Chapter 1

MSB Book Notes.

This epistle has always been known as 1 John, and is considered a general epistle, since there is no specific addressee.  The epistle does not identify its writer, but the strong, consistent, and earliest testimony of the church ascribes it to John the apostle.  It is believed that only someone of John's standing would be able to write such an epistle, not "sign" it, and yet have a good expectation that the readers would follow its recommendations because they knew it was from John.

We aren't very sure of when it was written because it has no internal material that lends itself to a specific date.  Church tradition puts it in the late 1st century, and they consistently place John in his later years as living in Ephesus and actively writing during this time.  The book does not mention the persecution under Domitian which began about 95 AD, so it was likely written sometime before that, from Ephesus, to the churches in Asia Minor over which John exercised apostolic leadership.  (((so...this may be why Revelation has instructions to all the churches in Asia Minor, but not to others.  Not as much of a mystery as I thought, though you do still have to wonder.)))

(We have often used the fact that 70 AD was not mentioned in other books to date them before that date.  Does 1 John mention 70 AD?  If not, why the late date?)

John was the last surviving eyewitness apostle who was with Jesus during his earthly ministry, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension.  Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius - all indicate that John lived in Ephesus during his advanced years.  One church father, Papias, knew John personally and described him as a "living and abiding voice.".  John's words - writings - at this time were highly authoritative, many sought to hear him speak in person.  After all, he had known Jesus!

It is believed that Gnosticism grew out of Ephesus, since it was a cultural and philosophical center at that time.  Paul predicted that many false teachers would arise from here and infect the church.  Most likely, John was combating the beginnings of this heresy.  Gnosticism was influenced by such philosophers as Plato, who "advocated a dualism asserting that matter was inherently evil and spirit was good".  As a result of this presupposition, these false teachers, although attributing some form of deity to Christ, denied His true humanity to preserve Him from evil.  It also claimed elevated knowledge, a higher truth known only to those in on the deep things.  Only the initiated had the mystical knowledge of truth that was higher even than the Scripture."

Also this quote: "Instead of divine revelation standing as judge over man's ideas, man's ideas judged God's revelation (2:15-17). 

The heresy of Gnosticism had two forms.  (Most of this is coming directly out of the MSB).  In the first, it was asserted that Jesus only "seemed to have a real body".  He didn't because it would have been made of matter and so corrupt.  This is called Docetism.  John refuted this as one who saw, touched, and heard Jesus Christ in the flesh.  He was with Jesus on earth, and this carried much weight.  According to Irenaeus, another form of the heresy said that Christ's "spirit" descended on the human Jesus at his baptism, and left just before his crucifixion.  John says in 5:6 that the same Jesus baptized at the beginning died on the cross at the end.  No "spirit" showing up and then leaving.

Such views destroy not only the true humanity of Jesus, but also the atonement, for Jesus not only had to be truly God, but also truly human (a physical man) who actually suffered and died in order to be acceptable as the substitutionary sacrifice for sin. 

The Gnostic idea that matter was evil and only spirit was good led to the idea that either the body should be treated harshly, a form of asceticism, or sin committed in the body had no connection or effect on one's spirit.  This led some to believe that no sin committed in the body had any effect at all on the spirit.  This led to absolute indulgence in immorality as permissible.  One could deny that sin even existed.  John stressed that true love of God required obedience to his commandments.

This sentence:  "A lack of love for fellow believers characterizes false teachers, especially as they react against anyone rejecting their new way of thinking (3:10-18).  The false teachers "separated" those who followed them from those who remained faithful to apostolic doctrine.  This created a crisis as John wrote that those who followed the false teachers were unsaved, and had never really been part of the true church.  This shook the remaining believers to the core, and thus John wrote gently, lovingly, but with unquestionable apostolic authority to stem this spreading plague of false doctrine.

John deals with certainties, not with opinions or conjecture.  But also, John rebuts the defectors with sound doctrine, exhibiting no tolerance for those who pervert divine truth.  He labels those departing as "false prophets".  "those trying to deceive" and "antichrists".  He says the source of all of their teaching is demonic.

