First John 1
That which was from the beginning (1:1-4)
The first three verses of 1 John form a lengthy and rather involved sentence, but it can be sorted out fairly easily if we follow the clues that John leaves us. Verse 1 defines what it is that we seen, heard and proclaimed. Verse 2 is a parenthesis explaining "the Word of Life." Verse 3 picks up on the verbs from verse 1 and completes the sentence with the main verb ("we proclaim"). Thus, you can rearrange the order of the verses: "We proclaim to you that which was from the beginning …"
The introduction of 1 John follows the same process of thought as the prologue of John's gospel, but introduces an additional step a step which turns out to be crucial to the purpose of 1 John.
FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
"What was from the beginning" (1 John 1:1) The eternal fellowship of the Triune God before time (John 1:1-3)
"And the Life was manifested" (2x - v. 2) Incarnation - manifestation of this fellowship in history (John 1:4-10)
"We proclaim" (2x - vv. 2-3) - Apostolic witness and proclamation "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24)
"Fellowship" (v. 3b) As a result, all believers have fellowship with God through the incarnate Son (John 1:11-18)
Section titled “"Fellowship" (v. 3b) As a result, all believers have fellowship with God through the incarnate Son (John 1:11-18)”1:1
Why does John use the neuter "that which" rather than the masculine "he who"? "He who" is too specific. It implies that the apostolic witness is merely to the person of Jesus. "That which" is more comprehensive. It includes not only the person of Christ but also his work – not just his atoning death, but the totality of his person as the divine revelation of the Father. In other words, the neuter focuses our attention on the Word's identity as the incarnate Son in whom the self-revelation of God has achieved its concrete and ultimate expression.
What does "the beginning" refer to? Some commentators identify this beginning at some point in the earthly life of Jesus – his baptism. E.g., Mark 1:1 – "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." But this is refuted by the context, which speaks of "the beginning" in terms of the pre-existence of Christ (v. 2).
But it is more than pre-existence. Christ is called "the eternal Life who was with (pros) the Father." The verb "was" is the imperfect tense, which implies an ongoing reality in the past. The Greek preposition pros implies face to face relationship. Thus, we have here an affirmation of the ongoing, eternal Father-Son relationship and fellowship before creation. Compare with John 1:1-2 – "the Word was with the Father" (same imperfect verb followed by pros). Before creation, the immortal God did not exist in eternal solitude but enjoyed a conscious, intimate, personal communion among the three persons of the Godhead. There was divine relationship and love before creation. God is not an impersonal force or energy field but a triune personality. This was an eternal reality prior to creation. God did not create in order to have fellowship but in order to bring his creatures into the circle of a divine fellowship that already existed in perfect fullness and joy.
1:2
This is a parenthesis explaining v. 1. Both use the same imperfect form of "to be" to express the eternal pre-existence of the Son – the beginning that had no beginning; that ineffable time before there was time; the eternity of the Triune counsels. There are two OT allusions here: Gen. 1:1, where "the beginning" refers to the initial moment of creation; and Prov. 8:22-31, where "the beginning" refers to the time before creation. John takes us back to that "time" before time in order to tell us that the one who became man had existed eternally prior to the creation. If there are only two ontological categories (infinite divine Creator or finite creature), then the existence of Christ prior to creation implies that his ontological status belongs on the Creator side of the distinction. Jesus is not a created being – contra Arianism. He is co-eternal and thus co-equal with God the Father. The church fathers at the council of Nicea (AD 325) coined the term homoousios to define this concept. Christ is of the same (homo) divine essence (ousia) as the Father. If Jesus were not homoousios with the Father how could he be the ultimate revelation of the Father? How could Jesus say, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father"?
The lofty description of the eternally pre-existent Son has set the stage. Now, the next three clauses create a dramatic shift of scene. We move from the eternal intercommunion and love within the Godhead before the creation, before time, into the realm of history as the eternal Word becomes flesh and appears to human witnesses. The eternal Word is heard, seen, and touched.
"That which we have heard." First, the disciples heard the divine Word as Jesus spoke to them concerning the reality of his heavenly origin. Many incidents in the life of Jesus spring to mind as possible occasions in John's mind when he refers to "that which we have heard." Jesus stood upon the Mount as the Last Moses and delivered the New Law for the New Age (Matt. 5-7). Jesus taught the multitudes using the parables of the Kingdom, explaining everything to his disciples in private. Jesus taught his disciples in the Upper Room on the night of his betrayal and arrest (John 13-17). But none of these occasions exhaust the full meaning of John's statement. "That which we have heard" does not simply refer to the content of Jesus' teaching. It takes us straight to the heart of the incarnation, for Jesus not only spoke as a prophet, but his very person constitutes the pinnacle of divine revelation. Jesus did not merely communicate God's final word, he is God's final Word (Heb. 1:1-2).
