CHAPTER III
CHAPTER 3
3:1 Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God: and such we are. For this cause the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 3:2 Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he* shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is.
* Or, it.
This language echoes that of the prologue to the Gospel, where the Eternal Logos receives no welcome among those who should be first to acknowledge him: “but to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born…of God” (John 1:12, 13). Here, however, God’s calling believers His children is a token of the greatness of His love for them. A parallel statement in a Jewish context is ascribed to Rabbi Akiba (died AD 135): “Beloved is man, for he was created in the image of God, but by a special love it was made known to him that he was created in the image of God, as it is said, ‘For in the image of God made he man’ (Genesis 9:6). Beloved are Israel, for they were called children of God, but by a special love it was made known to them that they were called children of God, as it is said, ‘You are children of the Lord your God’ (Deuteronomy 14.1).”145 The words “and such we are,” omitted in later manuscripts and in KJV, remind us that when God calls, His call is effectual; people and things are what He calls them.
These first two verses of 1 John 3 celebrate the accomplishment of God’s eternal purpose concerning man. This purpose finds expression in Genesis 1:26, where God, about to bring into being the crown of creation, says, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” In other words, He declares His intention of bringing into existence beings like Himself, as like Himself as it is possible for creatures to be like their Creator. In words which echo the language of Genesis 1, the status and function of man in the purpose of God are celebrated in Psalm 8:5 ff.: “thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and honor. Thou hast given him dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet.” But Genesis 3 tells how man, not content with the true likeness to God which was his by creation, grasped at the counterfeit likeness held out as the tempter’s bait: “you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” In consequence, things most unlike God manifested themselves in human life: hatred, darkness and death in place of love, light and life. The image of God in man was sadly defaced. Yet God’s purpose was not frustrated. Instead, the fall itself, with its entail of sin and death, was overruled by God and compelled to become an instrument in the furtherance of His purpose.
In the fullness of time the image of God, undefaced by disobedience to His will, reappeared on earth in the person of His Son. In Jesus the love, light and life of God were manifested in opposition to hatred, darkness and death. With His crucifixion it seemed that hatred, darkness and death had won the day, and that God’s purpose, which had survived the fall, was now effectively thwarted. But instead, the cross of Jesus proved to be God’s chosen instrument for the fulfillment of His purpose. “To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), and it was by His cross that He did so (cf. Colossians 2:14 f.). The last Adam by His obedience has restored what the first Adam by his disobedience forfeited and has ensured the triumph of God’s purpose. This purpose is stated by Paul in terms which go back far beyond the act of creation in Genesis 1: “those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Romans 8:29).
The children of God, who enter His family through faith in His Son, display their Father’s likeness, because of their conformity to Him who is the perfect image of the invisible God. They display it in measure here and now; they will display it fully on a coming day, for “we know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is.” The consummation of God’s purpose in man coincides with the advent of Christ in glory. Then those who “have borne the image of the man of dust” will “bear the image of the man of heaven” (1 Corinthians 15:49), for the new man, who at present “is being renewed in knowledge after the image of his Creator” (Colossians 3:10), will have come to full maturity. When Christ, His people’s life, is manifested, they will be manifested with Him in glory (Colossians 3:4), so that the day of His appearing is also the day of “the revealing of the sons of God” (Romans 8:19). Sonship is present, but vision is future.146
Referring to the present work of sanctification, Paul says that the people of Christ, beholding His glory and then reflecting it “as in a mirror,” are “transfigured into his likeness” (2 Corinthians 3:18, NEB). If progressive assimilation to the likeness of their Lord results from their present beholding of Him through a glass darkly, to behold Him face to face, to “see him even as he is,” will result in their being perfectly like Him.
