I John Chapter 3

An Exegetical Commentary by Nate Wilson

3:1 Look at what a love the Father has given to us so that we might be called [to be] children of God--and we ARE! On account of this, the world does not know us: because it did not know Him.

The exclamation starts with an attention-getter, "Look at this!" It's a command followed by a kind of quantitative word "what/what manner/how great" (Hanna 435, Pershbacher). John is calling attention to the love the Father has given to us and to its consequences. I believe that this love is the sacrifice of God's own Son on the cross (John 3:16). God has given us this love in order to call us His children. Note that this love is not just "shown" to us but rather "given." This love is "infused into" us, is "our own," and becomes "the source of a divine life," and, in this way, we can also love like God does. "The end of the blessing is that sonship may be real" (Westcott 95).

The KJV translates the neuter word "children" as male "sons" and also omits the reassuring phrase "and we ARE!" which is found in all the oldest Greek manuscripts, but since the vast majority of Greek manuscripts do not include this phrase, and the oldest manuscripts which do have the phrase were not available to the KJV translators, we can’t blame them. I think the NKJV gives the best translation of these first 6 verses.

Now, this word "called" has the meaning "call/summon/invite/name" (Pershbacher). It is referring to a single act in which we are passive. In other words, it is speaking of God's election--choosing to call us to be His own son or daughter. If we see this love, then we can be sure of our salvation. John is writing to reassure us of this!

John draws the parallel of the Christian as the child of God and Jesus as the Son of God, making several comparisons in these verses. One is that, just as the world did not "know" (Past tense) Him, so it is not "knowing" (Present tense) us. I have to disagree with Clark (90) here; although he makes a good case for the "Him" that the world did not know being "God," I can't get over that past tense, which indicates to me the time in the past when Jesus walked the earth and wasn't recognized as God, and was crucified. If I'm reading it right, both sentences in this verse are alluding to Christ's crucifixion. As we contemplate Christ's crucifixion, we can marvel at God's love and be assured of our status as His children. Also, as we contemplate the crucifixion, we can realize that even as the world did not know who Jesus was, they also won't understand us to be children of God.

3:2 Loved ones, now we are children of God, and what we will be [in the future] has not yet been brought to light. We know that whenever it is brought to light, we will be similar to Him because we will see Him just as He is.

Once again, John gives the assurance that "now we are children of God," going on to look at a future consequence of this relationship: there will be a time when we change into a nature that is different. God has not revealed what this new nature will be exactly, but John says that whatever it is, it will be "like Him." Here I agree with Clark (90) and not with Westcott (98) and the other English translations on the object to be revealed: The grammar of the sentence does not seem to indicate that Christ is the one to be revealed here, but rather our new nature, which is to be revealed. Whatever the case, this new nature will be unveiled at Christ's second coming, so both revelations will be concurrent.

The wording does not say that we will be "just like" Christ/God, but "similar" to Him. However, for John to make this comment, he must mean that we will become more like Him than we are now. This whole passage is a comparison between Christ, the Son of God, and Christians, the children of God. We are to strive to be like Him, to walk as He walked (2:6), to practice righteousness as He is righteous (2:29), and to purify ourselves as He is pure (3:3). This growth in Christ-likeness will suddenly be consummated as a point in the future when our new nature is brought to light at Christ's second coming, and it will be more like Christ than we have ever been! (Westcott 98)

This second verse also carries some difficulties in punctuation. I believe that the NIV, NASV, and KJV agree on the best punctuation, but the gist of the alternatives are as follows:

·         (RSV) Although it hasn't yet been revealed what we will be, we know that whenever it is revealed, we will be like Him.

·         (NEB) We are children of God, and it has not yet been revealed. We know what we will be because when He is revealed, we will be like Him.

At any rate, the glorious consummation of Christ-likeness in our lives will be the result of seeing Christ face-to-face. The believer will "see the full revelation of the glory of God in Christ, and therefore... he will be like Him...In the words of Dr. Arnold, 'the mere contemplation of Christ shall transform us into His likeness'" (Westcott 99ff). Can you imagine how awesome it will be to step confidently into the presence of the gloriously-returned Christ, speak openly with Him and find yourself transformed to be righteous and pure in your body? Oh how I look forward to that!!

3:3 And everyone who has this hope in Him is purifying himself just as He is pure.

But for now, we who have this glorious hope will be continuing to purify ourselves to grow in Christ-likeness. The verb "purifies" is in the present tense, which specifies, not a one-time act, but a continuing process. Thank God we have the Holy Spirit helping us in this process of sanctification!

