vs 1
So is this verse talking about loving Jesus (his Son) or loving his child (those who love God and Christ)? I think the next verse makes it clear, but I suppose you could say that it means both, as both we and Christ are children of God. It could even be that the bit about loving the father and the child is like a proverb of the time, although usually they are recognised as such by the translators or historians and put into quote marks or something.
vs 2
So now John as reversed it. Before, it was we know we love God if we love our brothers. Now we know we love the children of God if we love God and obey his commands. Should we suddenly be less than sure? Or is this John's way of saying that you can come at this problem from either side - if you love God, love your brothers. If you love his children, love him too.
vs 3
Love for God is obeying him. That doesn't mean love for everyone else is obeying them. That's a unique one for God because of his undeniable position of authority. Now we might think that obeying God is hard, because he puts a lot of commands out there for us to do. But it's not like that, and this is why.
vs 4
I really don't like the use of the word 'even' in this way. I think it's one of those words that has changed a bit in the last 30 years or so. Because to me, the natural reading of the NIV is "the victory has overcome the world and even overcome our faith". But that's not what it's meant to say. It's actually an overhang from, you guessed it, the KJV! If you read the NASB, you'll get something closer to the greek "this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith".
So, it is through our faith, through our being born of God that we can overcome the world. The suggestion here being that it's not God's commands that we find hard, it is the world stopping us from doing them that we find hard. Depending on your understanding of Romans 7, this may fit.
vs 5
As Christians, we should be seen by the outside world as "those who overcome". This question and answer is what John expects anyone to answer that question! A lot of people probably wouldn't admit it, but then in our context, with so many people saying they are Christian but not really being Christian, how would people even know what the link was between people who overcome anymore?
vs 6
Water and blood? Eh? Some people think that the water is the water breaking of birth. Seems a little odd to me. Others think it is baptism, and I'm more keen on that one I think. Most people would agree that the blood is his sacrifice, although some would say that it is the blood that symbolises his incarnation instead of the water. Certainly his incarnation in the flesh is very important to John, and so one of these things that testifies would testify to it. Perhaps they can mean more than one thing, but surely John knew what he meant, and you've got to assume that his audience did too.
The Spirit also testifies. Now even the Spirit could mean baptism, because Jesus had the Spirit descend on him visibly when he was baptised. And everyone would agree that Jesus had the Spirit of God because of the miracles he did.
vs 7
Anyway, these three things testify. What to? They testify to Jesus' position of Sonship and Lordship.
vs 8
This is the verse that was altered in the Vulgate by some well-meaning monk to try and get a doubt-free reference to the Trinity into the Bible. Shame it's not true really. Calvin said he knew it wasn't in the greek, but he liked the verse so much he thought it should say. Lol.
Anyway, all three of these are in agreement. What do they agree about?
vs 9
They are possibly God's testimony about his Son. They could also possibly be the world's testimony, although then you've got to wonder about the Spirit. So it could either be the testimony of man, God and the world, or just man and God. Remember, the world denies Jesus.
vs 10
And this must have been a slap in the face of any Jew who was trying to worship God in "The Way" and wasn't sure about Jesus. It's certainly a slap in the face of the false teachers. No Jesus, and you're calling God a liar. Now I might not condone saying this to someone who says they believe in God but they don't know about all that Christian mallarkey, but sometimes people's cages do need a rattling. There's a few cage rattling verses, but overall we're probably best off sticking to the merciful forgiving verses. But apologetics is sometimes needed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I seem to remember you telling me (oh so many years ago) that you didn't like John's epistles. I'm glad you've changed your mind - and I'm totally digging this little study each day. God even used it to prepare some answers in me for a conversation I had today over the waxpot - and for an email I received a few days ago, too. Funny how he does that, hey?
You're absolutely right. When I first became a Christian and read 1,2, and 3 John, I hated them all, especially 1 John. But you know why (and this is the scary part)?
Because they sounded like straight-up Roman Catholic doctrine, and already by then, young in my Christian walk, our church (I mean evangelically broad, including but not only our actual church) had already taught me to hate Roman Catholics.
Now years later, I've learned how to read the Bible a bit better, which just goes to show there's only so much you can get from the Bible without knowing how to read it.
But I've also learned that our churches have a huge antagonism against Roman Catholicism, which isn't at all healthy.
Post a Comment