In the sentence, “For this cause the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not,” the pronoun “him” probably refers to “the Father,” since He is the only one mentioned in the singular in the preceding sentence. Otherwise we might think of the world’s failure to recognize or welcome the Son of God when He came. But it is a matter of small moment. The reception given to the Son is reckoned as given to the Father too: “If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin,” says Jesus to His disciples in the upper room. “But now they have seen and hated both me and my Father” (John 15:24). Similarly our Lord forewarned His disciples that the reception given to Him would equally be given to them.147
Before moving on from verse 2, it may be well to make passing reference to the NEB rendering, “what we shall be has not yet been disclosed, but we know that when it is disclosed we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.” Here the subject of the clause which RV renders “if he shall be manifested” is taken to be not “he” but “it” (cf. RV margin), harking back to “what we shall be.”148 This is a perfectly permissible rendering, but it is better to understand a personal subject, as in NEB margin, where “when he appears” is given as an alternative rendering to “when it is disclosed” of the text, NEB suggests yet another rendering in a further marginal note: “we are God’s children, though he has not yet appeared; what we shall be we know, for when he does appear we shall be like him.” This presupposes a different punctuation from the other renderings, but on the whole the familiar punctuation seems to be more satisfactory.
3:3 And every one that hath this hope set on him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
The use of the preposition “on” (Greek epi) after the noun “hope” makes it sufficiently certain that “him” means Christ, or God in Christ. The KJV “every man that hath this hope in him” is ambiguous, and it might be taken to mean “everyone who has this hope (implanted) in himself,” whereas the pronoun following epi must denote the object of the hope.149 As in 2:6 and two other places in this letter,150 “he” in the phrase “as he” represents Greek ekeinos and denotes Christ. Christ Himself is pure—He is indeed the very norm of purity—and a hope that rests “on him” cannot but have a purifying effect in the life of the one who so hopes. For to have one’s hope set on Christ implies that He is a constant object of meditation and contemplation. When that is so, the words of Paul come true, that “we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another” (2 Corinthians 3:18). This is the proper preparation for the day when His people’s conformity to His likeness will be consummated, when, at His appearing, they become completely “like him,” because then they will “see him as he is.” Here and now they are urged “to lead a life worthy of the calling” with which God has called them (Ephesians 4:1), and since that calling involves their ultimately being glorified with Christ (Romans 8:28-30), present likeness to Christ is indispensable to a life worthy of that calling. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8).
3:4 Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness: and sin is lawlessness.
The practicing of sin is the opposite of the practicing of righteousness which, as John has said in 2:29, characterizes those who have been born into God’s family. Lest someone in the opposite camp should interrupt at this point in order to discuss theoretically what is and what is not the nature of sin, John cuts him short with a terse definition, which is adequate for his practical purpose: “sin is lawlessness.” The seceders’ “new morality” took little account of divine law or of sin against it. John insists that sin, in the common sense of the term, is rebellion against God. The KJV rendering, “sin is the transgression of the law” (taken over from the Geneva Bible), is unfortunate, since it suggests the contravention of this or that specific law rather than a generally lawless attitude towards God. “Sin is not transgression of law but lawlessness, and lawlessness is sin. It is a convertible or reciprocating proposition, the subject being identified with the predicate.”151
3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away sins;* and in him is no sin. 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth** him.
* Or, bear sins.
** Or, hath known.
The noun “sins” is preceded in the original by the definite article. If we include the article in a literal translation, ‘“he (the emphatic ekeinos152) was manifested to take away the sins,” the question arises, “What sins?”—to which the answer is “ours.” (In fact some manuscripts, including Codex Sinaiticus, with the Sahidic Coptic and Syriac Peshitta, add the pronoun, making “our sins” quite explicit.) In John 1:29 Jesus is proclaimed by the Baptist to be “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” in the singular. Here the plural “sins” has in view the individual sins of His people,153 as in 2:2, where he is called “the propitiation for our sins.”
The taking away of sins can be accomplished only by one who is himself sinless; hence the reminder, “in him is no sin.” This goes further than to say that He committed no sin. It denies the presence of indwelling sin in His heart, and approximates to Paul’s designation of Him in 2 Corinthians 5:21 as the One “who knew no sin” (i.e. had no consciousness of it in His personal experience). If, then, He appeared on earth to take away His people’s sins and is Himself the sinless One, how can sin be cherished by anyone who “abides” in Him? In saying that no one who “abides” in him sins, John is not asserting that it is impossible for a believer to commit an occasional act of sin. He has already pointed to the provision made for such an emergency by means of confession (1:9) and Christ’s activity as His people’s Advocate (2:1 f.), and has warned his readers against unfounded claims to be sinless within or without (1:8, 10). What he does assert is that a sinful life does not mark a child of God, so that anyone who leads such a life is shown thereby not to be a child of God.