It is also interesting to note the words for "pure" which John chose. Westcott (101) gives a word study on three related words, noting that John did not chose the word kaqarizw referring to a "simple state" of cleanness made "by outward means," but rather chose the word agnizei, which refers to the "inward effort" of "personally... shrinking from contamination." The believer "disciplines and trains himself that he may more surely walk among the defilements of the world." The wording referring to Christ, however, is different. John chose the phrase estin agnoV indicating that Jesus "is pure" absolutely. This further shows us the distance between the way we are and the way He is, and hints at the change to come in our nature when we see Him. He is absolutely holy and is not in a process of becoming more righteous or pure, because His nature has always been completely that way already. Can you imagine how awesome it will be to arrive at that point when we see Him "as He is" and are changed into a nature that IS pure and is no longer involved in the process of training and sanctifying?

This hope rests on who Christ is. The NASV parts from the NIV and KJV in saying this hope is "fixed on" Him rather than "in Him" because the Greek preposition really means "on" instead of "in"--although the word "fixed" isn't actually in the text. This hope of the wonder of Christ's coming isn't so much believing in Christ as it is resting on His character.

We can recognize who has this hope and who doesn't by whether or not they are going through the personal discipline of purifying themselves. (We will see more distinctives in upcoming verses.) This difficult process of sanctification is well worth the work because of our devotion to our great Lord – and just look at what the results will be when we finally see Him!

3:4 Everyone who is committing a sin is also committing a violation of law; sin is the violation of law.

We should purify ourselves, avoiding sin for yet another reason, says John in this verse: because sin is out of character for a child of God. A child of God loves the law of God, but a sinner can not. No non-Christian wants to have a standard of law telling him what is right and what is wrong; he wants to be a law unto himself. The Greek word anomia means literally "not-law," which is why all the modern English versions render the word "lawlessness." The law defines what sin is (Clark 94), and sin is disregarding God's laws. We must never look to any internal standard to decide what is right and wrong; the only good standard for right and wrong is found in the Bible.

3:5 And you know that He was revealed so that He might remove our sins, and sin does not exist in Him.

It is also totally out-of-character for someone striving to be like Jesus to pursue the sin which Jesus came to "remove." This verse refers back to Jesus' death on the cross: the perfect man was punished for sin in order that we may be forgiven of our sin. It was because He is "pure" and "without sin" that He could do that one-time act of justification on the cross, legally removing our sin.

The verb I rendered "remove" refers to a one-time act and literally means to "take up/lift up/raise." The object of the verb is "sins"--not just the punishment for sins (Westcott 103)--and some Greek texts add the word "our"--our sins.

Clark makes the interesting point (94) that this verb "we know" indicates that our knowledge of salvation is not gained by experience, but is absolute, through divine revelation.

So, if it was Christ's mission to take away sin, we have no business sinning! And Christ's mission didn't leave him dead on the cross, He was resurrected and lives today. That's why John used the present tense "in Him there IS no sin;" and that's why we can abide in Him.

3:6 Everyone who is remaining in Him is not sinning; everyone who is sinning has not seen Him and has not known Him.

If we are abiding in Him, we are not sinning. The word for "sinning" is not teaching that we will never commit a single sin; rather it "describes a character, a prevailing habit... each separate sinful act does, as such interrupt the fellowship, and yet, so far as it is foreign to the character of the man and removed from him (2:1) it leaves his character unchanged" (Westcott 104). This is essentially repeating verse three (everyone who has his hope purifies himself) and 2:29 (everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him), only in the negative (everyone who is remaining in Him is not sinning). In every case, the purifying, being born, and not sinning is a description of what the one who has the hope/does righteousness/remains in Him is like in his being. Does this describe you?

The one living in sin as a life pattern evidences that he does not have a relationship with Christ. The perfect tense of "seen" and "known" indicate a singular event in the past with results continuing into the present. Westcott's suggestion makes sense (104) that the false teachers John is combating is this letter may have "appealed to their personal sight of the Lord as giving authority to their false doctrine.":'

3:7 Dear children, no one must lead you astray; the one who is doing the right is righteous, just as He is righteous;

Recapping 2:29, 3:3, and 3:6, John once again emphasizes that doing righteousness is consistent with the character of a believer who is following Jesus. Sin is not compatible with being a child of God. If we can drill this into our brains, we will not be deceived. In fact, John is commanding is not to be led astray. (By the way the NIV got the address right; teknia connotes more endearment than diminutiveness.) The false teachers in John's day were overtly committing some kind of sin, but John reassures his "dear children" that rejecting the false teachers and their sin and doing what is right is to be like God, for God is holy. Children of God should be holy just as God their Father is holy.

3:8 the one who is committing the sin is out of the devil, because, from the beginning, the devil is sinning. Into this [situation] the son of God was revealed in order that He might destroy the works of the devil.

