the reverse, demonstrates that God is the source

and author of love.

What God does in love (4:9-10). The resounding theme of divine love in the Johannine

writings must be seen as God’s initiative. God took the initiative to send his only Son Jesus

Christ into the world so that he might serve as the expiatory sacrifice for human sins (2:2; 4:10;

John 3:16). Whatever effects human love has for one another (and/or for God), it mirrors and is

modeled after God’s love for us through Jesus Christ.

28

(D) Loving one another reemphasized (4:11-21). This section repeats some of the

discussion in the previous section. Because he is reemphasizing the theme of love, John is able to

expand his view with more detail. First, Christians ought to love one another because God has

loved us (4:11-16a). Second, God’s love is made perfect in our loving one another (4:16b-21).

Responsibility of love (4:11-16a). That Christians ought to love one another is not only an

ethical and moral obligation, but a concrete manifestation of God’s dwelling in us. Because no

human being has ever seen God the Father, except God’s incarnate Son Jesus Christ (John 1:18;

5:37; 6:46), our claim of having faith and love in God must be translated into mutual love for one

another. Picking up what he has briefly mentioned in the prologue (1:1), John reemphasizes that

not only has the community experienced God’s indwelling through the incarnation of Jesus, but

also continues to testify to God’s love when he sent his Son as the Savior of the world (4:14; cf.

2:2; 4:10; John 3:16-17). What God has done in the historic past through Jesus and the ongoing

effects of his divine love remain evident in the Spirit’s dwelling in us (4:13; cf. 4:1-6). Thus, the

person who confesses that Jesus is the Son of God possesses the true Spirit of God (4:15-16a).

Everlasting love (4:16b-21). That God is love is a statement of truth (4:8b, 16b). But John

argues that not everyone knows or experiences this reality. He reinterprets Jesus’ dialogue with

Nicodemus that the Spirit blows where he wishes and that one may hear his sound but may not

know whence he comes or whither he goes (John 3:8). In the same way, we cannot know or

experience that God is spirit (John 4:24) or that God is light (1 John 1:5b), unless we show our

love to one another. Whereas in 1 John 2:3 the measure of knowing God and Jesus is by keeping

the commandments, in 4:16b-17 the criterion of remaining in God and his love is seen through

our love for one another. So long as Christians remain in love for one another, they should have

no fear on the judgment day. Already in 3:11-12, John recalled the first murder story: because

29

Cain envied his brother Abel, thinking the latter would outdo him and gain favor from the Lord,

his envy and fear led him to hatred, and hatred led to murder. Envy, fear, and hatred are vices

that are entirely void of love. Just as hatred is the opposite of love (3:11-12), so also envy and

fear are the contrast of love (4:18); and just as hatred may cause one to become a murderer

(anthrōpoktonos in 3:15), so also envy and fear may lead one to punishment (kolasis in 4:18). In

concluding this section, John returns to the double command to love God and one’s fellow

Christians (4:19-21; cf. 3:23).

(E) Faith conquers the world (5:1-12). In this section, John reiterates much of the

content previously discussed (1:1-4; 2:3-6, 15-17; 3:1-3, 13-18; 4:1-6). The nuance in this

section lies in John’s elaboration of the meaning of pistis (“faith”). The argument advances from

what faith is (vv. 1-5) to what faith does (vv. 6-12).

Faith conquers the world (5:1-5). John links the christological confession in verse 1 with

the conviction in verse 5 that the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God conquers

the world. Here the present tenses ho pisteuōn (“the one who believes”) and ho nikōn (“the one

who conquers”; au. trans.) suggest that believing and conquering are an ongoing effort and

commitment. One cannot conquer the world without one’s faith (v. 4). Victory is won so long as

one keeps believing, and faith is motivated by mutual love (vv. 2-3).

Faith testifies (5:6-12). Because pistis (“faith”) can be abstractly perceived, John

articulates this abstract noun in terms of ho pisteuōn (“the one who believes”). The reader has

seen John’s articulation with regard to love. Because agapē (“love”; 4:8) can be abstract, John

explains God’s love in terms of the sending of his Son Jesus Christ into the world (4:10). Just as

action (i.e., loving and believing) is more significant than ideas alone, so John emphasizes that

faith bears fruit in action. A particular act of faith is testifying to God’s love.