When a boy goes to a new school, he may inadvertently do something out of keeping with the school’s tradition or good name, to be told immediately, “That isn’t done here.” A literalist might reply, “But obviously it is done; this boy has just done it”—but he would be deliberately missing the point of the rebuke. The point of the rebuke is that such conduct is disapproved of in this school, so anyone who practices it can normally be assumed not to belong to the school.
There may be odd exceptions, but that is the general rule, which has been verified by experience. Fellowship with the sinless One and indulgence in sin are a contradiction in terms. Whatever high claims may be made by one who indulges in sin, that indulgence is sufficient proof that he has no personal knowledge of Christ. So, in the Gospel of John, Jesus says to His disciples, “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him” (John 14:7). To those who refused Him credence He says, “His [the Father’s] voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen; and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe in him whom he has sent…You know neither me nor my Father; if you knew me, you would know my Father also” (John 5:37 f.; 8:19). Similarly, in his letter to Gaius, John propounds the simple antithesis, “He who does good is of God; he who does evil has not seen God” (3 John 11).
3:7 My little children, let no man lead you astray: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous: 3:8 he that doeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
The false teachers with their sophistry (cf. 2:26) were capable not merely of condoning sin, but of making it seem virtuous. Against their arguments John’s “little children” (teknia) would be fortified if they remembered his plain, uncomplicated maxims. Behavior is of unsurpassed importance in the Christian way. Believers are indeed justified before God by His grace, which they accept by faith; but those who have been justified thus will show it by their behavior. Righteousness is as consonant with the character of Christ—since “he (ekeinos) is righteous”—as sin is consonant with the character of the devil, who has been sinning, rebelling against God (this is the force of the Greek present here), ever since the beginning.154
In the Gospel, Jesus tells some people who boasted in their descent from Abraham that their behavior proclaimed them to be children not of Abraham but of the devil, because the latter “was a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44). Here the antithesis is between the family of God and the family of the devil; in either family the children may be known by their moral likeness to the head of the family. The very purpose of the Son of God’s appearance on earth was “to destroy the works of the devil”—“destroy” renders Greek lyō, here used in the same sense as it has in Ephesians 2:14, where Christ “has broken down the middle wall of hostility.” Chief of the devil’s works is sin, which the Son of God came to take away (cf. verse 5). How can one in whose life sin has manifestly not been destroyed or taken away claim to dwell in Christ? Is it not rather self-evident that he belongs to the family which is characterized by rebellion against God, and whose head is the arch-rebel?
3:9 Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God.
The first sentence of verse 9 repeats in substance the first sentence of verse 6: “whosoever abides in him does not sin.” Once again, John emphasizes that the practice of sin is something that characterizes the children of him who “has been sinning from the beginning” (3:8), not the children of God. The reason the child of God does not practice sin is said to be that “his seed abides in him”—a clause which can be understood in more than one way. That “his seed” means God’s seed is fairly certain. This may mean the divine nature implanted in the believer through the new birth, and so RSV, “God’s nature abides in him” and thus prevents him from sinning (cf. NEB: “the divine seed remains in him; he cannot be a sinner, because he is God’s child”).155 But “seed” is frequently used in the sense of “offspring” (as, for example, in the discussion about Abraham’s “seed” in Galatians 3:16-29). If that is the sense of the word here, then the meaning of the passage is not “God’s nature remains in the child of God” but “God’s child remains in God and cannot sin because he is God’s offspring.” There is not much practical difference between the two constructions. The difference resides mainly in the precise force of the noun “seed” and the reference of the pronoun “him.” The latter construction might be regarded as an expansion of verse 6a.
One way or the other, the new birth involves a radical change in human nature; for those who have not experienced the new birth, sin is natural, whereas for those who have experienced it, sin is unnatural—so unnatural, indeed, that its practice constitutes a powerful refutation of any claim to possess the divine life. John’s antitheses are clear-cut. While they are to be understood in the context of his letter and of the situation which it presupposes, any attempt to weaken them, out of regard for human infirmity, or to make them less sharp and uncompromising than they are, is to misinterpret them. True interpretation must allow an author to mean what he says, even if that meaning is uncongenial to the interpreter.