But sinners are of the devil, as their father, for it has been a characteristic of the devil from the beginning to be sinning. Clark (99) explains that "the beginning" means "he was the first to sin and thus sinners are his posterity." Jesus once told some Jews, "You are of your father, the devil," citing their sins (John 8:44). The word "devil" means "slanderer" (Pershbacher)--what a name to choose for the father of these false teachers!

This passage is full of references to reproduction: "father," "born out of," "children," "seed." These are referring, however, to spiritual, rather than physical reproduction. Every person is either the offspring of God or the offspring of satan; there is no in-between!

The enmity between God and Satan (the "seed" and the serpent of Genesis 3) is great. Verse 5 said that Jesus was revealed in order to take away sin, but here it is more intense; now He's revealed in order to DESTROY the devil (Westcott 107). The context for this is in the Greek phrase eiV touto - literally "into this," which all the English translations render "for this purpose/reason," but I prefer the active picture the literal translation gives of Jesus entering into this situation of sin like a spiritual "Rambo" to destroy the evil and make things right. That's my God!

3:9 All who have been born out of God are not committing sin, because His seed is remaining in him and he is not able to be sinning because he has been given birth out of God.

Note the chiasm here:
     a) All who have been born of God
          b) do not commit sin
               c) for his seed remains in him
          b) and he cannot sin
     a) because he has been born of God

The center line (c) is the focus of the chiasm, and it introduces a new development in John's line of thought, the "seed/semen/offspring" (Pershbacher). The Christian is incompatible with sin because not only were we born out of God in the past, but because something of God remains in us all our life.

Now this "birth" is mentioned twice in this verse, both times in the Perfect, Passive, Indicative form. "The Perfect marks not only the single act but the continuous presence of its efficacy" (Westcott 107). The Passive voice tells us that we were not active in this birth; it is entirely God's doing to make us "born again," not the result of our decisions and actions. So, what is this "seed" that remains in us? John doesn't make it clear in this verse, although, from the context of the verse, it might be inferred that it is the familial likeness that comes from being a child of God. Cotton, Westcott, Lenski, and Clark (101) state that this "seed" is the word--Scripture. James 1:18, I Peter 1:23, and Luke 3:11 all refer to the word of God as "seed."

The result is that we do not, we CAN not sin! "The ideas of divine sonship and sin are mutually exclusive. As long as the relationship with God is real [born of God] sinful acts are but accidents" (Westcott 108). This "sinning" is "a state rather than an action. The apostle affirms that a Christian can never be a sinner. He will start to be one, will take the first step by committing this or that sin, but he stops short of the condition of being a sinner. To be 'in Christ' is not to be at once perfect, but whenever such a one disgraces himself, his actions never permanently remove him from that mystical union which is unbreakable" (Hanna 435). "Purpose and inclination in one direction are incompatible with purpose and inclination in the contrary direction" (WGT Shedd).

Which direction is the direction of your life? If you have been born out of God, you will be heading in the same direction as our God did--taking away and destroying sin, practicing righteousness, and shunning sin.

3:10 By this is the children of God and the children of the devil knowable: everyone who isn't doing righteousness is not out of God, neither is the one who is not loving his brother.

By these traits of eschewing sin, it will be made obvious whose children we are--God's or the devil's. This verse literally reads, "In this, clear is the children of God and the children of the devil..." For what it's worth, the verb "is" is singular, matching the singular subject "this." I can't find any way to accurately translate this phrase into English technically, although the meaning in all the English translations comes through well enough. We can and should discern people's spiritual status by observing their life patterns, whether they are characterized by righteousness or sin, love or hate, Christ-likeness or likeness to the devil.

The word for that discernment, translated "obvious" (NASV), "know" (NIV), and "manifest" (KJV), is from the same word translated "revealed" in relation to Christ earlier. Pershbacher adds "apparent, clear, conspicuous, well-known." Some well-meaning people say that we should not judge each other, but here God's own word instructs us in judging the spiritual fatherhood of people!

Who is YOUR father--God, or the devil? "The spiritual affinities of men are shewn by two patent signs, righteousness and love, and these signs correspond to two archetypal patterns, the Gospel, that is the life of Christ (v.11), and the history of Cain (v.12)" (Westcott 108).

3:11 For this is the message which y’all heard from the start, in order that we might love one another,

Contrary to the NIV, the verse starts with "For/Because," connecting the thought to the previous verse. Because of the previously-stated principle that unrighteousness and lovelessness mark someone of the devil, a message was given that has the potential of causing us to mutually love other people. Our natural state is not to abide in love, thus it took the Gospel message to change us into lovers. What is this message, but the "seed" referred to in v.9? Just as the "seed" makes us so we "cannot sin," so the "message" makes us so we "can love."

