I’ll admit there was a reason I chose to do my devotional commentary on the Gospel of John, and if you know me well, you’ll probably be able to figure out easily. Yes, I chose it because the Gospel of John was the Bible quizzing material for the year. I wanted to study the quizzing material like the rest of the quizzers, but I wanted to study it more in-depth than just writing questions. It did come in hand elsewhere, though. At the same time, I took New Testament Theology class in graduate school. For the class, I had to write on the theology of a New Testament author. Naturally, I chose John. But to write on John, I couldn’t just read and write on the Gospel of John. I also had to read and write on John’s 3 epistles and Revelation. I did read it all, and I found I enjoyed reading 1 John just as much as the Gospel of John. In fact, in a way, I saw 1 John as a commentary on the theology in the Gospel of John because a lot of the theological themes in 1 John are similar to the theological themes in the Gospel of John. So I wouldn’t be doing justice if I were to leave out 1 John into our discussion. So without further ado, I present to you a devotional commentary on 1 John.
If you remember me correctly, you’ll know I’m a literalist…of sorts. I’m not a literalist in the sense I try to take a Bible verse and put in a timeless, spaceless bubble to make a timeless truth out of it. Actually, I sharply disagree with that method. I don’t know if there is a term for me. If there isn’t, I’ll make up a term: “contextual literalist.” I believe the most literally way to understand the Bible is to understand it in its context, especially the historical and cultural context. After all, the Bible was written in a timeless, spaceless bubble, but in history and in culture. The context will include, the author, the audience, the date, the location, the historical occasion and the purpose. So before we dive into any of the material, let’s look at the introductory information. We’ll start with the author, for that’s the most obvious (although it’s not as obvious as it seems). Next, we’ll go over the setting, with the location and the date. The setting will bring light to audience, and all 4 of these pieces will bring light to the historical occasion and the purpose, and the purpose will explain how the letter is structured.
THE AUTHOR WHO wrote the book was John, just like the title of the book tells us. But there are quite a few Johns in the Bible. No, this is not John, also known as Mark. The only book John Mark wrote is the Gospel of Mark. No, this is not John, the father of Peter. No, this is not the John in Acts 4:8 who is in the family of the high priests. And this is definitely not John the Baptist, the son of Zechariah, the second cousin of Jesus. This is John, the son of Zebedee, the first cousin of Jesus. And with that last statement, you got two facts about his family history. Let me throw in a third: his brother was James (and there’s 4 men named James in the Bible, but that’s a different discussion for a different day). John started out his life in the family trade of fishing with his father Zebedee and his brother James. Everyone knows John and James were disciples of Jesus, but not everyone remembers that John and James were first disciples of John the Baptist. Being disciples of John the Baptist, they were probably baptized by John the Baptist and they probably listened carefully to his preaching about repentance and the coming Messiah. Yet their following wasn’t too serious, as it seems like they followed him on the side and stayed focus on their job trade. This seems also true of being disciples to Jesus. When John points the two of them out to Jesus Christ in John 1, they follow him a bit and even acknowledged Jesus as a Rabbi, but then they went back to fishing. It wasn’t until Matthew 4 that Jesus needs to call them to follow to get through their thick skulls to stay with him longer. John, along with his brother James and Peter, were among the 3 disciples in the inner circle of disciples, who were the closest of Jesus, perhaps because they were the first ones called to be disciples. They got to see special events, like the raising of Jairus’s daughter, the transfiguration, and they got to be closer to Jesus in Gethsemane. This inner circle of 3 will stay tight until the end. When we see John in Acts, he’ll always be with Peter.
