Untitled Sermon (26)
The Love Of God
The Word of Life
(1 John 1:1–4)
I. The Apostolic Proclamation (1:1–3)
1. The substance of the proclamation (1–3a)
(1) His pre-existent glory
(2) His real humanity
(3) His manifested life
2. The purpose of the proclamation (3)
II. The Purpose of the Epistle (4)
First John has no epistolary introduction such as we find in most New Testament letters. This suggests that it is not as much a letter as an informal homily. Its tone is that of a pastor addressing his congregation.
The book opens with a prologue which, in some respects, is reminiscent of the first eighteen verses of the gospel of John. There are striking parallels in phrasing (e.g., “That which was from the beginning,” “In the beginning was the Word”) and in the use of characteristic words (e.g. “Word,” “life,” “witness”). Moreover, the two passages are concerned with the same central figure, namely, Jesus as the Word of God.
There is, however, a difference in emphasis. The prologue to the gospel emphasizes the eternal nature of the Word, His deity, and His agency in creation, as background for the assertion that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). The epistle, on the other hand, acknowledges the deity of the Word but puts stress on His real humanity.
The prologue to the epistle is not as long nor as profound nor as majestic as the prologue to the gospel, but it is nonetheless a statement of great weight and power. Some see it as the pivotal statement on which the whole epistle is built.
This introductory paragraph may be divided into two parts. Verses 1–3 are a general description of the apostolic proclamation; verse 4 sets forth the purpose of this epistle.
I. THE APOSTOLIC PROCLAMATION (1:1–3)
In the Greek text, as well as in most of the English translations, the first three verses constitute one long, complicated sentence. Sawtelle says, “The apostle has so much to crowd into his opening sentence that he seems scarcely to know how to begin” (p. 5). Every word is freighted with meaning.
If we are to follow the train of thought, it is essential that we understand the structure of the sentence. Three things are to be observed: First, the main verb (“declare”) is found in verse 3. The object of this verb is expressed by four relative clauses which, for the sake of emphasis, are placed at the beginning of the sentence in verse 1. The essential statement therefore is as follows: “We declare to you that which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld and our hands handled concerning the Word of life.”
The declaration summarized in these verses is taken by many to be a sort of recapitulation of the gospel of John. This idea is particularly attractive if we assume, as many do, that I John was written as a covering letter for the gospel and dispatched simultaneously with it. Others prefer to think of the declaration mentioned here as more general; that is, as a summary of the total apostolic proclamation, oral and written.
Second, all of verse 2 is a parenthesis. It explains how the declaration set out in verse 1 is possible. Two matters are emphasized: (1) “the life” with which that declaration is concerned has been historically manifested. (2) John’s own personal experience confirmed it: “We have seen it, and bear witness.”
Third, the words placed at the beginning of verse 3 (“that which we have seen and heard”) are resumptive. That is to say, they pick up anew and repeat in part the statement begun in verse 1. After the long parenthesis of verse 2, John felt that clarity of thought made it appropriate for him thus to repeat himself.
Having considered the structure of verses 1–3, it is now necessary to consider in greater detail what is taught in these verses about the apostolic proclamation. Two matters are presented: (1) the substance of the proclamation (verses 1–3a) and (2) the purpose of it (verse 3b).
1. The substance of the proclamation (verses 1–3a). The heart of the apostolic announcement is found in the expression the Word of life (verse 1). There are two lines of interpretation. First, there are those (e.g. Westcott, Findlay, Brooke, Dodd, Barclay) who interpret the expression as being impersonal. These take “Word” to mean something like “account” or “preaching” or “announcement” or as Westcott puts it, the “whole message from God to man.” “Life” is construed as an objective genitive. Thus, in this interpretation, the “Word of life” is the revelation or announcement of life. “It is,” in Findlay’s words, “synonymous with ‘the Gospel,’ the message of the new life which those bear witness to and report who have first ‘heard’ it and proved its life-giving power” (p. 83). (Compare John 6:68; Phil. 2:16.)
The use of the neuter relative pronoun (translated “that which” in verse 1) gives some support to this view. Another matter which seems to lend strength to this interpretation is the fact that the stress of the phrase is on “life” rather than on “Word.” Immediately after mentioning the “Word of life” John continues by saying, “For the life was manifested” (verse 2).