What does it mean that it is message was "heard from the beginning?" John, by the Aorist tense of "heard" is probably referring to that point in time when his readers first heard the Gospel message. As Westcott (110) says, "The first tidings of Christianity contain this lesson... the fundamental declaration of Christ's life and work is directed to this end, that men should be moved by it to self-sacrifice." "But," counters Candlish (291), "may not 'the beginning' be held to date, not from Christ's teaching, but from the real beginning of the Gospel, immediately after the Fall? Does not the mention of Cain indicate as much?" Good point. Loving others is fundamental in the first understanding of the life of Christ and His Gospel message, but it is as ancient as the second-greatest commandment, and, before that, to the life of Cain and the two separate genealogies traced in the earliest chapters of Genesis of the children of God through Seth, and the sons of men through Cain.

John is showing us a picture of two opposing trends: One is that of EVIL, characterized by HATE, typified by CAIN, fathered by the DEVIL, and resulting in DEATH. On the other side is the trend of RIGHTEOUSNESS, characterized by LOVE, typified by CHRIST, fathered by GOD, and resulting in LIFE. All the following verses in chapter 3 develop the stark contrast between these two trends.

3:12 not as Cain [who] was of the evil one and slaughtered his brother--and for what reason did he slaughter him? Because his works were evil, but those of his brother, good.

Our love must not be like that of Cain. There may have been some brotherly relationship between him and Abel, but Cain ended up killing his brother. The positive example awaits us in v. 16, where we are reminded that our love should be like that of Christ.

The word for "slew/murdered/slaughtered" is often associated with making an animal sacrifice (Pershbacher), but in this case, the word points to the "deliberate determination of the murder" (Westcott). Cain and his murderous act are associated with "the evil one," just as John has already associated the sinner with the devil in v.8.

We should never envy someone who is righteous. Sometimes that is hard. I remember growing up in a Christian school, being consistently shown up by my best friend who always got the recognition for being the most spiritual. That must never lead to envy. On the other hand, there are prophet-like people whose purity makes us uncomfortable with our own sin. "Is there any one who troubles me and makes me feel uncomfortable? Any 'Abel' who provokes in me a kind of Cainish spirit? It is a dangerous symptom... it is the very germ of Cain's murderous mood." Perhaps your Christian grace would restrain you from killing that person, but slandering them would be just as bad (Candlish 300).

3:13 [Also] do not marvel, [my] brothers, if the world is hating you.

The word "marvel" is also translated by Pershbacher "admire/wonder." It is an emotional verb (Hanna 436), a "continuous feeling stirred by the whole temper of men" (Westcott 111). We shouldn't get bent out of shape if the world hates us--and the form of the verb indicates that John expects the world to hate his readers--we should expect it too. 159,000 Christians are martyred each year; this is normal. (1 Pet. 4:12).

The world hates us just as it hated Christ (3:1) and it cannot stand to be shown for what it is (Sublett 84). the world is not capable of true love, for such love can only come when we are abiding in God. Love is not natural for fallen human nature; hate is. And that hate, is no doubt intensified by the word of the devil, who from the beginning has been placed at enmity with the seed of the woman (Candlish 295ff).

But John's readers are not of the world, they are "brothers." John reinforces the truth that they are children of God and brothers with him (Candlish 304). If you find that the world hates you, be encouraged--it is a sign that you are a Christian. If you are seeking to be loved by the world, give it up now, before you bring heartache upon yourself!

3:14 As for us, we know that we have moved out of death into the life because we are loving the brothers. The one who doesn't love [his brother] stays in death.

Not only is being hated by the world a normative experience for the Christian, but, as has been stated in other words earlier, "the fact that we are conscious of a love for Christians as Christians is a proof to us that we have entered upon a new life... Active love is the sign of life, not the ground of life" (Westcott 112). When we see not only that the world hates us but that we also love the brethren, we can be assured that we have received eternal life.

The main verb here is "know," not "moved/passed," so the verse does NOT mean that we are saved by our good works. The "we" at the beginning of the verse is emphatic (we ourselves), a point, not picked up in most English translations. The Greek text also appears to me a little more graphic in the description of "passed from death to life" (NIV). The verb "moved/passed" can be literally broken down to mean "with-going." We are active in this process, and it is an event that happened in the past which has continuing results. Since it is an active verb, I translated it with a more active English word "moved" than "passed." Our involvement in life and death have more depth than the NIV and KJV indicate: the verb indicates that we were in fellowship with death, then the prepositions state that we came "out" of the death and got "into" the life. This is a graphic picture of salvation! And we can be assured that we have it when we see in our lives a pattern of loving the brothers.