3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
In summing up the criteria which distinguish the two spiritual families one from the other, John adds love of one’s brother to the practice of righteousness as a mark of the child of God, and the absence of such love, with the practice of unrighteousness, as a disqualification for membership in God’s family. Righteousness by itself, while infinitely preferable to unrighteousness, might appear to be coldly judicial, but the addition of brotherly love (cf. 2:9 f.) imparts a transforming warmth to John’s exposition. For him, righteousness and love are inseparable. Since they are inseparable in the character of God and in His revelation in Christ, so they must be inseparable in the lives of His people. If, slightly changing the lawyer’s question in the Gospel story, we ask, “And who is my brother?” the answer, especially in the light of verse 17, will be not unlike that which our Lord gave to “Who is my neighbor?”—“Any one who needs my love.”156
(b) The test of love (3:11-18)
3:11 For this is the message which ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another: 3:12 not as Cain was of the evil one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.
Love is an indispensable feature in the lives of the children of God, because it is the embodiment of the gospel message, and of the “new commandment” which they received when first they were taught the Christian way. John has already emphasized this test in 2:7-11, and now he returns to emphasize it afresh. The family likeness is bound to appear; the love of the Father will be reproduced in His children. It was so in the earliest days of the human race. Here John introduces the one Old Testament reference in his letters, and the only proper name (apart from designations of Christ or God) in this particular letter.157 Cain, who murdered his brother (Genesis 4:8), showed by that act that he hated him, and his hatred indicated quite clearly to which spiritual family he belonged. There is no ground for supposing that Cain is here said to have been “of the evil one” (ek tou ponērou) in a biological sense, as though he were the fruit of the tempter’s seduction of Eve sexually understood—an idea current in some Jewish circles around this time.158
The statement that “Cain was of the evil one” is to be understood in the same sense as our Lord’s words to those who were trying to encompass His death: “You are of (ek) your father the devil” (John 8:44). He said so because, in seeking His life, they showed themselves to be spiritual children of him who “was a murderer from the beginning.” In the same way Cain, the first murderer, showed his spiritual lineage.
The verb used here for “murder” (Greek sphazō) is not found in the New Testament (apart from this verse) outside Revelation, where it is used of the slaughtered Lamb (5:6, 9, 12; 13:8), of the holy martyrs (6:9; 18:24), of the internecine slaughter of war (6:4) and of the beast’s head that was “wounded” to death (13:3). It is a forceful and vivid word, perhaps used here to bring out the malice aforethought with which Abel was murdered. But the fact that its primary meaning is to cut the throat (as in slaughtering an animal) hardly justifies K. S. Wuest’s translation of it here as “killed his brother by severing his jugular vein!”159
The reason for Cain’s hatred, as stated here, is completely in line with the Genesis narrative—it was “because his works were evil, but his brother’s were righteous.” When Cain was angry because his sacrifice was disregarded, God said to him: “If you do well, will you not be accepted?” (Genesis 4:7). He was invited, in other words, to learn the lesson that comes to such frequent expression elsewhere in the Old Testament, that “the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is his delight” (Proverbs 15:8). Abel, on the other hand, “received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts” (Hebrews 11:4).
The principle of the hostility of the wicked to the righteous is one which John sees operating in the environment of himself and his readers, and hence he adds a word of encouragement:
3:13 Marvel not, brethren, if the world hateth you.
This is a direct echo of the words of our Lord in the upper room: “If the world hates you, know that it hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master’” (John 15:18-20). The Synoptic record is to the same effect: “He who hears you hears me,” says Jesus to the seventy, “and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16), while He reminds the twelve that “a disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master; it is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master” (Matthew 10:24, 25).160
The world, orientated against God, is, as John has indicated already (1 John 2:15-17), inherently inimical to the cause of God. Manifestations of its hostility, therefore, should not take the children of God by surprise. The warfare between the two sides continues, although the decisive victory has been won. This gives the children of God confidence that they can overcome the world by faith in Him who has already overcome it (1 John 4:4; 5:4 f.; cf. John 16:33).