The other interpretation sees “the Word of life” as personal, that is, as a reference to the Son of God who is the revelation or expression of God to man. (Note the use of a capital letter in KJV and ASV, “the Word.”) This is the interpretation of Calvin, Alford, Plummer, Law, Conner, Ross, and many others. Those who hold this view refer to John’s use of “Word” as a name for Christ in the opening verses of his gospel and the similar use of the term in Revelation 19:13. On the whole it seems the better way of looking at the matter.
In this interpretation “life” may be taken as a descriptive (attributive) genitive (“the living Word,” “the life-giving Word”) or as an appositional genitive (“the Word who is the life”).
What is proclaimed about the Word of life may be summarized as follows:
(1) His pre-existent glory. Some interpreters who explain “Word of life” as a reference to the gospel take that which was from the beginning (verse 1a) as a statement designed simply to remove all thought of novelty in the apostolic announcement. It was, they aver, the writer’s way of saying that what he has to announce about the Word of life is no new discovery.
“The beginning” in this approach may be understood as a reference to creation, the beginning of history, or to the Incarnation, the beginning of the gospel age. There is, however, more to John’s words than this interpretation permits. “From the beginning” is to be understood as practically equivalent to “from eternity.” The wording, to be sure, is not identical with John 1:1, but the idea seems to be essentially the same in the two passages. In light of this, “that which was from the beginning” should be seen as a reference to something about the Word (Christ) which antedates time. Calvin takes it to be “the divinity of Christ” (p. 158). Alford explains the whole statement to mean Christ’s “eternal pre-existence and inherent Life and Glory with the Father” (p. 1694).
The neuter (“that which”) rather than the masculine (“him who”) is used because the declaration was not simply of the person of Christ but of all that relates to Him. Paul writes similarly in 1 Corinthians 15:10: “By the grace of God I am what I am.”
“Was” translates a Greek imperfect tense and suggests what always has been. Christ the Word did not come to be at some point in time; He already was when time began. He “was” before He “was manifested” (cf. John 1:1, 14).
(2) His real humanity: “That which we have heard … seen … beheld … handled, concerning the Word of life … declare we unto you” (verses 1b–3a, ASV). This statement serves a dual purpose. For one thing, by an impressive accumulation of words, it affirms and emphasizes the real humanity of Christ. This emphasis on His physical tangibility was doubtless directed against the reckless and unfounded claims of the Gnostics. These heretical teachers combined pagan philosophy and superstition with just enough Christianity to make their system especially dangerous. They denied a real Incarnation, some of them teaching that Jesus was merely a phantom, that He seemed to be a man but was not really a man. John, on the other hand, teaches that in Jesus the eternal God actually clothed Himself in human flesh and made Himself real to men through their senses. John and others heard Him speak, saw Him with their eyes, touched Him with their hands. In John’s thinking God came all the way down to us. He took our nature; He became a man of flesh and blood.
Moreover, these words show that the first preachers of the Gospel were reliable and authoritative witnesses of the truth which they proclaimed. Indeed, this emphasis pervades the entire sentence which makes up the first three verses. Three times the writer asserts “we have seen”; twice he writes “we have heard”; and twice he declares that the life “was manifested.” John’s readers, who belonged to a later generation and had never seen Jesus, might have had questions about the apostolic message. The apostle takes great pains to assure them that he and his fellow apostles were competent witnesses and that what they proclaimed was trustworthy and true. He seems to struggle for words strong enough to express his feelings. “I tell you,” he says, “we saw these things with our own eyes, we heard them with our own ears, we have touched and tested them at every point, and we know beyond any doubt that they are so.”
Before leaving the first verse attention should be called to the significance of its verbs. “Was,” as noted above, translates a Greek imperfect tense and may suggest what always has been. The verbs translated “we have heard” and “we have seen” are both perfect tenses. They point up the abiding reality of the audible and visible experiences of the apostle which may have occurred frequently. What was seen and heard during the days of Christ’s earthly ministry left an abiding impression on him. “With our eyes” are words added to the verb “have seen” to emphasize that the experience was actual.