At this point, Sublett (48) and Candlish (302) disagree with Westcott's assertion (55) that loving our brother only refers to loving other Christians. Sublett cites Deuteronomy 10:19 and Leviticus 19:34 as clear O.T. commands for the Jews to show love to non-Jews. When Jesus was asked, "Who is my brother?" He effectively answered that a non-Jewish person was a "brother." Christ's love was consistently directed toward non-believers, and, Candlish adds, "Is not grieving over an unbeliever's sin and spiritual need an act of love, too? Jesus displayed His love by dying for sinners." For these reasons, I believe that the dogmatic assertion that our love should only be directed toward Christians and not non-Christians is wrong.

John's assertion that the one who doesn't love his brother remains in death is an effective judgement on the world which hates us (v.13). The world hates and ends in death, but we, we have gotten out of death and are in the life! However, Candlish (309-311) gives us pause to think; active "hating" is the same as passive "not loving." We are fellowshipping with death when we become indifferent! "Not to love with a love that yearns to save and weeps for the lost, is to hate, and to hate is to murder." Is there anyone to whom your love has grown cold? Dear God, this sets the standard so high! Please work in me to keep my love for others actively burning.

3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a manslayer, and you know that every manslayer does not have eternal life abiding in himself.

The scope of haters is progressively widened from Cain (v.12) to the world (v.13) to "everyone" here. We must all watch out, because the progression from hating to being a murderer is inevitable (Candlish 307). John's teaching that everyone who hates his brother is a murderer picks back up on the story of Cain from two verses ago, but is also essentially a restatement of something Jesus taught in Matthew 5:21-22 (Sublett 85). Jesus said that hate is a commission of the same sin as murder. The word for murderer here is anqrwpoktonoV or "man-slayer" (Thayer). John uses the same word for "knowing" that manslayers don't have eternal life as he used in the previous verse for knowing that those who love have been saved. This factual knowledge of salvation has a flip side assuring us of the damnation of those who don't have the life! John uses a different word for "know" in the next verse concerning Jesus' death; that word indicates more of a relationship than a cold, hard fact like that of damnation. What a frightening fate to not have eternal life!

The participle "abiding" "brings out the thought that eternal life must... be a continuous power..." (Westcott 113). If that life were to stop abiding in us at any moment, we might become murderers too!

3:16 In this we have known love, because He, on our behalf, laid down His own life, and we ourselves, on behalf of the brothers, are obliged to lay down [our] lives.

There is a vast difference between love and hate, between the archetypes of Cain and of Christ. For one thing, the murderer takes the life of others, whereas the righteous lays down his own life! Love goes far beyond simply not hating or simply doing nice things, and calls for something downright catastrophic to us! This is how we have known love to be.

We came to know that love when we first heard the Gospel--how Christ died for us, and we who have believed this Gospel continue to know that love. (This is the sense of the Perfect tense.) I tried to follow the word order and emphasis in my translation because the emphasis in the Greek text is on the "in behalf of" rather than the "laid down" as the NAS, NIV, and KJV might lead one to think. In fact, I think that the phrase "for us" which those translations use, is a little weak, too. The Greek prepositional phrase is normally translated "in behalf of us" (Westcott 114).

The Greek text also puts emphasis on the "He" (literally "that One") and the "we" ("we ourselves"). Just as HE was consumed with love for us and laid down His life, WE ourselves, like Him, should be consumed with love for others and laying down our lives. This is taught throughout the Scriptures:

·         "Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend" (John 1),

·         "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for it" (Eph. 5),

·         "Consider others as more important than yourself" (Phil. 2).

This is the essence of love. If we claim to be Christians, we must walk like Jesus walked. Jesus walked to the cross, so it is our "debt/ obligation" (Pershbacher) to lay down our lives out of love for the brethren. Westcott (114) brings up the point that this "obligation/duty" is included in the knowledge of love itself. "Known" and "ought" are the two main verbs in this sentence. "That which constrains us is not only His example, but the truth which that example reveals."

"'God demonstrates His own love to us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8). Christ's love brings a new intensity to the word “love.” The next time you tell one of your brethren that you love them, think about what you are saying... would you die for [him]?! It is not good enough to control our negative reaction toward our brethren - HATE; we must apply our positive action to them - LOVE" (Sublett 85).

Our brother, when we love him, is "precious, not as the congenial companion of a passing hour, but as one whom you would fain grasp as a brother for eternity" (Candlish, 297).

3:17 But whoever might have the worldly means and might be taking a long look at his brother when he is having a need, yet shuts off his affections toward him, how can the love of God remain in him?

As if we hadn't been convicted enough about all this, John delivers a knockout punch with a little story. "Suppose you're well-off and you start noticing a fellow who has a need..." These verbs may all be in the Subjunctive mood, indicating that this story is hypothetical, but how often we run into this in real life! "There is a danger in indulging ourselves in lofty views which lie out of the way of common experience" (Westcott 114). "You will lay down your life for... a brother! And yet you cannot lay down your love of this world's good, your love of ease and selfish comfort, your fastidious taste that shrinks from contact with squalid wretchedness..." (Candlish 317).