3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not abideth in death, 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
As the presence of murderous hatred is a token that one does not belong to the family of God, the presence of brotherly love is a sure sign that one does belong to it, that one has, through the new birth, “passed out of death into life” (cf. John 5:24). The pronoun “we” in “we know” is emphatic—we, in contrast to the world and all who bear the mark of Cain. The definite article before “brethren” is equivalent, in the context, to an unemphatic possessive pronoun (cf. NEB: “we love our brothers”). Love is the supreme manifestation of the new life, so much so that any one who fails to manifest it shows that he has never entered into the new life; he “abides in death.” “By this,” said Jesus, “all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). These words were spoken immediately after the departure of Judas, who by his lack of love was self-excluded from the number of those who were disciples indeed. As with Cain, hatred is the root which, if unchecked, yields the fruit of murder. Hence our Lord’s warning in the Sermon on the Mount that not just the man who commits murder, but “every one who is angry with his brother161 shall be liable to judgment” (Matthew 5:22). If murder, the end product of hatred, proves that eternal life is absent, so does the root principle of hatred itself.
3:16 Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
When John speaks of love (agapē), it is no sentimental emotion that he has in mind, but something intensely practical. Christians have one supreme example of love, the love shown by their Lord in that He (as before, John uses the emphatic pronoun ekeinos) “laid down his life” for them. No Christian should speak readily of his love for others unless he is prepared, if need be, to show that love as Christ showed His, by giving up his life for them—indeed, by regarding it as his plain duty so to do. This is what is meant by showing the love of Christ in one’s life.
3:17 But whoso hath the world’s goods, and beholdeth his brother in need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how doth the love of God abide in him? 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue; but in deed and truth.
Frequently, however, a Christian will not be called upon to give his life, or even risk it, for his fellows. But he will have frequent opportunity of showing them his love in less exacting ways. Many of them suffer material hardship and privation. A Christian who is blessed with this world’s goods will instinctively show “the love of God”162 by sharing what he has with others less fortunate.163 If, on the contrary, he hardens his heart and refuses to show them compassion in such a practical way, what is the use of his talking about “the love of God?” By paying lip service to the love of God without exhibiting it in kindly and helpful action, he is simply bringing on himself and his associates the charge of hypocrisy. It is love “in deed and truth” that is expected from a child of God, not the kind of pious talk that devalues the currency of heavenly love because it is unmatched by corresponding action. James says something very much to the same effect: “If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?” (James 2:15 f.).
(c) Christian confidence (3:19-24)
3:19 Hereby shall we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure* our heart before him, 3:20 whereinsoever our heart condemn us; because God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
* Gr. persuade.
The RV rendering of this sentence is followed by RSV: “By this we shall know that we are of the truth, and reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything” (cf. the former of two alternative renderings in NEB margin: “…and reassure ourselves in his sight in matters where our conscience condemns us, because God is greater than our conscience…”).164 This involves taking ho ti (with which verse 20 begins) not as the conjunction hoti “that” (translated “for” in KJV),165 but as the neuter of the relative pronoun hostis, made indefinite by the addition of ean (literally “if”), and treated as an accusative of respect: “in respect of whatsoever.” If we regard the first word of verse 20 as hoti, “that,” we find ourselves faced with an unnecessary repetition of the same conjunction at the beginning of the next clause (“that if our heart condemns us, that God is greater than our heart”), NEB text recognizes just such a repetition, and ignores one of the two occurrences of hoti in its rendering, “This is how we may know that we belong to the realm of truth, and convince ourselves in his sight that even if our conscience condemns us, God is greater than our conscience and knows all.” “The greatness of God, which is above both accusation and Satan, to whom all accusations go back (cf. 1 John 4:4), consists in the forgiveness which remits guilt and in the power which gives fulfillment of the commandments.”166
John has urged his readers to see to it that their love is exercised not in word only but “in deed and truth.” Such spontaneous, practical and outgoing love is a token that one belongs to the divine fellowship, to the realm of truth (cf. John 18:37). When we are thus united to the all-knowing God in the bond of love, “that fact assures us of His sovereign mercy”,167 no matter how hostile a verdict our own conscience may pass upon us. John repeats in effect here with regard to those who dwell in love what he has said earlier about the availability of cleansing for those who walk in the light (1 John 1:7). The realm of light and the realm of love are one and the same realm, the realm in which the children of God are united in Christ to their heavenly Father.
