1 John chapter 3

vs 1

If the world didn't recognise Jesus as Son of God, how is it going to recognise us as children of God? It really is a privilege to have that title, but it does also mean that others will look down on us. It certainly doesn't stop people from recognising something different about us (as they did about Jesus) - what it does do is stop some of them from making the logical conclusion that it's because of God. Remember how many people rejected Jesus? We shouldn't be surprised.

vs 2

So what we are now is children of God. We don't need to wait for that. But there is something else, something extra, we will become. The now-but-not-yet thing. When Jesus returns, we will be like him. We don't exactly know what that's going to be like. But when we see him again, we will see him as he is, and we will become like that.

vs 3

I don't think it's clear from this verse whether it is having the hope which purifies you, or because you have the hope, you will then go and purify yourself somehow. The greek is very vague. I don't particularly lean in either direction. I think I prefer to look at it a little in both camps - the only reason we can be pure is because Jesus is pure, and so we should strive to be pure because Jesus is pure. A bit like "Be holy, for I am holy".

vs 4

I'm guessing this verse is here because people (false teachers) were trying to say that sin and lawlessness aren't the same thing. The greek basically says "anyone who does sin also does lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness."

vs 5

Just as he is holy, so we might be holy. Just as he is pure, so we might be pure. Just as he is without sin, so he came to take away our sin. I see a pattern here.

vs 6

John Wesley interpreted this in an interesting way. He said that Christians never sin intentionally, and that unintentional sin is not sin, because you didn't mean to do it, and part of sin is intention. I don't really agree with him on this level, and John himself doesn't either. Remember, John said that "if we do sin, we've got someone who speaks in our defence". So he knows full well that Jesus is prepared for us to sin and will still accept us.

So what does John mean then? I think, like most authors of the Bible books, he is being more practical than theological. Usually, any time we think that an author is making a pure theological point, we're probably running a little risk. The NT books especially are what is commonly called "Task Theology" - that is, it's theology designed to fit to doing things. That's why we should always strive for application. Yes, John has made the point that if we sin, we should seek Jesus and he can forgive us our sins. But he is also saying that those who keep on sinning, possibly without confessing, are not of God. Of course, that's not a judgement for us to make - or is it? This book is, after all, written partly to warn its readers about false teachers. Hard decision to make.

vs 7

People who do right usually are right. Now that doesn't mean that their theology is always going to be perfect. Far, far from it actually. And it also doesn't mean that people who do good are going to be right. Good and right are different things. I always try to remember Romans 5, "Not many people would die for a righteous man, but for a good man someone might possibly dare to die". Lots of people in the world do good things. Far less do right things. The greek word is actually righteousness - "the one doing righteousness is righteous". But then, all righteous means is "doing right", so the translation shouldn't be a problem. It's just that we are too quick to attribute good to right.

vs 8

In the same way, those who sin are of the devil. Jesus appeared to destroy this work, so people who are contributing to it are basically working against Jesus, they are building something for him to destroy.

vs 9

John repeats it again, and we really have to accept that this is the truth. Ok, so everyone sins. John will accept that. But, what he won't accept is people who continually go on sinning. See, John doesn't go into a lot of theological depth. What if someone professes Christ, but then falls away, and then later comes back? Were they a Christian who fell away? Did they lose and then regain their salvation? Were they never a Christian in the first place? John does not ask or answer those questions. He says "When we sin, Jesus can forgive us. But anyone who really knows God won't just keep on sinning. Their life will change". Quite simply, the more people we allow to call themselves Christian who don't have a real life change, the more questionable this whole thing becomes. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd century church did not have the luxury of asking this question - unstable Christians were too dangerous to the church and could cause a lot of persecution to befall the believers.

Anyone who is a Christian will have a life-change. Now, we won't exactly be able to measure that life change, especially if we haven't known someone for long. But you know what I mean, you know who I mean. You know those people who, over the years, have been constantly seeking to improve, and whose lives continue to come under God's command.

vs 10

It was vital for the early church to be able to know who was real. Paul says it is not for us to judge, but John says "this is how you will know". It's not easy. I think we've got to prevent ourselves from setting ourselves up as judge and jury, because that is Jesus' job. However, practically we do have to know where people are at with Christ so that we can meet their needs and the needs of the church.

vs 11

And that is the message John shares throughout this book. It is one of the most vital things Jesus said, and John obviously took it to heart. Remember, at one time he was prepared to call fire down on people!

vs 12

I don't want to legislate here, but perhaps this is what John means. Cain's sin of murder was not a mistake, it was a desire. It was a tool of the devil. He wanted to do it, and knew it was wrong, and did not seek to repent. When we sin, we either sin knowing God doesn't want us to, and then we realise what we've done and we repent (or not, in the case of Cain). Or, we sin, not really understanding whether it's a sin or not, or trying to legitamize what we are doing, and then we don't feel bad, so we don't repent - we think we have a right to do that thing. I don't know which one is worse really - at least when we know we're doing wrong and accept that, we are more likely to repent. Of course, it's always easier to see these things in other people, and on one hand I don't think that's all bad. Yes, we shouldn't try and remove the splinter from someone's eye when we have a plank in ours. But because some sin can affect us and cause us to stumble, it is only right that we are able to approach our brothers and sisters in Christ and ask them about what they are doing, and tell them that it is causing us problems.

I know one thing I do a lot is validate my actions by what other people have done, like "Company X used to encourage people to pirate its software, so it's ok to pirate their software". I know other Christians who say "The police won't book you for going 10% over the speed limit, so it's OK to do that." The lines can be fuzzy, I guess, but Christians really should be pure, not fuzzy. I wonder if we can actually manage it though.