There may be times we don't notice a need, but the verb here, which I translated "take a long look" means more than just "seeing," it involves looking for a time and contemplating (Pershbacher, Zeller). There may be times when the brother does not have a need, but "in need" is another temporal participle here, indicating that the brother is currently "having" a need. If we have means, if we are thinking about a brother, and if they are having a need, what will we do? "Shut off our affections" so that we can forget about him and carry on with our own business?

"The phrase 'to shut the heart from' expresses the interposition of a barrier between the sufferer and the tender feelings of his brother" (Westcott 115). The KJV uses the literal meaning of heart/pity/ affections, translating it straight as "bowels" (intestines). Eastern thought places the spirit and emotions in the stomach or intestines rather than in the heart or mind.

"'I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat" (Matt. 25:42-43). As we treat those in this life, so we treat Christ. Even though Christ does not [necessarily] command us to sell everything we have and share it with [others, nevertheless], as the need arises, we sell what we have and give it to the brethren (House, car, etc.)... The true test of our love is found in giving" (Sublett 86).

The love of God does not abide in someone who refuses to give to a needy brother, and eternal life does not abide in a murderer (v.15). Do you see that John is equating the two? Neither the murderer nor the indifferent man has God's life and love. Active hate carried out in murder results in the same consequence as passive unresponsiveness. Indifference is as bad as murder. Oh God, make my heart tender and responsive to the needs of my brethren and generous to them! The opposite of indifference, hate, and murder is love in "deed and in truth" (NASV).

3:18 [My] dear children, let us neither love in word nor in talk, but rather in work and truth.

This verse presents the moral of the story of v.17. John contrasts the talk of love with the action and truth of real love by a strong word: Greek has several words which can be translated "but," and this one, alla, is the strongest of them. James 2:15ff also deals with this concept of empty words--James approaches the hypothetical situation of a needy brother from the angle of faith whereas John here is approaching it from the angle of love (but faith and love are related, as we shall see in v.23). The contrast is between words and talk--literally "tongue"--and action governed by truth. The word which other English versions translate "action/deeds" is the same Greek word for "work." Love is WORK! It is not a squishy feeling nor is it romantic words; it is work. It is laying down yourself for the sake of another.

It also involves opening ourselves up to the needs and hurts of another person, as is implied in the negative example of the previous verse. But when we allow our emotions to be touched by the plight of another person, we run the risk of either feeling guilty because we cannot meet every need we see or feeling burdened about "needs" which are not legitimate needs. That's why our love must be tempered with TRUTH. Sublett (87) expounds on how love should be governed by truth: first, truth combats error: "If a friend is doing something illegal... love governed by truth would demand that the person be confronted with the offence," and second, truth is consistent: "If I tell my brother that I love him, but am not willing to die for him and sell all that I have for him, I have become a hypocrite."

Is YOUR love being shown in work? Is your love governed by truth? "When our love is in accordance with truth, our heart can be filled with assurance based on truth" (Sublett 88).

3:19 And by this we will know that we are of the truth, and, in front of Him, we will assure our hearts,

There are two ways of interpreting this verse. The first is to look at previous verses and to say that the grounds for knowing that we are of the truth and the grounds for assuring our hearts are that we love our brothers, or, as Westcott puts it, "the fruit of love is confidence" (115). The other way of interpreting the passage is to look at the following verse and say that the ground for assurance is that a great, omniscient God assures us. Most commentators seem to favour the former interpretation, and it certainly makes sense, since John has made a similar statement in 3:14, "We know that we have passed out of death into life because we love the brethren" (NASV).

However, the text seems to be saying a little more than that here. In fact, John appears to be going back to the scene he painted in 2:28 of the second coming of Christ and what happens to us on that day. Three things point to this as the context:

1.      The use of the future tense in all of the oldest-known Greek manuscripts, which the NASB translates: "we will know... we will assure." The Majority of later Greek manuscripts notwithstanding, this seems to point to an event in the future,

2.      The use of the phrase "in front of Him/before Him/in His sight." This is an event that will take place in God's presence, and

3.      The use of the word "hearts." (Only two significant manuscripts out of thousands render “heart” singular, and although those two are ancient, there are just as many others of equal antiquity which render “hearts” plural, so I’m siding with the KJV and NIV here.) When we "stand before the judgement seat of Christ to give account for every deed done in the flesh, whether good or bad," (2 Cor. 5) it will be a harrowing experience. We must have confidence and know where proper confidence lies to survive the experience! As we stand there trembling, we will have this hope to cling to and can use it to calm the fear in our heart, then speak boldly with our Lord Jesus!