John is very absolute in his teachings.  Where Paul allowed for some exceptions and dealt with believers' failures to meet the standard, John does not deal with the "what if I fail" issues.  He is black and white almost without exception in his teaching.  He says that those who do not display evidence of the new nature that comes with salvation do not, in fact, have that new nature.  He says they aren't saved at all. 

John uses repetition of basic truths as a means to accentuate their importance and to help his readers understand and remember them.

(Wrote these "notes on the notes" the night before reading.  Tomorrow is Friday and I have the babysitting duty alone.  My time will be very "blocked in", so  I expect to be more rushed than I'd like to be.  However, this morning was over four hours, and that was just too long.  I don't have a four hour concentration span anymore.)

1/30/22 - I read 1Jn4 this morning.  I have been noticing what I called "self-tests of salvation" through this whole book.  While each one is relevant, and we ought to consider each one as it applies to us, I did not find them ultimately diagnostic.  That is, despite all the times I've heard that if you doubt your salvation, read 1Jn and then you will know, one way or the other, I did not find that to be the case, and I think I have an explanation of why.  1 John is not written to help doubting Christians affirm their salvation.  It is written so that true believers can discern false teachers by the great and obvious contrasts between the hearts and actions of the imposters and the words and actions of the saved - the testers.  1 John presupposes that the testers ARE saved, and that they KNOW they are saved.  They know because they know what their inner promptings urge them towards, they know the love they have always for others, they are aware of checks in their spirits, and while they may have a normal and very human fear of the appearance of Christ in the heavens at the rapture, they do not dread that appearance as a signal of their own eternal punishment but as the beginning of fearful catastrophic and apocalyptic events.  So no, 1 John is not here to help us ascertain the status of our salvation.  It is here to help us separate the true teachers from the false ones - who are anti-Christs, run by Satan's angels.   This is what 1 John is for.

2023 - EXCEPT...see note 2022 - 1Jn 5:13 below.   He specifically says he is writing to believers "that you may know that you have eternal life".  So...can we say that there is a certain tension here, between the doubts that arise from what the false teachers are saying and what these believers originally heard?  How many people sit under Joel Osteen, and believe what he says because he preaches at this giant successful church and he has masses of devoted followers.  Wouldn't you wonder if maybe you had it wrong all these years?  Looked at like this, both things are true.  It is so believers can be assured.  It is to point out the obvious errors of the false teachers, it is to give confidence to rank and file Christians who are exposed to false teaching and ridiculed for not believing it.  This book is a pep talk to those being pushed out by supposed brothers, encouraging them to stay and fight.  This is about not leaving a church you disagree with, but holding fast to what is orthodox.

Begins, in the TCR, with "That which was from the beginning...."  In NASB, it is "What was from the beginning..."  Both these phrases refer to Jesus, and John goes on to say that he'd seen this with his eyes in vs 1, he had seen it in vs 2.  He uses "manifest" twice in vs 2.  In vs 3, he has seen.  So in three verses, he tells us three times that he has seen Jesus, and twice that Jesus was "made manifest". 

2023 - If I am correctly understanding what "forward inline" means in the BLB, then comparing vs 1 and vs 3 is quite interesting.  The same words are used in each.  Here is vs 1:

ἀκηκόαμεν ὃ ἑωράκαμεν, Which would be "heard and seen".  Then in vs 3 they are reversed:

ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, which is literally read "seen and heard".  John tells them that he had both heard and seen Jesus, and that the had seen and heard Jesus.  It is a way, in the Greek, of just hammering this point that he was there, upside down, sideways and straight ahead, with Jesus.  He is saying that to contradict him is to contradict an eye witness to these things, and he is challenging anyone who disagrees with him to come forward and report what THEY SAW AND HEARD!  Because if you weren't there, you are just not as credible as John.  He is really laying it on thick here.

