GPS to Life

The Road to death

Cain as the Prototype:

1 John 3:12 ESV

We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous.

3:12 In this verse the author urges his readers not to allow themselves to fall into that category of persons who do not love fellow believers by using a negative example: Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. The author has in mind Genesis 4:1–25, in which the account of Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam and Eve, is found. Cain was angry because his offering was not accepted by the Lord, whereas the offering of his brother Abel was accepted. In his anger Cain planned and carried out the murder of his brother Abel. It may be inferred from Gen 4:6–7 that Cain’s offering was not accepted because he was an evildoer. In this text, the Lord, following his rejection of Cain’s offering, and before Cain murdered his brother, says to Cain: ‘Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.’

The author’s reference to Cain is the only direct reference to the OT found in this letter. His description of Cain as one ‘who belonged to the evil one’ has no parallel in the Genesis account, but in some Jewish texts (e.g., the second-century-b.c. T. Benjamin 7:1–5 and the first- or second-century-a.d. Apocalypse of Abraham 24:3–5) the murder of Abel by his brother Cain is regarded as an act inspired by the devil/Beliar. The evil character of Cain is universally assumed in both biblical and extrabiblical sources (see Appendix, pp. 235–42). The author, too, works on this assumption when he adds: And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. The text of Genesis, while implying that it was because Cain’s actions were evil that his offering was not accepted by the Lord, and that it was because of Abel’s righteous actions that the Lord accepted his offering, does not specify the nature of their respective actions. However, the writer to the Hebrews, reflecting on the text of Genesis 4, notes that: ‘By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings’ (Heb 11:4). As far as that writer was concerned, what differentiated Abel from Cain was the former’s faith and, presumably, the latter’s lack of it.

3:13 Having spoken of Cain’s murder of his brother, the author reminds his readers that they, too, will be the objects of hatred: Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you. The expression ‘do not be surprised’ (mē thaumazete) is also used in John 5:28 (cf. 3:7) to introduce significant statements, and here it is used before a serious warning to believers of the world’s hatred. This warning comes as something of a surprise, following as it does the author’s stress in the previous verses on the mutual love that should exist between believers. On first reading it also appears to be out of kilter with what is taken up in the following verses: mutual love among believers as the sign of their having passed from death to life.

This association of the command to love with a warning about the world’s hatred may perhaps be explained by the author’s dependence on the Fourth Gospel at this point in his letter. In the Last Supper discourses, Jesus’ teaching concerning the need to love one another (John 15:9–17) is followed immediately by teaching that his disciples would experience hatred from ‘the world’ (John 15:18–25). In the context of John 15 these two ideas function as part of Jesus’ preparation of his disciples for the time following his imminent departure to the Father. They will need to adhere to one another in mutual love and be prepared to face hostility from some unbelieving Jews.

But the overall context of 1 John is different from that of the Fourth Gospel. In 1 John the conflict the readers face is from those who were once part of the Christian community, the secessionists. Why, then, remind the readers that they will be the objects of the world’s hatred? And in the context of 1 John who or what is ‘the world’ (kosmos)? The word kosmos occurs 23 times in 1 John, and its meaning varies according to the context (see the commentary on 2:2). But here, and in several other places, it denotes the unbelieving world, that is, people who are opposed to God and believers, and who are under the power of the evil one (3:1; 4:5 [3×]; 5:19). However, stress on the hatred of the unbelieving world towards the readers seems out of kilter with the main thrust of the letter.

The way through this dilemma is to recognise that the author now associates the secessionists with the world. They are the ‘antichrists’ who ‘went out from us’ because none of them ‘belonged to us’ (2:18–19). These are the ‘false prophets’ who ‘have gone out into the world’, and they manifest ‘the spirit of the antichrist’ which ‘even now is already in the world’ (4:1–3). The secessionists ‘are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them’ (4:5). But, the author assures his readers, ‘you are from God and have overcome them, because greater is the one who is in you [the Spirit of truth] than the one who is in the world [the spirit of antichrist/the spirit of falsehood]’ (4:4–6). The author’s warning concerning the hatred of the world, then, is probably best interpreted in terms of the opposition of the secessionists towards those from whom they separated themselves, that is, the author’s readers.

3:14 Following the brief digression in 3:13 with its warning that the readers will be the objects of the world’s hatred, in 3:14 the author returns to the main theme of 3:11–24, that is, mutual love as a mark of true children of God. But now this theme is expressed in a different way: We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. The ‘mark’ is the same, the love of fellow believers, but the status of those who love is described differently: they are now described as those who ‘have passed from death to life’.