The word for "assure" also means "persuade, appease, quiet, pacify" (Pershbacher). Candlish notes (325) that this is not self-confidence in our own righteousness, but confidence toward God. The standard is not how we measure up to our own judgement, but how we fulfill God's commands. "We shall still our heart in whatever it may condemn us because we are in fellowship with God and that fact assures us of His sovereign mercy" (Westcott 117).

3:20 because if the heart is condemning of us [we will know] that God is greater than our heart, and He knows all.

There is some question as to whether the first word in this verse is causal "for/because" (KJV) or relative "whenever/whatever" (NASV/NIV). Westcott (117) is emphatic on the latter rendering. I don't want to be dogmatic about it, but I tried to translate it according to the former. It is an awkward sentence in the Greek text any way you cut it. The central word in this sentence, however, is clear--the word "know." We know something, therefore we can be assured of it, and that knowledge is based on the fact that God knows all things.

The source of our knowledge is a God who is greater than us and is omniscient. But our heart may be condemning of us, knowing full well all of our shortcomings and sin. This can lead to doubts and fear. The fact that you examine yourself to see if you're really saved is good, and the fact that you doubt means you had some faith in the first place, but doubt and fear are also tools of the devil, the "accuser," and we must work against the accusations and condemnations of the devil and of our hearts. Truth and faith must be employed against these condemnations. When we remember a sin we've done that makes us feel terrible, we must reassure our heart that we asked Jesus to forgive that sin, that His blood is powerful enough to cleanse us of that sin, and that we are in fellowship with God now. Only by reminding ourselves of these truths can we have confidence before God.

There are plenty of people in the world whose religion gives them no confidence in the judgement day--perhaps it was thus for the false teachers in John's day also. Two billion Muslims and Hindus believe that our good and bad deeds are all that determine our eternal state, and there is no way of knowing whether you've done enough good or done too much bad. They have no confidence when their heart condemns them.

The word for "condemn" is literally "against-knowing;" it is a contradiction of the "we will know...that we are of the truth" at the beginning of the sentence. The resolution of this contradiction of knowledge is found in the knowledge of God: "God is greater...and He knows everything." Conversely, Candlish (317) reminds us that if our heart is aware of guile within, surely God will expose it! "I cannot look my God in the face if I cannot look myself in the face."

Whether or not this verse is speaking of the second coming of Christ, there will be plenty of times between now and then that we will need to practice this assuring of a condemning heart. Some people say that we can assure our hearts by the fact that an omniscient God knows our motives, so He'll overlook our sin as long as we had good intentions, even if we fell short of them (Sublett 89). While there may be a grain of truth in it, I believe this is an unwise way to think. We must be using our faith in God, His forgiveness through Jesus Christ, and our fellowship with Him in righteousness and love as grounds for His assurance, not our intentions.

3:21 Loved ones, if our heart is not condemning us[1], we can have an open conversation directly with God.

If we have effectively stilled the condemnations of our heart by the truth, we will have open communication with God both in prayer now and face-to-face when Jesus Christ is revealed! And, not only will we have a confident, open talk, but He will respond generously to us (v.22).

Notice it is OUR heart which does the condemning of the believer, not God. If someone feels a barrier in their relationship with God, it is on THEIR part, not God's, for "all the persons of the Godhead are in favor of their assuring their hearts before God" (Candlish 320). That's why the burden is on us to examine our hearts and deal with anything that would invite condemnation. Living in sin will hurt our conscience, so we must deal with sin. We cannot live in sin even if we have forgiveness available. We must "purify [ourselves] as He is pure."

"If we, upon examination of our own hearts find that we have unclean hands--were careless in dealing with [someone] as regards the welfare of his soul for eternity...not treating him kindly as regards his own good... If there be even a lurking suspicion of duty possibly neglected or of wrong possibly done, rest not till all is righted..." (Candlish 327) Then, with a clean heart, "Let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace" in prayer! (Sublett 90/Heb. 4:16).

3:22 And whatever we are requesting, we are receiving from Him, because we are keeping His commands and we are doing the acceptable things before Him.

Whereas the previous verses emphasized the word "know," these next few verses emphasize the word "command." Not only is the knowledge and reassurance of the truth an assurance that brings confidence before God, but keeping the commandments results in receiving what we ask (v.22) and in mutual abiding in God (V.24).

