We’re starting a series now on 1 John, because (some say anyway) it’s the hardest, or one of the hardest, to really get a grip on, among the new testament letters…
And my own sense is maybe that’s because it was written by the apostle John in his old age (tradition says he was the last of the apostles to die); and he wrote it because things that were happening in his region (western Turkey, cf Rev 1>3) that gave him a great desire to set out the foundational basics of the faith. (Which is great for us too of course!) At several points in the epistle we pick up this deep concern, because this is already a time in the early church’s history (ie, before even the first century is over) when churches are being undermined by fashionable but false new teachings. (Look at 2:18-19, 4:1, 4:5. And compare the unashamedly controversial way Paul is called by God to write as he sends the 2 Timothy epistle to the same region; see also Acts 20:29-30. The church was in danger of losing its way like this quite early on; and even worse, although we want to learn from the second century church (like any other!), we have to face the fact that, by then, some unfortunate doctrines had become widely accepted.)
But one thing about John is his style is very different to Paul’s. Paul usually follows a logical line of argument – even if sometimes he gets thrilled about something, and shoots off at a tangent for a chapter or so. John’s style is different: he meditates, often circling reflectively around topics that are on his heart, coming back to them with additional thoughts and from different angles. (Is that also what we see in the way he (accurately of course) records Jesus’ words in the gospels?) And in so doing, what he gives us is radical, simple, foundational truths (even though this is the author of the most profound of the gospels and of Revelation!) But such truths are little use if held without real love, particularly in a situation of necessary doctrinal conflict; so that too is a major theme of what he writes.
Deceptively simple, then, but these are not just the nice mutterings of a 90-year-old. What he writes is radical (eg 1 John 2:4, or 2:15-16, or 4:20), demanding lifestyle change rather than easy-believism. One of my heroes, OM’s founder George Verwer, says in his brilliant booklet Revolution of Love (written during the cold war but really helpful for 1 John – downloadable free from https://georgeverwer.com/resources/ ): `I want to tell you that as I have gone through this First Epistle of John this year it has rocked me! This epistle is so loaded with revolution and dynamite that if we had reached the average communists with this message before the message of Marx reached them, we would have many more born-again Russians. I will never forget that young, red-hot Communist who came into our office in Lancashire, England two years ago. We took him into this epistle and showed him the teachings of Jesus, and two weeks later he got down on his knees in the kitchen and gave his life to Christ. I’d tell you, this message of First John is right from the heart of God for this generation!` From a different angle, the wonderful 19th century evangelical mystic Andrew Jukes says that Paul `is more on ground where the intellect can find its own. John’s line of things in his epistle is in its simplicity beyond us.` And what John writes is actually incredibly profound and multifaceted once you start to dig and keep coming back to it, which is what we’re going to do; all from God, and a great way to live!
Three last introductory comments. First, Christ who is `the Life` (see the opening verses, 1:1-2, and the close, 5:20; look also at John 14:6, particularly, and 5:26, 10:10, 11:25, 17:3) is perhaps the real worship-theme for us to rejoice in with this epistle; John’s key `testimony` is that `God has given us eternal life… in his Son` (1 John 5:10-12). Let’s reflect on what this means, and then use it as fuel for worship!
Then secondly, as we would expect in an epistle setting out the foundations, John is obviously very interested in what it means to be `born of` God (ie `born again` which he knew was a `must`, John 3:7): 2:29, 3:9 (twice), 4:7, 5:1 (twice see ESV), 5:4. This `birth` is a door into lasting eternal life, not a process, as we see from these past tenses. (In 2:19 and 3:6 people’s lack of repentant continuance didn’t determine what they were, it showed what they already were.) Nevertheless John also has a deep concern (as must we) that we `remain in the Son` (2:24) – reminiscent again, not surprisingly, of Jesus’ teaching in John 15:4-9 (and indeed 10-12). John’s reflections on that may well underlie this whole epistle, and particularly his emphasis on the second of the two great commandments (cf Matt 22:39-40), the `new command` of 1 John 2:8-11 and 4:21, and John 13:34 and 15:12.
Thirdly, I can’t resist saying how much I like Watchman Nee’s comment in his masterly What Shall This Man Do?, that what John does in this letter reflects the personality we saw `mending nets` in Matthew 4:21 (at least as translated in the ESV and NASB). Whereas Peter’s personality is that of the fisherman, the pioneering `fisher of men`, here we have John, the caring (if ageing) father-figure, `mending the nets`, when the churches are being undermined by fashionable but false new teachings. We need to learn by watching both kinds of personality…
PS This is also the new testament book that has most to say about assurance, how we can know we are God’s children. More about that next post. And as we’ve said above, John is very deliberately restating the basics. We’ll be following him in that in the subsequent posts…