The expression ‘we have passed from death to life’ (metabebēkamen ek tou thanatou eis tēn zōēn) has a close parallel in the Fourth Gospel (John 5:24: ‘he has passed from death to life’, metabebēken ek tou thanatou eis tēn zōēn), where the idea of passing from death to life is synonymous with escaping condemnation and obtaining eternal life. In the Fourth Gospel, eternal life is defined as knowing God (John 17:3), who is both the source of life and the giver of life to those who come to him through Jesus Christ. The closeness of the expressions and the relationship between 1 John and the Fourth Gospel justify interpreting the statement in 1 John 3:14 in terms of its parallel in John 5:24, that is, love for fellow believers is the mark of those who have escaped condemnation because they have come to know God through Jesus Christ.

The expression ‘because we love our brothers’ uses a present tense form of the verb ‘to love’, indicating that the author is stressing that ongoing love for fellow believers is the mark of those who have passed from death to life. Interpreted against the background of the Fourth Gospel and understood in relation to the secessionists’ claims, the author of 1 John is saying that it is by their love for fellow believers that his readers may be assured that they know God and experience eternal life. It is those who have remained in the parent community, and not the secessionists, who truly know God and experience eternal life. When he adds: Anyone who does not love remains in death, the author has the secessionists in mind. As far as he is concerned, the secessionists, by their ongoing lack of love for the members of the parent community, show that they have never really passed from death to life. They remain in death, they do not know God, and they do not experience the eternal life which knowledge of God entails.

What does the author of 1 John understand by ‘eternal life’? He identifies it with, or says it is found in, Jesus Christ: Eternal life is promised to those who believe in him (2:25); it is found in Christ, the Son (5:11), who is the true God and eternal life (5:20); this life was with the Father from the beginning and appeared in the person of Jesus Christ to eyewitnesses (1:2); those who believe in Christ may know that they have eternal life (5:13) because they have the Son, and those who have the Son have eternal life (5:12). As far as the author is concerned, eternal life is not an unending extension of life as we know it; rather, it is ‘having’ the Son, Jesus Christ, for eternal life is all tied up in him.

3:15 Continuing the idea with which verse 14 ends (‘Anyone who does not love remains in death’), the author adds: Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer. There may be an allusion to Cain’s murder of his brother Abel here (something to which the author has already pointed as a negative example in 3:11). Alternatively, the author may be alluding to the teaching of Jesus that those who are angry with their fellows will be subject to judgement in the same way as those who commit murder (cf. Matt 5:21 par.). The author then continues, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him. The purpose of this whole verse appears to be to heighten the force of what was said in verse 14, that is, that anyone who does not love abides in death; such a person is like a murderer, and those consumed with murderous intents clearly do not have eternal life abiding in them. In both verses 14 and 15, when describing those who do not love and those who hate, the author uses present tense forms of the verbs, indicating that it is ongoing failure to love or ongoing hatred which he believes to be the mark of those who remain in death and therefore do not have eternal life in them.

The outworking of Love [16-23]

1 John 3:16 ESV

By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.

The Road to Life

Jesus as the Prototype

Love in deed and Truth [18-24]

3:16 The author has spoken of love as the mark of those who have passed from death to life in verse 14. Now he explains what the nature of that love is, and then stresses the obligation resting on believers to practise it. He begins: This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. The readers are people who know what love is because they know that Jesus Christ laid down his life for them. The sort of love exemplified in Christ’s death is love which expends itself in the interests of others. When the author speaks of Christ laying down his life for us, he is almost certainly picking up the teaching of Jesus as it is presented in the Fourth Gospel. There Jesus speaks of himself as the Good Shepherd, who lays down his life for the sheep (John 10:11, 15). He lays it down of his own accord; no one takes it from him (John 10:17, 18).

The corollary to Christ laying his life down for us is that we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. This same connection is made in the Last Supper discourses of the Fourth Gospel, where Jesus says to his disciples: ‘My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends …’ (John 15:12–14). As Christ loved us and laid down his life for us, so we must do for one another. The author applies this in a very down-to-earth fashion in the following verses.

3:17–18 Applying the exhortation to the lives of his readers, the author does not speak of the extreme sort of self-giving involved in actually laying down their lives for fellow believers, but of something far more down to earth. He asks: If anyone has material possessions [lit. ‘worldly goods’, ton bion tou kosmou] and sees his brother in need, but has no pity [lit. ‘closes his heart or affections’] on him, how can the love of God be in him? In the light of Christ’s self-giving love for them, the author says, they should not close their hearts toward fellow believers in material need. In fact, they cannot close their hearts to them and still rightly claim that the love of God remains in them.