It is true that I am more inclined to fulfill the request of one of my children when they have been obedient to me and seeking to please me than when they are being disobedient and obnoxious. Furthermore, when we are seeking to obey and please God, we won't be asking Him for the wrong things. Westcott (119) says, "The sole object of the believer is to do thoroughly the part which has been assigned to him: his petitions are directed to this end and so are necessarily granted." John Piper expounds on this in the second chapter of his book Let the Nations Be Glad: God has designed prayer as a strategic tool for the building of His Kingdom in the midst of a spiritual war, not as an "intercom" to request luxuries from the comfort of your couch at home! God gives a command for us to execute and He expects us to use our “wartime walkie-talkie” of prayer to get what we need to fulfill His command. Sublett notes (91) that the unqualified "whatever we ask" in this passage is qualified later in 5:15 as "whatever we ask according to His will."

Although the parallelism "keep His commandments" and "do what is pleasing" could be written off as Hebraistic parallelism, Westcott (119) notes different shades of meaning: "Under this twofold aspect, right action is presented both as a work of obedience and as a work of freedom, as enjoined and also as spontaneous." In other words, our relationship with God is not merely rules that we obey, but a living relationship where we go beyond mere letter of the law to joyfully fulfill the spirit of the law too, consumed with pleasing God. The verb "keep" connotes an alertness, a watchfulness, even guarding--not just mechanistic obedience. The phrase "the acceptable things before Him" is speaking of plural "things" and apparently carries the connotation of "Divine regard" (Hanna 436/Westcott 119) and so is well-translated by the KJV and NAV "the things that are pleasing in His sight."

3:23 And this is His command, that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and that we should be loving one another, just as He commanded us.

So, we are instructed to keep the command of God, but what ARE God's commands? Verse 23 spells it out for us in chiastic structure, starting and ending with the idea of the "command" and enumerating the two facets of the command in-between, those two things being "believe" and "love."

"Belief is the voluntary assent to an understood proposition," says Clark (119), "and when we say we believe a man, or believe in a man, we mean we accept as true what he says. Hence when we believe Jesus' name, we mean we believe what He said." In fact, the Name itself is a "compressed creed" (Westcott 120) confessing Jesus to be the Son of God, a historical man (Jesus), and the promised Messiah (Christ).

This (Aorist) "definite, decisive act of faith" (Westcott 120) is the intended result of the command of God, just as interactive love is commanded and intended also. John has already discussed love at some length in v.11-18, what it is, and what it isn't. This kind of love is not one-way; it is a community where each member shows love to "one another."

These are both ancient and new commands, for they were given by God to Moses in the "Shemah" and in Leviticus: "Love the Lord thy God with all... and love thy neighbor as thyself." Jesus reiterated these two great commandments, telling people to believe in Him and to "love one another."--the exact words are used in which Christ Himself gave the commandment on the eve of His Passion (John 13:34). And now this commandment given by God and reiterated by Jesus, John brings up again to remind his readers.

3:24 And the one who is keeping His commands is remaining in Him, and He in him. And in this we know that He is remaining in us, through the Spirit which He gave to us.

When we keep these commandments, we are having mutual fellowship with God where we remain in Him and He remains in us. And that's not the only promised result of keeping these commands; we "abide forever" (2:17), we "know Him" (2:3), "love is perfected in us" (2:5), we are "born of God" (2:29), "God abides in us" (4:5), we have "confidence before Him and whatever we ask, we receive" (3:22ff), we "love God" (5:3), we "love the children of God" (5:2), and we have assurance of salvation (5:10ff). All are direct results stated in I John of keeping these two commands! Now, are you convinced they're worth keeping?!

John goes on to tell us the form in which God remains in us: the Holy Spirit. The Spirit lives in our bodies and He lets us know that He is there. John uses the preposition "out of," saying literally "that He is remaining in us, out of the spirit" indicating that "the Holy Spirit is the SOURCE of our knowledge (out of), not a PROOF of our knowledge (because)" (Clark 121).

"Many of today's social problems that affect the general well-being of the body could be alleviated if we only took care of it with thoughts of who is living inside... we allow our bodies to be cluttered up with fat, drugs (nicotine, alcohol, etc.) and just general poor condition. We have divine guests within and ought to treat the premises as such" (Sublett 91). Are we living as though our bodies are a temple of the living God?

Here's another interesting parallel. The same Greek word "he gave" is used of both the "commandment" in v.23 and of "the spirit" at the end of v.24. God/Jesus "gave," as a singular act, the law to be obeyed just as He "gave" the Holy Spirit. They have both been already given; there no need to go seeking after another word to tell you what to do and there is no need to beg the Holy Spirit to come, for both have already been definitely given! Praise God for telling us clearly how to please Him and for enabling us to obey Him by the inner empowerment of His Spirit within us!

As the next few verses indicate, the "spirit" might not necessarily be a personal entity (The Holy Spirit), but may be an influence or mindset, such as "the Spirit of '76." In either case, the spirit is of God, is bigger than us, and influences us in a particular way towards righteousness and love.

To proceed to Chapter Four, click here.