I will briefly mention here that while John is the traditional author of the book, and the author widely accepted by conservative scholars, not everyone agrees that John, or more specifically, “John the disciple/apostle” is the author of the book. Why? Most scholars believe that 1 John, 2 John and 3 John are all written by the same person, for all have the same writing styles. 1 John has not signature, but 2 John and 3 John are signed “The Elder” with no name. Now the conservative scholars will tell you that John the Disciple/Apostle became known as John the Elder later in the senior citizen days of his life. But liberal scholars will disagree, and they will point you to another source. This source is a letter, one that dates to the 2nd or 3rd century AD. The author of the letter claims to be a disciple, or a student, of John the Elder. The author then writes that his mentor, John the Elder, was a disciple, or a student, of John the Apostle. One of the lines in the letter says something along the lines of, “I asked my mentor, John the Elder, what it was like to be mentored by John the Apostle.” Liberal scholars conclude that John the Elder and John the Apostle were two different people. While John the Apostle may have written either the Gospel of John or Revelation (or both), the 3 epistles were written by John the Elder. What do I have to say about that? As you will find other conservative scholars saying, there were many Johns around that time, for John was a common name. On top of that, the title “elder” was a common title to any old, wise leader in the church. So it’s very possible and very likely that both men, John the Apostle, and John the Disciple of John the Apostle, both had the title “elder” and were both called “John the elder.” I can say I am certain John the Apostle wrote the 3 epistles because I believe the writing styles and theological themes of the 3 epistles match up with the Gospel of John and Revelation of John. So without a doubt, I am sure John the Apostle is the author of the 3 Epistles. If John the disciple of John the Apostle was involved, at the most, he might have dictated what John the Apostle said.
THE DATE WHEN the book was written is in relation to the Gospel of John. Clearly 1 John is written after the Gospel of John. The themes in 1 John are found in the Gospel of John. John assumes that the reader has already heard and understood what John has talked about in his Gospel. What John is out to do is to present new, different information on the same theological themes. In a way, 1 John can be seen as a commentary to the Gospel of John, but more about that in the structure. The point is the structure can reveal the date. 1 John has to come after the Gospel of John. The broad range for the Gospel of John’s date is 85-95 AD. The specific range for the Gospel would be 85-90 AD. If the Gospel of John is between 85-90 AD, then 1 John has to be between 90-95 AD. For simplicity’s sake, the date will be 90-91 AD.
THE LOCATION WHERE 1 John was written was Ephesus. Ephesus is a key location. Ephesus is located in on the coast of Asia Minor, which is modern-day Turkey. Being on the coast, Ephesus had ports for ships, making it a busy place for commerce. Not only were the seas an excellent way to reach Ephesus, but the rivers were also large enough for boats. A sailor could get to Ephesus either be sea or by river. Ephesus also had a main Roman road going through it, increasing the commerce. Between the ports and the roads, Ephesus was a really busy place. It always had people coming in and out of it. In fact, by the 1st century AD, Ephesus was most likely the 4th biggest city in the Roman Empire! What a wonderful place it would be to build a church and spread the Gospel message! Well, that’s exactly what happened. Paul began a church in Ephesus. He would minister many times, both by visits and by letters. He would also send those who studied under him, like Timothy and Tychicus. But that’s Paul, Timothy and Tychicus. How did John get there? Well, truth to be told, we don’t really know. It’s only tradition from the early church fathers that tells us so. But we have no reason to the church fathers’ tradition because it is very likely John is there. Revelation not only helps demonstrate why Paul was in Ephesus but it will also display proof why Ephesus is the right location setting for John’s 3 Epistles. Look at the 7 churches John writes 7 letters to. Now look on a map of 1st century Asia Minor and locate these churches (simply Google Image search “1st century Asia Minor Map” or “7 Churches in Revelation map” if you don’t have the map available in a book). You’ll notice that the follow a nice curved path on the major Roman road[s]. This is why I mentioned the trade routes going through Ephesus. One of those roads was the mail route, and the mail route begins in Ephesus. Because of such, Ephesus became a capital of the Asia Minor region of the Roman Empire. So it’s quite possible while the setting where the epistles are being written is in Ephesus, the letters could be going out all the other 6 cities mentioned in Revelation. With that in mind…
THE AUDIENCE WHOM John was originally writing to would be the Church in Ephesus or the Christians in Ephesus. You can use either one; they are one and the same. If I were to make a famous saying that would be quoted over and over again, it would be this: “Church is the plural for Christian.” So the Christians in Ephesus are the Church in Ephesus. But keep in mind what I wrote above. Just like Ephesus is the capital of Asia Minor, in a way the Church in Ephesus was a “capital church” in Asia Minor. And just like the news/mail would start in Ephesus and move along the mail route to other important cities in Asia Minor, it’s very possible, and very likely that this letter started in Ephesus, and then migrated to other cities and towns in Asia Minor, such as Symrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Phiadelphia, and Laodicea. Thus one could easily say that the original intended audience is the churches in Asia Minor or the Christians in Asia Minor. But for simplicity’s sake, we’ll stick to the Christians in Ephesus.