30

God has testified to his divine love by sending his Son Jesus Christ to the world (4:10;

John 3:16). Jesus’ indwelling in the world took the form of water, blood, and Spirit (v. 6), but the

Spirit continues to testify to this truth (vv. 7-8). The implication of God’s salvific work is that

Christians ought to imitate this love with their ongoing efforts to spread the faith throughout the

world (v. 9). Echoing the discussion in 5:1-5, John says that Christians’ victory in the world

involves the spreading of the gospel that God is light (1:5), that God is love (4:8), and that God is

Spirit (John 4:24; cf. 1 John 5:6-8); moreover, this God has revealed his love in Jesus Christ

coming in the flesh (2:18-28; 4:2; 5:1-12). For John, this gospel is the foundation of eternal life.

Some Medieval Latin manuscripts contain an expanded version of the Greek text of 1

John 5:7-8: “There are three that testify in heaven: Father, Word, and Holy Spirit; and these

three are one; and there are three who testify on earth: the Spirit and the water and the blood,

and these three agree” (the Latin expansion is in italics). This expanded text is known as the

Johannine Comma. Left alone, the Greek text of vv. 7-8 does leave ambiguity, giving the

impression of an incomplete sentence and thought. Thus, for reasons of logical flow and

theology, scribes inserted these words. The majority of modern scholars agree, however, that

even with the expansion, the flow of vv. 7-8 is not clear. The difficulty posed by the expansion

lies in the impression that there are two distinct “spirits” (cf. 1 John 2:1 with John 14:16-17, 26;

15:26-27; 16:7). On the basis of the Greek text alone, a possible explanation is that John here

emphasizes – in addition to the Spirit’s testimony that Jesus is God’s Son (John 1:33-34) – via

the reference to “water and blood” Jesus’ death on the cross (John 19:34) as the revelation of

God’s love and the means of expiation of sins.

(IV) Epilogue (5:13-21)

31

The author concludes by recapitulating many of the themes he first mentioned in the prologue

(1:1-4) and then discussed in the course of the body of the writing (1:5-5:12). He begins the

epilogue with a reference to the conclusion in the Gospel (compare 1 John 5:13 with John 20:30-

31), and ends with a call to be on guard against idols (5:21). The argument develops around

John’s call of mutual support for one another.

The purpose of writing (5:13). Whenever the author employs the verb graphō (“write”)

(cf. 1:4; 2:1, 7, 8, 12, 13 [2x], 14 [3x], 21, 26; 5:13), he emphasizes a sense of purpose. Echoing

John 20:30-31, the author now asserts that he has written down “these things” so that his readers

may know they have eternal life in Jesus Christ.

Right petitions (5:14-15). John believes in asking for the right things. Whereas Jesus in

the Synoptic Gospels teaches his disciples to pray for the coming of God’s kingdom (Matt 6:9;

Luke 11:2), John exerts the community to ask for things according to God’s will (v. 14). God’s

bestowal of our requests is conditioned by our discernment of his will (v. 15).At first glance, this

may sound difficult. But in fact John has already discussed our knowledge of God by keeping his

commandments (2:3-6), by our confession of Jesus (2:18-28), by our love for one another (3:23-

24; 4:7-8a), and by our faith in God and Jesus (5:1-5). These measures of life – the Christian

ways – demonstrate our knowledge of God and discernment of his will.

An example of right petition (5:16-17). While all wrongdoing is sin, not every sin is

deadly. Resonating the previous discussion on sin and sinlessness (1:6-2:2), John holds that God

will give life to those whose sin is not perilous (mē pros thanaton; v. 16). This teaching echoes

the Synoptic Gospels, where Jesus announces that every sin will be forgiven except the one

against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:28-30; Matt 12:31). Jesus explains further that even the sin

against the Son of Man will be forgiven (Matt 12:32). The Synoptics’ view of the latter may

32

seem to contradict John’s denouncing the sin that denies Jesus is the Christ who has come in the

flesh (2:18-28; 4:2; 5:1-12).

Strictly speaking, the reader should not resort to the Synoptic Gospels in resolving

difficult theological issues in the Johannine writings, for each NT author was writing for his own

audience. Theologically speaking, therefore, this difficulty should be best explained based on the

context of the Johannine communities. Here the author of 1 John seems to have already linked

Jesus with the Paraclete, the one who advocates for sinful Christians (2:1-2). Thus, the Johannine

reader can refer to God’s forgiveness of those whose sin is not against Jesus, who has come in

the flesh (2:22) and whose blood has cleansed them from sin (1:7).