"That which we have seen with our eyes." To hear the divine voice is impressive, but the people heard the voice of God in the Old Covenant at various times (Abraham, Moses, etc.). In the New Covenant a greater revelation is given. Until Jesus came, no one had seen God directly (John 1:18). It is a physical seeing "with our eyes" contra the spiritualism of the false teachers.
But it is also a spiritual perception, made possible only by faith. Though he was "made in the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:7), though "he has no stately form that we should look upon him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to him" (Isa. 53:2), yet the disciples testified that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father." How could the disciples see this glory? Only by a gift of sovereign grace, a spiritual illumination. "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17).
"What we have looked at and touched with our hands." Literally: "what we have looked at and our hands have handled." To hear, even to see – that is wonderful, but not as impressive as "to handle, to grasp." The eternal God gave himself to man to be handled and touched! This may include a reference to the appearances of Christ after the resurrection:
Luke 24:36-43 – "touch me and see" (same verb). Luke uses this incident to demonstrate the reality of Christ's resurrection body – not a phantasm or a ghost but a real body with "flesh and bones."
John 20:24-29 – notice the reference to Thomas' "hands" (vv. 25, 27)
"Concerning the Word of Life." Some interpret this as "the message of Life" – i.e., the gospel. But it is impossible not to take "Word" as a personal title of Christ himself, especially since this title is used in prologue of John's Gospel. He is called "the Bread of Life," "the Light of Life," and "the Water of Life." Why not also "the Word of Life"? In each case, the genitive qualifier "of life" means "life-giving." Jesus is the life-giving Bread, the life-giving Light, the life-giving Water. He is also, then, the life-giving Word.
The opening of John's Epistle takes us back before time into the eternal love and fellowship between the Father and the Son. The text then moves from the pre-temporal intratrinitarian life to the temporal manifestation of that life in the reality of the incarnation (in-flesh-ment). "The Word became flesh."
Notice the reference to ears and eyes and hands. It is not merely that the disciples heard and saw and touched the human nature of Christ, though that is true. According to this text, they heard and saw and touched that which was from the beginning, that eternal life which was with the Father (v. 2)! They beheld the glory of the only begotten of the Father (John 1:14). It is difficult to conceive of a more clear affirmation of the historical reality of the incarnation than this. John is clearly fighting against the proto-Gnostics who denied that the flesh of Jesus had any revelatory or saving significance. Indeed, John states that the flesh of Jesus was the very thing by which the eternal Son of God was revealed and made known to man.
The NT never speaks of the humanity and the deity of Christ as two separate things as we often do today. It does not begin with the earthly life of Jesus and affirm that this person had two natures: human and divine. It begins rather "in the beginning" and states that this eternal Son became man by taking to himself a true human nature (cp. Westminster Shorter Catechism # 21-22, which follows the proper order).
Why is this so important? Because it prevents us from separating the two natures. The flesh of Christ is not something he happens to have in addition to and separate from his divine nature. It is revelational of his eternal divine nature: "He who has seen me has seen the Father." The Word became flesh not only to reveal the Father but to do the Father's will, that is, to accomplish the salvation of those whom the Father had given him. This is why John calls him "the Word of Life" and specifically alludes to the resurrection, which is the climax of his redemptive, life-giving work.
What is it about the Word that makes him life-giving ("Word of Life")? John teaches that the incarnation by itself is not salvific, but the flesh of Christ who died and rose again. This is implied by his reference to "that which our hands have handled" which, as we have argued, is a reference to the disciples handling the glorified body of Christ after the resurrection. Thus, the Word of Life is life-giving not merely because he is the God-man but because he is the God-man who died and rose again for us.
The Eastern Orthodox tradition, for example, makes the incarnation itself salvific or saving. God became man so that man might become God. In Karl Barth's theology this takes on an implicit universalism. The implication is that all of humanity is united to God via the incarnation. The NT never regards the incarnation as an end in itself; it is always connected to the historical mission of the Messiah, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem those who were under the Law by becoming a curse in their place (Gal. 3:13; 4:4-5; Col. 1:22).
"The eternal life which was with the Father and manifested to us." What does "eternal life was with the Father" mean? The Son, who is the life-giving One, was eternally living in communion with his Father. "Manifested to us." This does not merely refer to an objective manifestation but to his giving us life because he shares that divine life and communion with us. "Eternal life." It is eternal life that he gives us, not only in the sense of being eternal in the future, but a participation (by grace) in a divine life and fellowship that has been eternal in the past. The life that is ours in Christ is eternal in the sense that it is never-ending and unforfeitable, because it is a sharing in the intratrinitarian life of God himself.