3:21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, we have boldness toward God; 3:22 and whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do the things that are pleasing in his sight.
When God, who is greater than our conscience and pronounces a more authoritative verdict—one based on perfect knowledge of us and of all the relevant circumstances—assures us of the forgiveness of our sins for Christ’s sake, we enjoy peace of conscience. The accusation of conscience must always be treated seriously, for only when it is overruled by the pardoning edict of God can its voice be properly hushed. The cleansing from every sin which the blood of Jesus’ self-offering procures for us is, as the writer to the Hebrews insists, a cleansing of the conscience (Hebrews 9:9, 14; 10:2, 22).168 A sin-stained conscience is the most effective barrier between man and God; where the stain is blotted out, the barrier is removed, and instead of separation from God there is “boldness toward God”—openness in His presence. The writer to the Hebrews, in terms of his special interest, speaks of “confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus” (Hebrews 10:19). John who has already spoken of the believer’s “boldness” or “confidence” (parrhēsia, literally “freedom of speech”) in an eschatological sense, of the believer’s attitude to Christ at His advent (2:28; cf. 4:17), uses it here in a sense not unrelated to its earlier occurrence:
for the Christian the judgment is not only future, but present; love towards the brethren is the test for abiding in the love of Christ. If we have not a bad conscience in that respect… because we love in deed and truth, we have “freedom of speech” towards God and may ask Him everything.…This is again stressed in 5:14.…This free intercourse with God, which His children abiding in Christ enjoy, has an immediate practical consequence. It has its foundation in Christ, is here now, and will be in the final judgment: “freedom of speech” in the children of God who are in His love and show forth love.169
In the Father’s realm of love and light, the children gladly do His bidding and act so as to please Him. They do not find Him difficult to please nor are His commands burdensome to them (cf. 5:3). It has not occurred to them that there could be any tension between love and obedience; they have learned their Master’s lesson: “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love” (John 15:10). In such an atmosphere of love, confidence and obedience it is the most natural thing in the world for the children to “ask” their Father for what they need, assured that He will give them what they ask. This too forms a part of their Master’s teaching: “if you ask anything of the Father, he will give it to you in my name” (John 16:23).
3:23 And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name* of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, even as he gave us commandment.
* Gr. believe the name.
The Father’s commandment is the commandment of faith and love. Here the faith is the initial act of believing which leads to the life of faith. This is suggested by the use of the aorist tense (pisteusōmen) which is here best regarded as the “ingressive” aorist. Here the construction following the verb “believe” is not eis (“into”) with the accusative (used later in 5:10, 13)170 but the simple dative. It is difficult to see a material distinction between the two constructions. The “name,” as so often in biblical literature, is not merely the label of identification attached to the person, but the person’s character and indeed the person himself. Faith in Christ, then, is the first step of life in the family of God, and this life is a life of love as well as a life of faith. The “commandment” to “love one another” has already been emphasized as the commandment which is both new and old (2:7, 8), the commandment given by Christ to the disciples in the upper room (John 13:34; 15:12).
3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments abideth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he gave us.
Obedience to the Lord’s commandments is not the cause but the proof of His people’s dwelling in Him. Moreover, their “abiding” in Him has as its correlative His “abiding” in them (cf. John 6:56). It is by His Spirit that He “abides” in them, and it is equally by His Spirit that they learn of His “abiding” in them. This is the first mention of the Spirit in this letter;171 He appears again as the Spirit of truth in chapter 4 and as the Spirit of witness (as here) in chapter 5. Whether He who “abides” in us and has given us His Spirit is the Father or the Son (cf. John 15:4a) is not altogether clear; but in the light of the foregoing clauses (and especially the words “his Son Jesus Christ” in verse 23) the Father is most probably meant (as explicitly in 4:12, 15, 16). In fact, however, the Father and the Son together make their home with the believer (John 14:23) and bestow the gift of the Spirit (in John 14:26 the Father sends Him in the Son’s name; in John 15:26 the Son sends Him from the Father).