2022 - Vss 1,2

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life-- 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us-- [1Jo 1:1-2 ESV]

First, John says this eternal being - this Jesus - was here, he walked and talked, he was clearly and unequivocally seen, and could be touched and felt.  Because he, John, had experienced each of these things.  He'd rested his head on Jesus shoulder at the last supper for crying out loud.  Who could seriously doubt what he said about the physical presence of Jesus?  And that second verse - I proclaim the eternal life - that is, the immortality of Jesus.  He is stacking this very non-mortal attribute right on top of his first hand claims that Jesus was entirely mortal.  He is getting right to the point!  He was with the Father - so he came FROM heaven - he was with us - so he came TO mankind.  What next?

2022 - This is next:

3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. [1Jo 1:3 ESV]

You need to believe what I'm telling you, not least because I want to share it with you, I want us to "own" these truths together.

2023 - He is also stating what you have to believe in order to be saved and then making fellowship an exclusive consequence of salvation.  John proclaims the truth - the gospel? - so that like him, we can be saved, and ultimately our salvation results in fellowship among believers, and fellowship with Father and Son. 

So go back....what is it you have to believe?  First, that Jesus was a man.  A walking talking breathing eating sleeping human being, just as we are.  He was a physical reality, just like we are.  Second, he is eternal.  He was with the Father before the world was created, and he is eternally with the Father now.  He does not die.  Look how closely this matches the gospel in 1 Corinthians:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, [1Co 15:3-4 ESV].

Paul says we ought to believe because the scriptures prophesied these things that actually happened in Christ.

John says we ought to believe because HE SAW these things unfold in real life.

2023 - There is a footnote to vs 4 that says in some manuscripts it reads "your joy" rather than "our joy".  In both the mGNT and the TR, it reads "our joy".  If those two agree....why would you look elsewhere?  Maybe the ones that read "your joy" are older manuscripts or in some other way considered superior?  KJV and NKJV both translate it your.  How is that possible if KJV is based on TR???  And how important is that, really?  If he says "our", he is including himself with his readers.  If he says "your", it is written just for them...so that understanding as he understands, they too can have joy.  So...as to his readers, either translation says the same thing.

This verse:

5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. [1Jo 1:5 ESV].  Again, John is making it clear that this is not some after the fact, I read Jesus' biography kind of statement.  This is the message he heard Jesus preach, when he was there, in the inner circle!  I can see where John speaks as if there is no room at all to doubt him.  2021 - Also, this may be presenting a contrast between the Greek philosophy of dualism and the Godly philosophy of body, soul, spirit all as one.

2022 - No darkness might be understood as "no corruption inherent in flesh".  None at all in Christ.  He lived as a flesh and blood man, yet he was perfect.  Therefore, dualism as the Greeks had it, falls.  He is only light.  Only light can associate with light.  Light and darkness truly are a duality!  The true, the relevant duality.  If you embrace the darkness you cannot be in the light.  It excludes darkness, overcomes it, removes it.  Wow.  The true duality explained for those who were leaning toward the false duality.  How insidious was this? 

2023 - I think this goes all the way back to John's gospel...and I really don't know how far apart in time he wrote his gospel compared to when he wrote this letter...but John was calling Jesus the light of the world in John 1.  He has always made a big deal of contrasting the light that was Christ with the darkness that is everywhere else.  John was maybe annoyed at those who tried to "over-analyze" the teachings of Christ, and break things up into matter and spirit and corruption and purity and so on.  Maybe he went with light and dark because those aren't really divisible, but are either on or off.  John saw the gospel as binary only.  You believe it.  You do not believe it.  You don't "believe it only if these assumptions about Jesus are true and fit with your further worldly philosophy".  You don't get to put conditions on it, and you do not have to be able to fit it nicely into some cubby hole.  Is it a zero or a one???  That's all that matters.  Get that right first, and then the rest will be properly prioritized. 

2023 - It gets back to the Timothy Keller thing about what makes the best sense.  Strip away all these "later considerations" and decide whether, at the most fundamental level, you believe that Jesus was sent by God to die on the cross for your sins - is there any better way to explain what we know about him - that he was buried, rose on the third day, and then went back to heaven.  Does anything else BETTER explain the phenomenon that is Jesus Christ?  No, we don't have as many facts or as much documentation as we would like.  When is that not the case?  But based on what we do know - 2000  years later - how else do you explain Christianity if those facts are not the truth?  Think of it as a model.  There is this gospel model, that he literally rose from the dead and literally ascended back to heaven.  Then there are all these others.  That he only swooned, that the body was stolen, that no one talked, that the conspiracy held together, that the 500 witnesses were all liars....Decide first WHO Jesus was based on a skeptical evaluation of the evidence, and then go from there. 