However, we must be careful at this point. We do not participate in the divine attributes. The Creator-creature distinction is never violated at any point, whether in creation or redemption. We do not become ontological sons of God as Christ, that is, we are not given the same divine nature as Christ, but we are brought into fellowship with the same Father. The same eternal love that the Father has for the Son he showers upon us by virtue of our union with the Son. We are "accepted in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:6). "See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God (1 John 3:1). "So that the love with which you love me may be in them, and I in them" (John 17:26). If we define the believer's sonship in terms of being the object of the Father's love, we avoid the problem of breaking down the Creator-creature distinction.
1:3
"What we have seen and hear we proclaim to you also." "We" refers to John but it includes the rest of the apostles. We are linked to Christ through the witness of the apostles. Without the apostles, we know nothing of Christ and have no fellowship with him. They proclaim it to us "also." Compare the similar argument of Paul in 1 Cor. 15:1ff.
The apostolic witness and proclamation is as much a part of the history of redemption as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Ridderbos). This is an authoritative proclamation. Liberals view the disciples and their witness to Jesus merely as one legitimate experience of God among many, merely one way of describing that experience. In fact, liberals teach that there is no single authoritative tradition about Jesus but a multitude of competing traditions some of which were officially included in the canon. Other traditions about Jesus – such as the Gospel of Thomas – were unfortunately removed from, or not included in the canon, on account of ecclesiastical politics.
Against such views, the writings of the NT are authoritatively binding on the church of all ages until the second coming as the definitive record of God's revelation in Christ. No one can come to the Father except through the Son, and no one can come to know the Son except through the apostles (1 John 4:6). Jesus himself set it up this way (Luke 10:16; John 14:26; 16:13). An exclusive canon grounded in apostolic authority was not a power-grab on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities of the first three centuries, but the intended outcome of Christ's commissioning of the apostles to be the authoritative, exclusive, foundation-laying witnesses to his own covenant-ratifying death and exaltation.
"So that you too may have fellowship with us." They proclaim that we may have the same fellowship with Christ that they enjoyed. John desires his readers to enjoy the same knowledge of and fellowship with God the Father through Jesus which he and his fellow apostles enjoyed. When Christ tabernacled among his disciples in the days of his flesh there was a wonderful sense of fellowship as they walked in his numinous presence. Think of the disciples' fellowship with Christ at the last supper. His words of encouragement. His eating together with them a supper which was a foretaste of the eschatological banquet, the marriage supper of the Lamb. The beloved disciple who leaned on Jesus' bosom. This wonderful fellowship might seem to have been unrepeatable, a "first-century thing" that only the disciples could feel and enjoy because Jesus was actually present in their midst. Jesus said, Not so. He would send another Comforter, even the Spirit, who would abide with them forever. He was speaking of the day of Pentecost. Thus, although Jesus is physically absent, he is spiritually present. And in fact, he is spiritually present now not just to the 12 but to the entire church throughout the world. The apostolic fellowship is thereby expanded by the fellowship of the Spirit whose mystical communion transcends the bounds of space and time and race and nationality.
This does not depend on our being eye-witnesses but on our receiving the testimony of eye-witnesses who authoritatively interpret what they saw. You might think there is a lessening of the fellowship since we are one step removed, but the opposite is the case. Text does not say, "so that you may have fellowship through us" but "with us." We take our place in Christ with the apostles.
"Indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." The term "fellowship" seems to have been used by the false teachers (e.g., v. 6). John takes their term and redefines it. It is fellowship "with the Father," not just some mystical union with "God" or "Being." Compare Paul's and Peter's phrase: "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3). "And with his Son." Not so much a second person with whom we have fellowship as the one through whom we have fellowship with the Father. This is made clear by obvious connection of terms "Father" and "Son." What father is there who has no son? What son who has no father? The two concepts mutually require one another.
1:4
"So that our joy may be made complete." Some manuscripts read "your joy." This makes sense, but it is not quite John's point. The joy of John the apostle is made complete when he contemplates the effectiveness of his witness (3 John 4). What joy he has to see the process of revelation complete: incarnation, apostolic witness and proclamation, others brought in. "May be made complete" echoes words of Jesus who predicted that the joy of the apostles would be made complete (John 15:11). How? "I do not ask on behalf of these alone [the disciples], but for those who believe in me through their word; that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us" (John 17:20-21).
The Word of God is the primary means of grace, because the Word reveals Christ to us. We are united to Christ only through the apostolic proclamation. What a rebuke to much modern evangelism which is divorced from the context of the means of grace administered within the visible church. Evangelism is incomplete unless it culminates in joining the church through public profession of faith and baptism.
Walking in the Light (1:5-10)
1:5
The word "message" links back to the preceding paragraph. The verb "to proclaim" is based on same root. John here is summarizing the message of the gospel not so much quoting the words of Jesus.
The message isn't "God is light" - period, but whole paragraph in vv. 5-10.