The verbs translated “we beheld” and “our hands handled” introduce a sudden change in tense. In the Greek both are in the aorist tense, possibly referring to a single act (in contrast with the oft-repeated acts of the two preceding verbs). Some interpreters think they refer to some special occasion when John and his fellow apostles had the experience described here. Specifically, the allusion may be to a time when they looked upon and handled the glorified body of the risen Christ (cf. Luke 24:39; John 20:27). Others doubt that the statement can legitimately be confined to a post-resurrection experience.
“We beheld” translates a word which speaks of an intent, contemplative gaze. Barclay says it means “to gaze at someone, or something, until a long look has grasped something of the meaning and significance of that person or thing” (p. 27). In earlier Greek usage it suggested looking with a sense of wonder, but by New Testament times the word had lost this significance. John uses it in the prologue to his gospel when he writes of Jesus, “We beheld his glory” (John 1:14). Jesus used it when addressing the multitudes about John the Baptist: “What went ye out into the wilderness to behold?” (Luke 7:24, ASV). In the epistle John uses it in two other places, 4:12 and 14.
“Handled,” according to Findlay, “denoted not the bare handling, but the exploring use of the hands that tests by handling” (p. 85). It is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in Luke 24:39 (“handle”); Acts 17:27 (“feel after”); and Hebrews 12:18 (“touched”). In Genesis 27:12 the Septuagint uses it of the fumbling of a blind man. In Deuteronomy 28:29; Job 5:14; and 12:25 it is used of groping in the dark. Ross comments: “Now that the Eternal Logos has been manifested, we no longer fumble in the dark, feeling after God; in Christ we have grasped hold of reality” (p. 135).
(3) His manifested life. Verse 2, a parenthesis, explains how it was possible for men to see, hear, and handle the eternal Word. It was because the Word (Christ) in His character as the life, became visible: For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us (verse 2). These words are spoken of “the life,” but the context suggests that the “life” and the “Word” are one. This is borne out by the similar statement in John 1:4: “In him [i.e., the Word] was life; and the life was the light of men.” (See also 1 John 5:20 [“… and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life”]; and John 14:6 [“I am … the life”]). “Life,” then, like “Word” in verse 1, is a name for Christ.
The key word is “manifested,” used twice in this verse. A term of frequent occurrence in the New Testament, it is employed most often of God or Christ, or of men in relation to God and Christ. Westcott calls attention to its use in John’s writings of Christ’s first coming (1 John 3:5, 8; John 1:31), of His revelation after the Resurrection (John 21:1, 14), and of His Second Coming (1 John 2:28). Essentially it means “to bring to light,” “to make known that which already exists.” Thus the life which always existed in the divine Word was in Jesus made tangible and visible. The verse begins with an unqualified declaration of this fact. The last part of the verse repeats the idea with one addition: the Life was manifested “unto us.”
The thought expressed by “manifested” corresponds with “the Word was made flesh” (John 1:14). There is, however, this difference: “the Word was made flesh” focuses on the Incarnation as a historic event. “The life was manifested” suggests the unfolding of Christ’s incarnate life. What we are saying is that the manifestation of the life was the consequence, the outworking, of the Incarnation. Lenski understands the phrase to include “the whole manifestation from the incarnation to the ascension” but thinks it has special reference to the period “from the baptism until the ascension, the time when the apostles beheld his glory” (p. 37).
Three things are said of the life manifested in Christ: (1) The life is “eternal life” (verse 2b; literally, “the life, the eternal,” which is a stronger way of putting the idea). The adjective attributes to the life a quality that transcends time, that cannot be measured by time. (2) The life was “with the Father” (verse 2c). The Greek construction implies a personal, face-to-face relationship. (3) John was witness to the life (verse 2a). “Have seen” (which sums up the four verbs of verse 1), “bear witness,” and “show” (better, “declare”) all relate in some way to this thought. The three terms speak, respectively, of experience, testimony, and announcement.