Mutual support against sin (5:18-20). While maintaining that Christians who have been

born of God do not sin (3:6, 9-10; 5:1-5, 18a), John also calls for them to protect community

members who are on the brink of falling away (v. 18b). Once more, we encounter the apparent

tension between his insistence that Christians must confess their sin (1:6-10) and his statements

that Christians do not sin. I have treated that tension above (see the interpretation of 3:7-10).

In the present passage, notice that John understands that because Christians are among

the inhabitants of the world, the world may exert its evil force on believers (5:19). John may be

hinting at the antichrists whose disbelief and departure might influence the community members.

To be rescued from this temptation, therefore, Christians are to support one another in believing

in Jesus and confessing that he is the Christ and has come in the flesh (5:20). This task of helping

and supporting one another requires communal effort. Once more, John emphasizes communal

over individualistic concerns.

Final exhortation (5:21). John concludes by warning the community against the

temptation of falling for idol practices (eidōla). This unusual ending and word – otherwise not

33

attested in Johannine corpus – seems to refer back to 4:1-2 about the opponents who were

considered false prophets and who taught others false prophecy. This concluding warning

suggests that rejection of God’s love as revealed through Jesus is tantamount to practicing

idolatry.

Second John

Plan and Outline

Second John not only reflects the Hellenistic letter format (opening, body, and conclusion), but

shows its Christian influence with its mention of grace, mercy, and peace from God and Jesus

Christ. This thirteen-verse epistle may be outlined as follows:

Section I Salutation (vv. 1-3)

II Truth and love (vv. 4-11)

III Final greetings (vv. 12-13)

(I) Salutation (vv. 1-3)

The cluster of phrases found here is typical of early Christian letter tradition. The purpose of a

salutation is to send greetings from the author to the recipients. Many of Paul’s letters show a

similar opening (cf. 1 Thess 1:1-10; 1 Cor 1:1-9; Philm 1-3; etc.).

The elder (v. 1). Calling himself “the elder” (ho presbyteros) at the very beginning (v.

1a), the author sends his greetings to the “elect lady” (eklektē kyria) and her “children” (tois

teknois). Echoing the call of mutual love found throughout 1 John, (cf. 1 John 3:11; 4:7), the

author shares this spirit of Christian love with the community (v. 1b). He affirms that everyone

who has known the truth will manifest it in Christian love (v. 1c). The perfect participle of the

verb “know” (oi egnōkotes) seems to suggest that “the truth” (tēn alētheian) reflects three

criteria, all of which are found in 1 John. They are the knowledge of God in keeping his

34

commandments (1 John 2:3-6), the confession of Jesus who is the Christ and who has come in

human flesh (1 John 2:22-25), and the performance of love (1 John 3:11, 14, 19, 23; 4:7-10).

However, several ambiguities stand out in verse 1. First, although the author calls himself

“the elder,” it is difficult for the letter recipients, as well as for subsequent readers, to determine

exactly to whom ho presbyteros refers. Some think that this phrase refers to an ecclesiastical

office, while others opt for a teaching body (cf. 1 John 1:1-4 with 1 Tim 5:17; Tit 1:5; 1 Pet 5:1).

One may argue that the author of 1 John also wrote 2 John. Yet, the lack of name and the acute

difference in the letter openings in 1 John and 2 John speak against this argument. Second, while

the phrase eklektē kyria can be translated as “elect lady,” it may also be rendered as “the elect

church” or “the Christians as a group” (BDAG; cf. v. 13). Reading from the Latin translation of

the Hypotypōsis of Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200 CE), some scholars propose that if the

adjective eklektē is read as a substantive, it may refer to an individual woman named “Electa,”

who lived in Babylon with her children. While this hypothesis has a bearing on the reading of the

text, it remains questionable as to why the author would call himself ho presbyteros, rather than

using his real name, if he and Electa were acquainted with one another. One way to soften these

ambiguities is simply to allow the text to retain them; that is, the sender (an unidentified author)

and the addressees (a particular Christian community) remain anonymous.

The truth (v. 2). Picking up on the reference to “truth” in verse 1, verse 2 asserts that the

truth will remain for all eternity. The phrase “in us,” as opposed to “in them” (i.e, the antichrists

in 1 John 2:18-28 and the false prophets in 1 John 4:1-4), seems to make a claim regarding the

authorial witness behind the meaning of the “truth” (cf. 1 John 1:1-4). If this interpretation is

correct, it spells out who holds the truth and how the truth affects the holder(s). In employing the

35

first person plural, the author emphasizes that the abiding truth resides in the entire community,

which encompasses himself and all Christians.