It is difficult to know how to construe ‘the love of God’ in this verse. It could mean’ love for God’. If so, it would be in line with what the author says later: ‘If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen’ (4:20). There it is emphasised that love for God and love for fellow believers go hand in hand. Alternatively it could mean the ‘love that comes from God’, and the verse would then say that love coming from God is not found in a person who shows no pity to those in need. While it is difficult to say which shade of meaning the author intended here, both represent genuine aspects of the author’s understanding of the love of God. In Johannine terms the love which comes from God both creates believers’ love for fellow believers (1 john 4:19) and expresses itself in love for them (1 john 4:20).

Deuteronomy 15:7–9 may provide the background to the idea of closing one’s heart towards others in need. The passage reads:

Deuteronomy 15:7–9 ESV

“If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin.

In this passage the Israelites were cautioned against allowing a calculating meanness to cause them to close their hearts when confronted with a poor and needy person. They were to be generous and lend to the poor even if the seventh year (when all debts would be cancelled) was near. It is perhaps with this passage in mind that the author reminds his readers that the love of God and meanness of spirit cannot coexist.

Rather than to be mean-spirited, the author urges his readers to be generous and practical in their love: Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. They must not just talk about love, but must practise it, and in this context that means using their own resources to relieve the needs of others. To love ‘in truth’ here means to love truly, as distinct from loving in word only. It is synonymous with loving in action in this context. An illustration of what it can mean to ‘love with words or tongue’ but not ‘with actions and in truth’ may be found in Jas 2:15–16: ‘Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?’

Confidence before God [19 - 24]

3:19–20 In this section (3:19–24) John offers assurances that will arise in the heart of the one who possesses genuine love, that is, the child of God. Smalley is right when he suggests that the phrase in v. 19a governs the entire section: “This then is how we know that we belong to the truth.” In addition to these assurances, John affirms that the believer can have confidence when approaching God in prayer.

Verses 19–20 are closely related in content and grammatical construction, but they present certain textual, grammatical, and exegetical difficulties. The problems are essentially (1) the meaning of peisomen in v. 19 (translated “set … at rest,” NIV) and (2) the interpretation of the two hoti clauses in v. 20. These issues will be addressed as we proceed.

John seems to be making two primary points in vv. 19–20, which can be clearly identified in Burge’s paraphrase of these verses:

19a: “In this [the love and obedience we exhibit; vv. 11–18] we will know that we are of the truth.”

19b–20: “We will reassure our hearts in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us, because (1) God is greater than our hearts, and (2) God knows all things.”

In this rendering the basis for the assurance that “we are of the truth” is the manifest love and obedience of the foregoing verses. The self-sacrificial, active love previously described offers evidence that one is “of the truth.”

The NIV hides the fact that the verb “know” (gnōsometha) is in the future tense. This knowledge is an acquired knowledge based upon experience, and the use of the future tense “expresses the dependence of the knowledge upon the fulfillment of the specified condition.” Thus when the condition has been met, “we will know that we are of the truth” (ek tēs alethēias). Marshall suggests that John is thinking of a time when a crisis (of belief) will come and we will want to be assured that we belong to God.

The preposition “of” (ek) identifies the source of our obtained knowledge as “the truth.” Used with the definite article, the truth is recognized as that truth which is distinctly God’s truth as revealed in Christ and his gospel. As Stott observes: “Truth can only characterize the behavior of those whose very character originates in the truth, so that it is by our loving others ‘in truth’ that we know that we ourselves belong to it” [are of the truth].

“And” (kai) adds a second aspect of this assurance (the first being that we are “[of] the truth”), which comes from the previously described love: “[It] shall assure our hearts before him.” The difficulty of the translation of peisomen (“set … at rest”) stems from the hesitancy of most translators and commentators to give it its usual rendering, “to persuade.” Following this interpretation, we should look to the second hoti clause of v. 20 for the content of the persuasion: “For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.” Understood in this way, John “is reinforcing the exhortation to his readers not to close their hearts toward their fellow believers in need … so that they do not succumb to the meanness in their hearts and refuse to offer material assistance. This persuasion is to be undertaken ‘whenever our heart condemn us, that is, whenever their hearts object to legitimate calls upon their generosity when they are in fact in a position to respond.’ ”39

The use of the singular “heart” (kardian, the NIV translates it as a plural) describes the oneness of this experience among God’s people. The word occurs four times in 1 John (all in 3:19–21). Here “heart” should retain the traditional meaning of the “seat of the emotions.” The part conscience plays in the seat of emotions (kardia), however, should not be completely dismissed. Furthermore, this assurance is experienced in the very presence of the omniscient and omnipresent God.