Always start with Jesus!  Don't start with Genesis, don't debate Genesis or miracles (though I'd go there second!!!) or matter and spirit.  Debate who Jesus had to be!!!

Possible FB post if condensed...

If we say we follow God but we walk in the dark, we lie.  No minced words.  John says you cannot just "do what you want" and still claim you are a Christian.  By contrast if we walk in the light, we have fellowship with one another.  Doesn't say with God, says one another.  vs 3, though, had this phrase:  "and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.  AND we are cleansed with the blood of His Son. 

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.  So - John says "I know what I'm talking about because I was there.  I know what he preached because I heard him preach.  Then he says that a sinful life cannot be lived in fellowship with God.  Then he says that claiming we are "untouched" by sin is self-deceit, because anyone can see that sin is sin is sin.  So this isn't about believing Christian's claiming to be so good that they never sin.  The Pharisees claimed not to sin under the law, and maybe this was the twist that Satan used to get Christians to believe that they too could live a sinless life, and just do it easily.  They separated the spirit and said the body could not affect it.  So there was no sin "imputed" to the soul of the believer.

2023 - Note that this is also one of the forms that Gnosticism took, per the MSB intro.  That what the body did, no matter how immoral, did not count as sin because the body could not "infect" the spirit.  This view "allowed" unbridled sin in those who believed this way.  Not only could they do whatever the idol worshipers were doing, they could do things that shocked even idolators and call themselves righteous.  They could use this "freedom" as a recruiting tool!  Follow Christ, make no changes to your life - except to stop curbing your inhibitions - and go to heaven.  And those recruited by this false gospel would still be completely lost and headed for hell, and feel good about it!

2022 - Here, he addresses the second of the possibilities MSB mentioned in the intro.  First, he makes sure we understand that Jesus WAS flesh and blood, and that did not automatically corrupt him nor preclude in any way a sinless life.  Therefore, it is not flesh and spirit that we need focus on, but light and darkness.  And the other thing is, there is no duality in the pollution that darkness brings.  We cannot claim that what affects our bodies does not touch our souls.  This is a also a false duality.  We are put together in a wonderful way, part mortal, part immortal.  But the parts are also one and the same in their experience and their embrace of earthly things.  If it affects the body, it affects the spirit.  I think we can also say the opposite is true.  If our spirit is troubled - is dark, is unsaved - then our physical life also suffers. 

2021 - But we still have to reconcile the carnal Christians of 1 and 2 Corinthians, and the teaching in 2 Peter that we can get far enough away from living rightly that we don't even know whether we are saved or not.  John isn't leaving those to whom he is writing any wiggle room on this.  BUT, John is writing to specific people with a specific false teaching, and he knows about the application of that false teaching - doing things just like they did when they worshiped Diana and yet claiming it does not affect their Christianity.  Surely this is a perversion of what the Bible on the whole teaches about sin.  Sin affects the person, the whole person, and persistence in sin indicates an unconverted spirit, not an advanced understanding of body soul spirit that allows compartmentalized and sin-filled Christian life.  Stated like this, there is obviously a huge problem somewhere!

2023 - Starting with vs 6, here is a paraphrase:

If we say we are saved while we walk in darkness, we lie.  The extant visible behavior, observable to anyone, demonstrates whether we are saved or unsaved.  Like being a little pregnant otherwise.

If we say we have no sin, we lie.  I think this is about the Gnostic teaching that what our body does has no effect on the spirit.  That is, no matter what we do, it is not sin.

If we say we have NOT sinned, we lie.  This means that being saved now doesn't mean nothing you ever did was sin.  You must still realize sin, confess sin, repent of sin.  I bet they were teaching there was really no such thing as sin and repentance was therefore  unnecessary!

There's a good FB post in this!

ADDING this from 2:4:

If we say we are saved, and act like heathens, we are liars

How direct is that?