Elements of the greetings (v. 3). Grace, mercy, and peace are the elements of the author’s

greetings to the elect lady and her children. Although the author is the sender of these divine

greetings, he wants the community members to know that the origin of grace, mercy, and truth

comes from (para) God and Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Only “in truth and love,” therefore,

will the Christians experience these divine gifts.

(II) Truth and Love (vv. 4-11)

After the salutation, the author begins the principal discussion of the letter. He develops the

discussion around the contrast between truth and falsehood. The content echoes many of the

themes in 1 John, except some measures taken against false teachers in verses 9-11. This section

may be divided into three stages.

Walking in truth and love (vv. 4-6). The author states that he rejoiced exceedingly

because he discovered that some of the members were “walking in the truth” (en alētheia

peripatounta). The triple criteria of truth from verse 1 should be kept in mind here. With the

author’s employment of the present active participle peripatountas (“walking”), the reader

understands that the action of walking in the truth is continuous. In reality, some of the children

of this elect lady were constantly living and obeying the commandments given to them from God

the Father (cf. 1 John 2:3-6). Drawing the elect lady’s attention regarding the old commandment

(cf. 1 John 2:7-8), the author reminds her that Christians are to love one another (v. 5) and to

conduct their lives in accord with the commandments (v. 6).

The departure of the antichrist (vv. 7-8). After announcing the good deeds of the elect

lady’s children, the author provides a reason why he continues to exhort them to live rightly. In

36

verse 4, the so-called partitive genitive (or genitive of the divided whole), ek tōn teknōn sou

(“some of your children”), suggests that some, but not all, of the children were walking in the

truth. In reality, the larger a Christian community is, the more likely some members will disobey

the commandment. Here, the elder asserts that many deceivers have left the community and gone

out into the world. Typical of the Johannine Epistles (cf. 1 John 2:18-27; 4:1-6; 5:6-12; 2 John 7-

11; 3 John 10), the author uses the label “antichrist” for those who do not confess that Jesus has

come in the flesh (v. 7). He calls on those who still remain in the community and who are

constantly walking in the truth to be on their watch, so that they may not lose everything they

have hitherto accomplished and thereby receive a full reward (v. 8; cf. 1 John 3:7; 4:1-3).

Although the author does not clearly indicate what the full reward may be in this context, hints of

this have been given elsewhere: eternal life with God and Jesus (1 John 1:2), and to realizing the

fullness of life as God’s children (1 John 3:1-3; John 1:12).

Warning against false teaching (vv. 9-11). This warning is very similar to the definition

of falsehood and the appeal to knowledge in 1 John 2:22-25. Although “the teaching of Christ”

(didachē tou Christou) is not spelled out, it is taken for granted that the community members are

aware of Jesus’ love command to his disciples in the Gospel (John 13:34; 15:12), and that the

readers are to refer to the discussion of this commandment throughout 1 John (1 John 1:7-8;

3:11, 14, 16, 23; 4:7, 11, 19-21; 5:2-3). Moreover, the fact that the focus of this section is largely

on the contrast between truth and falsehood suggests that the triple criteria entailed in walking in

the truth in verse 1 above are once again at work here. The fulfillment of these criteria enables

Christians to know God (v. 9). But to act on these criteria means to take a stance against the false

teaching that refuses to confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (v. 7) or to obey God’s

37

commandment (v. 9). In effect, standing against falsehood means showing neither hospitality to

nor complicity with any of the antichrist’s activities (vv. 10-11).

(III) Final greetings (vv. 12-13)

The author’s promise of a personal visit to the elect lady and her children suggests future

encounter. The phrase “so that our joy may be complete” (hina hē chara hēmōn ē peplērōmenē;

v. 12) implies that the author has an intimate relationship with this elect lady and her children.

This clause also occurs in 1 John 1:4. The difference lies in the modes of expression by which

joy is accomplished. Whereas in 1 John 1:4 “joy” will be completed because of the author’s

writing the epistle, in 2 John 12 “joy” will be completed because of the author’s personal visit to

the community. The author concludes with the greetings to this elect lady from the children of

the elect sister (v. 13). The similar expressions eklektē kuria (“elect lady” v. 1) and tēs adelphēs

sou tēs eklektēs (“your elect sister” v. 13) suggest that the author is writing from his community

to another Christian community.