Alright, already there are 4 pieces of introductory matters we have at hand: John is the author, the date is 90-91 AD, the location is Ephesus in Asia Minor, and the audience is the church in Ephesus (possibly expanding to the churches in Asia Minor). Those 4 pieces are crucial in setting up the setting for the historical occasion and the purpose. So without further ado, let’s set up the historical occasion and the purpose.
THE HISTORICAL OCCASION is WHAT was happening with the people in the setting that caused the author (John) to write the book, or as in this case, the letter. It hasn’t changed much since the Gospel of John. Altogether, it’s false teachers. There are two main camps of false teachers: early forms of Gnosticism and early forms of Docetism (I say “early forms” because these cultic religions haven’t fully developed their beliefs, so they are slightly different in the earlier stages than in the later stages). Early Gnosticism was saying that Jesus was only human and Jesus was never God. The early Docetism was saying that Jesus was only God and never really human. He only appeared to be human while on earth (thus, the name “Docetism,” coming from the Greek word dokeo, meaning “it seems”). Both Gnosticism and Docetism were denying that Jesus was the Christ. It’s not certain if these groups were explicitly teaching that Jesus wasn’t the Christ, but as John will show us, the only way for Jesus to be the Christ is for Jesus to be both God and human, so anyone who only preaches one side is declaring Jesus was not the Christ. These incorrect teachings on doctrine were effecting the application on behavior. These false teachers were teaching that people who believed in Jesus did not need did not need Christian fellowship, did not need other people in their lives, even they didn’t need to love other people, both the Christians and the non-Christians. They were also teaching that since Jesus died on the cross to atone for sin, God does not care about sin anymore, since the price has been paid. Therefore, it didn’t matter how much or how little a person sinned because the sin was paid for. Obviously, Gnosticism denying Jesus was human and Docetism denying Jesus was God was already confusing the Ephesians because they contradicted themselves, but even the behavioral application was confusing because even if the false teachers agreed on that, it was contradictory to what the true Apostles were teaching. Confusion like this can easily lead to doubts, and doubts can lead someone to fall away from the faith. John doesn’t want the Ephesian Christians, nor any Christians in Asia Minor, to convert to either Gnosticism or Docetism. In fact, John wants them to avoid it all together. John also doesn’t want unsteady or shaky beliefs. So John needs to teach the right doctrine to the Church in Ephesus, as well as the churches in Asia Minor.
I want to make a quick aside to say that even though the historical occasion is for the audience 2,000 years ago, it could easily been the same historical occasion for the 2000s century. It’s not so much the doctrinal false teachings. Most Christians (and these are all the true Christians) will teach that Jesus is both God and man. Those that don’t are quickly denoted as Christian cults or different religions. Rather, the historical occasion stays true in the behavioral application sense. Of the 2, the biggest one would be that God doesn’t care about our sins. The best example I can give is from my Xanga page. For those who do not remember, Xanga was the popular social networking/blogging website before MySpace and Facebook. One day, I wrote in my banner (the best equivalent I can give you is the status on Facebook), “Can there be too much of a good thing? Can too much of a good thing be a bad thing?” Within a week, some random stranger from far away (how she found my Xanga site will always be a mystery to me) commented on my banner, saying it was true, citing the example that drinking too much water can be harmful to a person’s body. But I digress, for this is not the point. Curious to who this person was or even to figure out how she found me, I went to her Xanga site. On her banner, she had written, “Sex is a sin, but sin is forgiven, so let’s begin!” Now I could go on a long rant on how this is incorrect, on how sex isn’t a sin but rather the misuse of sex is a sin, but that’s not the point either. The point is that there is a belief floating around my generation and the next generation that Christ’s atoning death on the cross paid for sin, so therefore Jesus becomes like a hippie who allows you experiment with different sins, and allows you to keep the sins you like. They believe that since sin is forgiven, we can sin because it will ultimately be forgiven. It’s like you are about to sin, but then you have a quick, sudden jolt of guilt for sinning. You ponder to yourself, “Should I really be doing this?” but then you say to yourself, “It’s OK, Jesus will forgive me afterwards” and then go through with it! Let me tell you, you won’t get past the first chapter of 1 John if you hold on to this belief.