2. The purpose of the proclamation (verse 3). The apostolic witness was given with compassionate concern for those who heard it. “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us” (verse 3a). Those who are really in the divine fellowship cannot be satisfied while there are others still on the outside. As Spurgeon comments, “Having found the honey, we cannot eat it alone; having tasted that the Lord is gracious, it is one of the first instincts of the newborn nature to send us out crying, ‘Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money: come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price’ ” (p. 478).
As explained above, these words resume the thought begun in verse 1 and which was interrupted by the parenthesis of the second verse. John repeats just enough of verse 1 (“that which we have seen and heard”) to make the connection clear.
“Have fellowship” might have been expressed in Greek by a single word, but John uses here a verb and a noun. The expression therefore is an especially strong one, conveying the notion of the enjoyment of fellowship rather than the mere fact of fellowship. The verb, a present subjunctive literally meaning “continue to have,” may contain a tacit allusion to the erroneous teaching which was threatening to destroy the fellowship of the Asian Christians. If we assume that the verb has this significance, John, in effect, says: “We are making our announcement to you in order that the fellowship may be kept intact, that is, that you may go on having fellowship with us.” The context, however, gives more probability to the view that the verb means “have and continue to have.” That is to say, the proclamation is made in order that men might enter the Christian fellowship and then continuously enjoy it.
“Fellowship” is one of the great words of the New Testament, even though it does not appear with unusual frequency. Altogether it is used twenty times, four of these occurrences being in I John. It calls to mind a tremendously important truth, namely, that the Christian life is not a life lived in isolation. It is a life common to and shared by all believers. This is an emphasis sorely needed in our day, for the “church” idea is under attack as perhaps it never has been. And many professing believers who do not vocally attack the church are quite indifferent to any real fellowship in it. Barrett wrote some years ago (and his words are doubly true today): “The greatest revival needed today is a revival of the sense of the importance and value of Church life to the individual believer” (p. 31). We would do well to remind ourselves that it was the concept of true Christian fellowship, a thing utterly foreign to ancient pagan society, that helped Christianity spread like a prairie fire throughout the Roman world.
The root meaning of the word is participation, that is, a sharing in something with others. Mrs. Montgomery has the word “partnership.” The NEB translates the whole phrase, “so that we together may share in a common life.”
John defines the fellowship as a fellowship among Christians (“with us”), but he insists that it is far more than this. “Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ” (verse 3b). There is a solemn fullness about this statement. Plummer renders the Greek thus: “Our fellowship is with the Father, and with the Son of Him, Jesus Christ.” He then points out that “both the preposition and the definite article are repeated, marking emphatically the distinction and equality between the Son and the Father.” The title given our Lord is also worthy of notice. “Son” points up His sharing in the essence and glory of deity and emphasizes His capacity to reveal God. “Jesus” calls attention to the reality of His human life; “Christ” refers to His divine commission.
II. THE PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE (verse 4)
John states the purpose of his epistle in verse 4: “And these things write we unto you that your joy may be made full.” The RSV says: “And we are writing this that our joy may be complete.” This statement of purpose should be compared with 5:13, where John expresses the purpose of his letter in other terms. The two passages are complementary not contradictory. The words of the present passage are an echo of the words of Christ in John 15:11, “These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.”
Most commentaries take the “we” as a literary or editorial plural. Lenski, however, following Zahn, rejects this. He argues that John here, as in the first person plurals of verses 1–3, is speaking in the name of all the apostles. “These things,” then, “includes the entire New Testament literature” (p. 380).
It is almost impossible to decide whether the true text read “your joy” (KJV) or “our joy” (RSV). Both yield a good sense, KJV refers to the joy of John’s readers. The RSV suggests that John felt his own joy would be incomplete unless shared by his readers. The words of Samuel Rutherford reflect the same idea:
Oh! if one soul from Anwoth
Meet me at God’s right hand,
My heaven will be two heavens
In Immanuel’s land.
“Made full,” translating a Greek perfect tense, suggests the idea of a joy made permanently full. “It is but the beginning of joy when we begin to believe. When faith daily increases, joy increases in proportion” (Luther).
The sequence of thought between fellowship (verse 3) and fullness of joy (verse 4) is significant. The import of it is that fullness of joy depends on the realization of true fellowship in Christ. “The isolated and solitary Christian can never be a happy Christian” (Barrett, p. 35).