The interpretation of the two hoti clauses in v. 20 has created one of the more difficult syntactical explications in the epistle. One of the more widely accepted solutions is exemplified in the NASB translation “in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things.” This rendering makes the two clauses a continuation of v. 19 and takes the first hoti as ho ti, the neuter indefinite relative pronoun “whatever,” combined with ean (“if” with the subjunctive verb), “if whatever,” pointing out the diverse things that may cause our conscience to condemn us. The second hoti clause would then be given the translation “for” (meaning “because”). Although not free from difficulties, this translation seems the most accurate in the context. In essence, John is arguing that we can persuade our hearts in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us.

Attempting now to bring all of this together, John identifies those things that may cause our conscience to condemn (kataginōskei) us. When we refuse to love in action and truth (v. 18), God, who is greater than our hearts in kindness and generosity, motivates us to resist the hardness of heart that would refuse to show compassion to those in need (v. 17). Further, the fact that “he knows everything” reminds us “that any meanness of heart … will not go unnoticed by an omnipotent God. As was the case in Deut 15:7–9, so too here, God knows what his people do, and judges them accordingly.” God, the final Arbitrator, knows our hearts better than we ourselves. God is able to judge because he is all-knowing.46 His omniscience strengthens and encourages us, but it also challenges us, for we know that he knows everything and will require an accounting of service done on his behalf (2 Cor 5:10).

3:21–22 John’s personal address “beloved” (agapētoi; cf. 4:1, 7) expresses his concern for his readers who have experienced the struggle of a condemning heart. A reminder that they know the love of God would serve to comfort them. Keeping with his practice of placing positive and negative statements back to back, v. 21, which deals with the uncondemning heart, contrasts the thought of the previous verse, which addresses the heart that does condemn. Confidence before God results from a noncondemning heart and thus provides motivation for prayer.

The term “confidence” (parrēsian) means “boldness,” “a freedom of speech,” and “a frankness such as that a child has in approaching his father.” Although the confidence described in 2:28 is associated with the second coming of Christ, here the word deals with the Christian’s uninhibited, free communion with God in prayer. The phrase “before God” (pros ton theon, lit., “toward God”) portrays an intimate, relational, face-to-face encounter with the heavenly Father. At the same time, as Burdick reminds us, “it should be remembered that the confidence and boldness expressed by parrēsian contain nothing of impropriety or brashness. It gives no license to anyone to command God to act; it does not erase the distinction between God’s infinity and our humanity.” Our confidence rests in his mercy and love, which have been extended to us.

The conjunction “and,” which begins v. 22, seems to carry an epexegetical aspect (it explains the immediately preceding statement). If so, our confident fellowship with God is accompanied with a guarantee of answered prayer. The clause “whatever we ask” (ho ean aitōmen) is all-inclusive and leaves open both the content and the occasion for our requests. At the same time, this statement requires that both the immediate and remote context must be taken into consideration with this statement. The immediate context suggests that the one asking is the one who is striving to “obey his commands and do what pleases him” (v. 22b). Likewise, 5:14–15 states that the prayer is to be offered “according to his will.” The guarantee of answered prayer is based on the proper standing of the petitioner, which in return gives him confidence to approach God freely and openly.

Both aitōmen (“we ask”) and lambanomen (“we receive”) are present tense verbs that describe a fact that is generally or always true. God always answers the requests of his children. The “from him” (ap’ autou) clearly refers to God the Father as the source of these answered prayers. It is “clear that these answers are not merely fortuitous circumstances but come from Him as His specific response.”

John adds that the promise of answered prayer is conditioned upon obedience and a willingness to please him. The causal conjunction hoti (“because”) is not to be taken to refer to the ground on which answered prayer is based, but to the indicated condition for this guarantee. As Stott remarks, “Obedience is the indispensable condition, not the meritorious cause, of answered prayer.” The two verbs that confirm this precondition, “we obey” [keep; teroumen] and “[we] do” [poioumen] are both progressive presents and mark a defining characteristic of those whose prayers are answered. It is the continual obeying of God’s commands and the striving to please him that precede our confidence before God in prayer. Such conduct provides “an objective, moral reason for the divine response; it does not simply depend upon the subjective ground of a worshiper’s clear conscience.”

The apostle seems to distinguish between “the commandments” (tas entolas) and “those things that are pleasing to him” (ta aresta enōpion autou poioumen). Although the commands appear to be those explicit demands of God’s will, the things that please him are those spontaneous acts motivated by love and a desire to honor him above the specified commands. The believer desires to please him and bring glory to him in all manner of life and obedience (1 Cor 10:31). Such an attitude guarantees answers to prayer.