Although not as prevalent as the prior application belief, another one slowly and steadily beginning to float around modern Christianity is the denial of love or fellowship with other people, both Christian and non-Christian. This belief stems out of Christianity’s most recent correction to ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the church. The universal church has finally got it into their minds and their parishioners’ minds that going to church or being a member of a church (church here means more like a building or a systematic assembly) does not bring salvation to a person. This is good, for this is true. The problem is, however, that it has caused the pendulum to swing in the opposite extreme. Now all of a sudden Christian church parishioners are abandoning church (once again, referring to the building or service), Sunday School, small groups, Bible studies, and/or prayer meetings. Why? Well, since salvation does not come from church, and since most spiritual disciplines can be done by the person’s own self (at least, so they claim), there is no need to fellowship with Christians. It may sound crazy, but I do think that some Christians truly believe this, whether they explicitly state it or not. For example, a few years ago I worked with a ministry that focused primarily on evangelism, but also did a little bit of discipleship for those that they evangelized to and were newly saved. Their top 4 disciples for spiritual growth were (I believe I have them in proper order, too): reading and obeying your Bible, prayer, confession of sin, and witnessing/evangelizing to other non-Christians. Nowhere in the top 4 is any form of Christian fellowship. Going to church did rank as 5th on their list for spiritual discipline, but notice I said “Going to church” and not “Christian fellowship.” Their reason to go to church was so a person can learn more about God and worship him there, not to fellowship with other Christians. Although church is a means of learning about God and worshipping God, fellowship with other Christians is just as important for church as worship and learning. Without fellowship, church would missing a big part of it. This also can be dangerous. How it can be dangerous? I’ve noticed that a lot of people who believe that church is not necessary and have separated themselves from church become quite prideful, believing that what they are doing is better than the Christian attending church. This selfish pride can easily lead to a lack of love towards other Christians. John is going to show his readers how big of a piece would be missing in the Christian’s life without fellowship or love of other Christians.
THE PURPOSE is WHY the author wrote the book. When looking for the purpose, the first clue would be to look for a verse that would explicitly state a purpose or explicitly state why the author wrote. 8 times in 5 different verses John writes something along the lines of “I write to you” or “I write this/these things,” most of which are in chapter 2. But the one, the only one, that is not in chapter 2 is in chapter 5, and I feel confident that this verse is the purpose statement. Why? Just compare it to the Gospel! John waited until near the end of his Gospel to write the purpose statement, so it would make sense John would wait near the end of his epistle to state his purpose. The other reason I like the purpose statement found 1 John 5 is that it parallels the purpose statement of the Gospel of John very well. If you look both of them, you’ll see they parallel each other. Take a look…
John 20:31-
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
1 John 5:13-
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
I took the liberty of bolding the similar words. The most obvious and explicit seen differences is that 1 John 5:13 does not say Christ, nor does it even use the name Jesus. But by the time you get to 1 John 5:13, the reader has no doubts that John is talking about Jesus and John is proving that Jesus is the Christ. Also, you may notice a slight shift. In the Gospel of John, John writes that the reader may believe (or continue to believe) Jesus is the Son of god. In the Epistle of 1 John, John says he writes to those who already believe Jesus is the Son of God. Yet both times the end result is the salvific knowledge that brings about eternal life. Therefore, I see John doing the same thing in the Epistle of 1 John. John is trying to get his Christian believers to continue believing what they are believing, and not changing their beliefs to agree with the false teachers. John wants the Christians in Asia Minor to believe that Jesus is both God and man. John wants the Christians in Asia Minor to love one another and fellowship with God in a sinless lifestyle.
John wrote the book of 1 John to persuade Christians in Ephesus to continue believing that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, and to love God and other people by not sinning against them.