145 Ethics of the Fathers (Pirqe Aboth) 3.18.
146 Cf. W. Michaelis in TDNT v (Grand Rapids, 1968), p. 366 (s.v. opaω).
147 Cf. John 15:18-20 and Synoptic parallels quoted in the commentary on .
148 Cf. W. Michaelis in TDNT v (Grand Rapids, 1968), p. 366 (s.v. opaω).
149 NEB “everyone who has this hope before him” is even more open to criticism than KJV.
150 1 John 3:7; 4:17.
151 W. Kelly, The Epistles to the Thessalonians3 (London, 1953), p. 150 (on 2 Thessalonians 2:7).
152 See commentary on
153 As in Isaiah 53:12, LXX.
154 Here the “beginning” is the beginning of creation or the beginning of the Bible story.
155 For this use of seed, J. C. O’Neill compares 1 Enoch 84:6, “establish the flesh of uprightness as a plant of the eternal seed” (The Puzzle of 1 John, London, 1966, p. 37). It is possible that John is countering an esoteric use of the concept “divine seed” among the false teachers, such as we find in the second century among the Valentinians and Naassenes (cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies ii. 19).
156 Cf. Luke 10:25 ff.
157 It is difficult to find evidence for supposing that here or in Jude 11 there is a covert allusion to predecessors of those second-century Gnostics called Cainites, closely associated with the Naassenes or Ophites (cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies i. 31).
158 The earliest allusion to it is probably in 4 Maccabees (an Alexandrian Jewish document of the first century BC), where the mother of the seven martyred brothers, after referring to the formation of Eve, says “nor did the false beguiling serpent sully the purity of my maidenhood” (18:8).
159 Expanded Translation of the New Testament, iii (Pickering and Inglis, 1959), p. 198.
160 Cf. Matthew 10:22a; 24:9: “you will be hated by all (nations) for my name’s sake.” See also above.
161 The attempt in later editions of the text to ease this “hard saying” by the addition of “without a cause” (cf. KJV) is not supported by our earliest authorities.
162 The “love of God” may be taken here either as our love for God (objective genitive) or God’s love for man (subjective genitive). In favor of the former is such a parallel passage as 1 John 4:20, where love for one’s brother is the visible expression of one’s love for God (see pp. f.). At the same time such love for one’s brother is a reflection of God’s own love poured into His children’s hearts (cf. Romans 5:5). So, in the upper room, Jesus tells His disciples, “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you” (John 15:9), and charges them “even as I have loved you, that you also love one another” (John 13:34).
163 The verb translated “beholdeth” (RV) is Greek theōreō, which John uses in preference to the present tense of horaō (never found in his Gospel or Epistles).
164 The second of the two alternative marginal renderings in NEB is, “and yet we shall do well to convince ourselves that even if our own conscience condemns us, still more will God who is greater than conscience (condemn us).” This is a possible way of taking the words by themselves, but is inconsistent with the context.
165 The conjunction hoti may mean either “that” (introducing an indirect statement after a verb of saying or knowing) or “because” (introducing a causal clause). The KJV takes it the latter way and translates it “for.” The distinction in spelling between the conjunction hoti (as one word) and the pronoun ho ti (as two words) is merely a convention in printing, but a convenient one.
166 W. Grundmann, in TDNT iv (Grand Rapids, 1967), p. 538 (s.v. µεγαs). In appropriate contexts the verb peithō, “persuade” (here translated “assure” in RV text), has the sense “conciliate, pacify, set at ease or rest,” so that peace of conscience in the sight of God appears to be in view here (cf. W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT…, Cambridge, 1957, p. 645).
167 B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, p. 117. Westcott’s whole comment on these two verses will repay careful study.
168 See commentary on ; .
169 W. C. van Unnik, “The Christian’s Freedom of Speech in the NT,” BJRL 44 (1961-62), p. 486.
170 The construction pisteuō eis is the characteristic expression for “believing in” in the Fourth Gospel, e.g. John 1:12 (“who believed in his name”), 2:11 (“his disciples believed in him”), etc.
171 That is to say, the first explicit mention; the Spirit is, of course, the “Holy One” who imparts the “anointing” of and