3:23 Having spoken of the need to obey God’s commands, John now establishes the central command that is a summary of all the mandates. Fundamentally, there is only one comprehensive command conveyed in a dual form: an explicit belief in the Son, Jesus Christ, and an active love for one another. The two parallel verbs “believe” (pisteusōmen) and “love” (agapōmen) work together to form one primary command. As Lenski declares, “You cannot believe without loving nor love without believing.” The Christian life demands an essential union between faith and love.56

The command “to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ” (hina pisteusōmen tō onomati tou huiou Iesou Christou) contains the first occurrence of the verb “believe” in the epistle. While the manuscript evidence is somewhat divided as to whether “believe” is in the past or present tense, John seems to be pointing to the initial act of placing one’s faith in Jesus Christ, in which case the past tense would be employed.58 The content of this belief entails “the name of his Son, Jesus Christ.” These words have “a creedal ring, being in fact a miniature confession of faith.” The preposition “on” or “in” is added in the English translations for clarity, but actually John uses a dative of personal relationship, which involves a personal commitment of oneself to “the name” of Jesus Christ. It is a personal identification with all that the bearer of “the name” entails.

The name in biblical usage is closely associated with the nature and personhood of the one who bears it. To believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, is to place one’s faith in all that Jesus is. “His Son” emphasizes the deity and unique sonship of this individual. “Jesus” is the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Joshua,” which means “the Lord is salvation.” It is his human name he was given at birth and which identifies him as totally human (Matt 1:21). “Christ” is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word “Messiah” and affirms his role as the Old Testament Messiah. The double designation “Jesus Christ” represents the earliest of Christian confessions (Acts 2:36; 3:20; 5:42). To believe in the name of Jesus Christ is to place one’s faith, one’s trust, in him and all that he is—the Divine Son, the incarnate Deity, the sinless Human, the Messianic Savior, and all other facets of his unique nature and personhood. Belief is acceptance of the entirety of him.

The second facet of this dual command is “to love one another as he commanded us” (kai agapōmen allēlous kathōs edōken entolēn hēmin). John uses the present tense in his command to love, which reminds his hearers that the practice of Christian love is a daily, continual expression. Furthermore, the reciprocal pronoun “one another” demands that love must be mutually displayed by members of the family of God. The added words “just as he commanded us” make clear that what is required is in exact conformity to the demands of Jesus (cf. John 13:34; 15:12, 17). To be a child of God is to love one another. Thus, John insists that both faith and love stand as essential tests for the true child of God. Right belief and right action reveal the authenticity of one’s faith.

3:24 In this final verse of this section, John resumes the thought of v. 22 (i.e., keeping God’s commandments) and prepares for what follows in 4:1, testing the spirits. Thus, v. 23 serves as a parenthetical explanation of the central content of these commands and as a transition to a new subject. The pronouns John employs in v. 24 probably refer to God the Father. With the words “those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them,” the apostle again introduces a mutual “abiding” relationship for the one who obeys these commands. The one who is characteristically living in obedience experiences a reciprocal fellowship with God. The present tense verb “lives” (menei) indicates a close and permanent relational abiding between the child of God and the heavenly Father (see 2:24–28; also cf. John 15:1–6).

The pronoun in the expression en toutō (“by this” or “hereby” or “this is how”) may point forward (to the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit) or backward (to the keeping of his commands) as evidence of this reciprocal relationship. Most commentators agree that the more natural interpretation is to connect it with what follows (as reflected in the NIV translation).63 In other words, the primary evidence of our mutual abiding experience in God is the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives; for as Hiebert notes, “The Holy Spirit is the source from which the certainty of our relationship with God is drawn.”

The verb “we know” (ginōskomen) refers to knowledge obtained by drawing a conclusion based on facts. When one possesses the Spirit of God, it is divine evidence of the reciprocal relationship, enjoyed and experienced (cf. Rom 8:16). The phrase “by the Spirit” (ek tou pneumatos) means “from the Spirit” and indicates the source of our knowledge. “The assurance is begotten by the Spirit.” The past tense translated “he gave us” (edōken) looks to the moment when the Spirit was given. In particular, it points to that instant when the Spirit is given to each believer at the time of their regeneration. John’s mention of the Holy Spirit opens the door to his ensuing discussion in regard to the spirits (4:1–6).

In this section John provides the believer with certain assurances that accompany being a child of God. With these assurances comes the overwhelming truth that we can stand confidently before God in prayer and rest assured that he will answer our requests.

GPS to ...