THE STRUCTURE is HOW John wrote his epistle to get his purpose across. How does John address that Jesus is God, Man and the Christ? How does John teach the importance of holiness, fellowship and love? At this time, I would talk about outlines and writing styles. 1 John is infamous for not being easy to outline. So we’ll wait to outline 1 John until we’ve read it all. Instead, let’s look at the writing styles John will choose.
First of all, what is will strike this epistle as weird is that it’s not epistle-like. Maybe I’ve been tossing around a word that is unknown to you, so let me define it. An epistle is a letter, simply put. In the Greco-Roman world of the 1st century, people wrote letters differently. A letter would usually start with the “from line,” or a line stating who the letter was written by. The next line would be the “to line,” or a line stating whom the letter was written to. The third line would be some kind of greeting. It could be as simple as “Greetings!” or be a little more complicated, like “Grace and peace be to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Then the body of the letter would start. The first paragraph is a personal opening that would give a prayer of thankfulness and would also praise the recipients for their good condition and what they are doing correctly. Then the rest of body of the letter would commence. The letter would finish out by giving a personal farewell. Once again, the author will praise the audience for the good people they are and then will extend specific greetings with specific exhortations and specific commands. This is typically how Greco-Roman letters went, and this is typically how New Testament epistles went.
But take a look at 1 John. Anyone will notice that 1 John is not like the typical epistle or the epistle described above. 1 John does not a “from line” that states the author’s name. 1 John does not have a “to line” that states the recipients’ names. That third line, the greeting line, is missing. The author does not address the recipients with a greeting line of any sorts. Expanding on that idea, the body of the letter does not have any kind of opening of prayer or thanksgiving. The letter dives right into the material. On the other end, the epistle of 1 John does not have any personal, individual remarks at the end. The closest we get to personal remarks is the last line in 1 John 5, where John says in verse 21, “Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.” Even this seems thrown in a random. We’ll talk more about it when we get there, but the point is that it lacks the typical ending for an epistle. With all this against the epistle, some have suggested that 1 John should be seen less as an epistle and more as a sermon, like the book of Hebrews. Yet I’m not read to throw this book out of the window as an epistle. While it is true that there is no opening and closing personal remarks, that doesn’t mean this epistle is not personal. John does seem to be personal with this letter. John’s commands are serious because he is concerned about the spiritual well-being of the people. His pleas are emotional and heart-wrenching for the same reasons. He even calls his readrs by affectionate names, such as “friends,” “brothers” and “children.” John seems to have a personal connection with his readers, a personal connection that can only be found in an epistle.
While there may be little proof that 1 John is an epistle in its form, it can easily be shown in its function and its features. The function of most epistles was to give instruction for both doctrine (what to think) and application (what to do). 1 John gives both theology and practical ways to live out that theology. How does John present this theology? He uses argument. No, this is not argument like yelling, screaming and fighting. This is argument as in using evidence and claims to prove that his theology is correct. The evidence can come from logic, reason, history, culture, geography, philosophy, religion, etc. John will use these evidences, and they will come in handy.
On that note, remember the historical occasion. John does want to demonstrate that following the false teachings of the false teachers are wrong. But John is not going to be as direct as you think. John will neither give a defense nor give a counter-attack. John will not attack the false teachers’ teachings or attack the false teachers personally. John will not even simply defend himself or his teachings. John will simply present the real truth, the gospel. Then, by the end of the letter, John will simply ask rhetorically, “After hearing the truth, whose teachings are right, mine or the teachers who disagree with me [aka the false teachers]?” The evidence will be too strong, and any reader will be forced to acknowledge that John and the other apostles are the true teachers of the truth, while any others are false teachers.
Now that we have all the introductory information, we are ready to trek into 1 John, chapter by chapter. My goal is that this will be a devotional commentary that will serve both evangelism purposes and discipleship purposes. If after 21 chapters of the Gospel of John, you are still not convinced that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, I hope that by the end of the 5 chapters of 1 John, you will be convinced, and you will come to a saving faith that leads to eternal life. If you do already believe in Jesus as Christ and God, I hope that 1 John will teach you how to take your belief and practically live it out. I will do my best to point both of these out. I pray that by the end of my devotional commentary, I have either have new Christians or stronger Christians.
The Contextual Literalist 