Third John

Plan and Outline

Second and Third John share in the characterization of short Christian letters (cf. Philemon;

Jude). Unlike 2 John, however, 3 John is a personal letter, written to an individual person named

Gaius. While 2 John mentions no individual by name (unless “Electa” refers to a particular

woman), 3 John names three persons: Gaius, Diotrephes, and Demetrius. This fifteen-verse letter

may be outlined as follows:

Section I Salutation (v. 1)

II Gaius commended for his hospitality (vv. 2-8)

III Diotrephes and Demetrius (vv. 9-12)

38

IV Final greetings (vv. 13-15)

(I) Salutation (v. 1)

Calling himself “the elder” (ho presbyteros), the author writes this letter to a Christian named

Gaius. He calls Gaius “the beloved” (ho agapētos) – a very common expression in the Johannine

writings. This brief salutation lacks the elements of other NT greetings, such as grace, mercy,

and peace (cf. 2 John 3). This does not imply the author’s negligence, but rather suggests that

there may have been other similar, now lost, letters from the same author to the same Gaius, and

that the author did not feel the need to repeat the elements of the greetings. The phrase en

alētheia (“in truth”) reminds the reader of 2 John 1; it also suggests solidarity and Christian

fellowship between the author and Gaius.

(II) Gaius commended for his hospitality (vv. 2-8)

Although this section is bracketed by the author’s commendation of hospitality, the fundamental

message is his theological emphasis on Gaius’s walking in the truth. Such is the real reason for

the author’s great joy. Walking in the truth means conducting one’s life in accordance with

God’s commandments and Jesus’ teaching. There is no other cause for greater joy than this. The

section proceeds in the following two stages, with each stage introduced with the vocative

(“beloved” (agapēte).

Beloved in truth (vv. 2-4). Although the letter lacks the elements of the formal greetings

(cf. 2 John 3), it contains a personal good wish. In this health wish, the author shows gestures of

Christian love with his continuous prayers for the good health for Gaius in both body and soul (v.

2). In his great joy (cf. 2 John 4) at the news he received from other Christians, the author states

that they bear witness to Gaius’s uprightness (v. 3). The fact that this verse is peppered with

present tense verbs suggests that Gaius’s Christian life and practice are constant and abiding. The

39

author further praises Gaius for being among those who are “walking in the truth: (en alētheia

peripatounta) (v. 4). This expression also occurs in 2 John 4, where the author praises some of

the children of the elect lady who were walking in the truth. In both 2 and 3 John, the audience is

supposed to be well aware of the elements of “truth” referred to by the author, namely: the

knowledge of God in keeping his commandments (1 John 2:3-6), the confession of Jesus who is

the Christ and who has come in human flesh (1 John 2:22-25), and the performance of love (1

John 3:11, 14, 19, 23; 4:7-10). Enacting these criteria of truth gives the author great joy (v. 4).

Beloved in faith (vv. 5-8). Verse 5 literally reads: “Beloved, you are faring with faith

whatever you may be carrying out for the sake of the brothers and the strangers” (au. trans.).

While the Greek xenous is rendered “strangers” (cf. also NRSV), it can in this context imply

“other Christians” with whom Gaius was not personally familiar. If this interpretation has merit,

the overall message of these verses suggests that the author is writing to Gaius a letter of

recommendation on behalf of future visiting Christians who are engaged in the work of

evangelization. Indeed, the practice of writing recommendation letters was crucially important in

NT times (cf. Rom 16:1-2; 2 Cor 3:1-6; 8:16-24; Phlm 1-25). In calling Gaius “beloved,”

therefore, the author praises him because he has shown his hospitality with faith. His hospitality

has been given toward fellow Christians, including some previously unknown to him. The

recipients of Gaius’s Christian love have testified before the church (v. 6a). With the phrase

propemspas axiōs tou theou (“sending them on their journey worthy of God”; v. 6b), the author

suggests that Gaius provide further assistance to these Christian missionaries (cf. 1 Cor 9:14;

Phil 2:19-30; Rom 16:1-3; Matt 10:10, 40; John 13:20; Acts 18:1-11). Added to this

interpretation is the implication from verse 7 in which the author clarifies that Gaius’s good

40

deeds have spared Christian emissaries from the needs of asking for help from the non-believers.

Thus, Gaius and his hospitality will be looked upon as participating in the work of truth (v. 8).

The author of 3 John seems to support the policy that Christians may and indeed should

show hospitality toward fellow Christians, including strangers whom they have yet to meet (v.

5); they in turn may receive support from other fellow Christians, but not from non-believers (vv.