"God is light." Light shines - thus, this points to the fact that God reveals himself. But more specifically, light not only shines, it exposes. It seems that there is an allusion here to Day 1 of creation - "Let there be light!" God shined his light into the darkness of the primeval deep.
"And in him there is no darkness at all." Darkness is interpreted ethically. By implication, "God is Light" is a profound affirmation of God's intrinsically holy nature; God is absolute moral perfection, not because he lives up to some standard outside of his nature but because his own nature is the very definition of righteousness. The light of God's holiness exposes the darkness of sin
Is there a possible reference to Jesus' own statement that he is the Light of the world (John 8:12)? Light is not only discerning and judging but saving - the spiritual illumination to no longer walk in darkness but to have the light of life. God is light in both senses: in judgment and in salvation
1:6
Three "If we say" statements: vv. 6, 8, 10. John is evidently quoting the exalted claims of the false teachers who had left the church. "We have fellowship with God! We have no sin! We have not sinned!"
John responds to these claims decisively in the following terms. Those who make such claims are lying and do not practice the truth. They are deceiving themselves and the truth is not in them. They are making God a liar and His word is not in them
A person's verbal profession of spiritual experience must not be believed automatically but must be tested in relation to the apostolic gospel concerning the truth that God is light and that the only way to fellowship with him is through the blood of Christ.
But notice John's pastoral identification with his audience. He does not say, "If they claim," but "If we claim." It is possible for true believers to make wrong claims that need to be tested resulting in realignment of attitudes in accord with the gospel. How often we have all had misconceptions of God and of what constitutes a right relationship with him. Each of us can testify that our thinking continually grows and mature as we further grasp the gospel and our awareness of its profound implications is deepened.
"And yet walk in darkness." John is referring to the Gnostic separation of spirituality and behavior, which evidences itself in hollow claims to deep, mystical fellowship with God accompanied by blatant immorality in life. According to the Gnostics, the body was a mere envelope that covered one's soul, which was incapable of being polluted by the sinful actions of the external body. Did the Corinthians make this kind of argument when they defended sexual immorality using the analogy of food? "Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food; but God will do away with both of them." Paul responds: "But the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord - your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit; for you have been bought with a price; therefore glorify God with your body."
So claims to spiritual intimacy with God are false if associated with a dualism that makes a total separation between the spirit and the body. Your behavior in the body is very much a part of your relationship with God.
1:7
"But if we walk in the light …" The totality of our being is before the light of God. We are not separating our spirit from our body but living and walking as total persons in God's holy sight.
"As he is in the light." God is not bifurcated. He is one holy being, full of light. He is the all-seeing God to whom we must give account.
"We have fellowship with one another." Here then is the true definition of fellowship with God as opposed to the false claim of v. 6.
The contrast between v. 6 and v. 7 proves that "with one another" means "between us and God" not "with other believers."
"And the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." Interesting that he puts this at the end of the sentence. It is indeed true that the proper order is: Sin 🡪 Cleansing 🡪 Fellowship. But here John switches the last two elements in order to show that continual cleansing in Christ's blood is an integral part of our fellowship with the Father.
Notice the present tense "cleanses." As we walk in the light not hiding our sins or trying to justify them but candidly admitting them to be what they are, it is then that we have fellowship with God and such a fellowship that we are continually being cleansed by Christ's blood.
"The blood of Jesus His Son." Blood = death, because the life is in the blood. And when the blood is poured out the life is poured out, resulting in death.
The death of who? Not just any person, but the blood of "Jesus His Son." Human and divine nature combined here. Compare, "the blood of God" (Acts 20:28). Hence it is a propitiation - 2:2.
"From all sin" - even the sins of which we are unaware (v. 9)
1:8-9
Repeats the thought of vv. 6-7 but with additional explanation. In place of "if we walk in the light" in v. 7 he writes "if we confess our sins" in v. 9. Thus to walk in the light doesn't refer to walking in obedience but to a continual acknowledgment of the reality of our sin not covering it up but confessing it.
"Confess our sins." Repentance involves three aspects. First, admitting our guilt of particular "sins" (not just general sinfulness). Contrary to claim of v. 8 - "I have no sin." Sincerity, honesty before God - only possible in view of "God is light." Second, sorrow for sin - 2 Cor. 7:9-10. But must not turn this into a law. Sorrow at times is more a matter of knowledge than an emotional feeling. The third element of repentance is turning from sin - never a complete act but a continual turning in reliance on God's grace endeavoring to obey.
"Faithful (pistos) is he and righteous (dikaios)." Faithful means you can trust him to forgive you when you ask. He will keep his promise - forgiveness is essence of New Covenant. How often can we sin and repent and be forgiven of the same sin? Matt. 18:21-22. Jesus then goes on to make an analogy. Our forgiveness is but an imitation of God's (Eph. 5:1). But he is also righteous to forgive - Rom. 3:25-26.