7-8). If this overall policy is correct, 3 John 5-8 is not in tension with 2 John 7-11, in which the

antichrists are not to be welcomed. However, one may argue that showing another hospitality (3

John 5-8) is rather different from participating in that person’s denial of God and Jesus Christ (2

John 7-11). Hospitality pertains to one’s moral responsibility, while denial of God and Jesus

implies one’s faith and confession. If this interpretation has merit, then the overall message of 2

John 7-11 and 3 John 5-8 suggests that Christians have the obligation to show hospitality toward

others, regardless of their religious beliefs.

(III) Diotrephes and Demetrius (vv. 9-12)

In criticizing the bad example of Diotrephes, who refuses to show hospitality, the author praises

Demetrius, who has conducted his life in accordance with the truth. The author compares two

Christian examples, using Diotrephes as a bad example and Demetrius as a worthy one.

Diotrephes (vv. 9-10). In this correspondence to Gaius, the author accuses Diotrephes of

having refused to show him hospitality. The aorist egrapsa (“I wrote”; au. trans.) seems to

indicate that the author previously wrote a letter to the Christian community to which Diotrephes

belonged, but did not receive a desirable response (v. 9a); so now he writes to Gaius. The author

says nothing about the content of the previous letter, but the phrase ouk epidechetai hēmas (“he

does not receive us as guests”; au. trans. of v. 9b) is suggestive of Diotrephes’ inhospitality and

refusal of the author’s authority.

41

Now writing to Gaius, the author complains, or rather alleges, that Diotrephes likes to be

the leader. If in fact Diotrephes is showing no hospitality, his refusal seems to be directed at the

author himself and at some fellow Christian missionaries or emissaries whom the author has

recommended (cf. vv. 7, 10b). For to show no hospitality to others is to disengage in Christian

fellowship (cf. v 8). With such an allegation, the author threatens that upon his upcoming visit to

the community, he will call upon the lies that Diotrephes engages in by spreading evil nonsense

about the author and his delegation (v. 10a). This allegation against Diotrephes is multivalent:

that the author is not content with Diotrephes’ works; that he is not welcoming fellow Christians

(at least those in league with the author); and that he not only prevents other members from

welcoming these Christian guests, but also expels them from the community (v. 10c).

Demetrius (vv. 11-12). Having criticized Diotrephes, the author now praises Demetrius.

In addressing Gaius as “beloved” once again, the author warns him not to mimic the bad

example, but to follow what is good. The author’s employment of the imperative with the

negative particle, mē mimou (“do not imitate”; v. 11a) indicates that he expects Gaius not to

follow the bad example in any form whatsoever (cf. 2 John 10). He then turns to the issue of

doing what is good, because such is from God (v. 11b). While the exact good works of

Demetrius are not spelled out, the author’s language suggests that Gaius knows what he means,

namely, hospitality to missionary Christians (cf. vv. 5-8). Thus, the author is able to bridge

Gaius’s hospitality (v. 8) with the example of Demetrius, and to praise Demetrius for doing what

is right (v. 12).

(IV) Final Greetings (vv. 13-15)

The conclusion of 3 John repeats the pattern in 2 John 12-13: a promise of a personal visit to

Gaius (vv. 13-14) and the final greetings (v. 15). Whereas 1 and 2 John do not name the

42

recipients, the name Gaius in 3 John suggests that the author has personal contact with him and

his community. A comparison of expressions, such as “little children” in 1 John 5:21, “the

children” in 2 John 13, and “the friends send you [Gaius individually] greetings” in 3 John 15,

further indicates that the author, Gaius, and the community to which Gaius belongs know one

another personally.

Although the author opens this letter without the peace (grace and mercy) greetings, he

now concludes with a wish of peace, that is, with the deepest and innermost good wish for

another person. He then sends greetings to all the members of Gaius’s community, asking that

they be greeted by name.

In the attempt to read 2 John and 3 John contextually, a word about “house churches” is

in order here. Unlike our modern times in which Christians understand the term “church” as a

building or an institution, the NT speaks vividly of the singular ekklēsia “church” and the plural

ekklēsiai “churches” in terms of “house churches” – distinct assemblies of believers. While today

we tend to emphasize the structure of the church, the NT lays more stress on the members of

worshiping communities (cf. John 21:15-19). Paul employs this term frequently in his letters to

refer to distinct members of various small Christian communities and/or family churches (e.g., 1

Cor 16:19; Philm 2; Rom 16:5; cf. Col 4:15; 1 Tim 3:5, 15; Acts 8:3). It is in the context of the

NT’s “house churches” or “Christian communities” that the letters of 2 John and 3 John ought to

be understood. The author(s) wrote letters to different house churches that were in the vicinity

and/or remote from his own community.