The letters of John form a remarkable collection of writing, usually place towards the end of the New Testament. The imagery is powerful; the language is engaging; and the teaching is immensely practical. I can still remember the impact of studying these letters in a small group not long after I came to faith as a teenager.
Many people remember above all the injunction to love one another, flowing from God’s own love that we experience in the person of Jesus. ‘God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them’ (1 John 4.16b). Though used at weddings, this kind of love is not an emotion but something expressed in practical action.
But if we think these letters are just about action, then we are misreading. They are actually concerned with a whole range of important theological issues. Central is the idea of knowing God, relationally and experientially, but also in a way which allows us to tell truth from falsehood. Next to this is the truth about the person of Jesus; as the Word of Life, he came ‘in the flesh’ (1 John 4.2, 2 John 7), the truly divine become truly human. Because of this, his death really is an ‘atoning sacrifice’ which deals with our sins (1 John 2.2, 4.10) and leads to forgiveness and reconciliation with God.
This shapes our understanding of our own lives as disciples. On the one hand, light has broken into the darkness and everything has changed. Yet we still know the reality of sin, and so we continue to confess and receive forgiveness as we journey towards God’s perfect future. We are out of step with the world that does not know God, equipped and empowered by the presence of the Spirit.
The language of these letters is clearly close to that of the Fourth Gospel, and so these letters have been attributed to the Apostle John, often thought to be the gospel’s author—but we need to note that both gospel and letters are actually anonymous. Lacking the usual opening and conclusion of a letter, and speaking generally, these are usually known as ‘catholic’ epistles, addressed to all.
I wrote these notes for the Bible Reading Fellowship’s Guidelines notes, which I heartily commend. (You can order them online here.) I am mostly using the NIV, but commenting where the translation needs clarifying.
Further reading
David Jackman The Message of John’s Letters. IVP, 1988
Colin Kruse The Letters of John (2nd ed). Pillar Commentaries; Eerdmans, 2020.
Marianne Meye Thompson 1-3 John IVP New Testament Commentary. IVP, 2011.
Light, life, and love: 1 John 1.1–2.11
Lacking any of the usual epistolary formalities, our letter opens as abruptly as the Fourth Gospel with a startling series of claims, echoing the gospel’s prologue. The Word of Life, who was with the Father, has appeared in human form. The language here is concrete and vivid; this person is not merely someone we have seen and heard—we have even touched him with our own hands! This experience contradicts both Jewish ideas that the transcendence of God means we cannot see him ourselves, and Greek ideas that the divine belongs in an unchanging world far from the changes and chances of this one.
And yet this creates a problem for us! God is holy and pure—‘light’—and we are not. Our natural experience is the darkness of sin: ‘if we claim to be without sin, the truth is not in us…’ The light of God shines on the dark reality of our situation. This means that we need to know how our sin has been dealt with (Jesus as the atoning sacrifice) and we need to inhabit a discipline of life which appropriates this (confession of sin, receiving forgiveness). The language here is striking; the image of atoning sacrifice comes from the regulations for the Jewish Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16. But Jesus’ death is not just for ethnic Israel—it is ‘also for the sins of the whole world’. John 11.52 says the same thing: Jesus death is not just for the nation, but to gather into one all God’s children (compare Rev 7.9).
This gift of love comes with the obligation to respond. To claim to love God and live in him means committing to obey his call to live in holiness: ‘if you love me, you will keep my commandments’ (John 14.15). The word became flesh and lived amongst us—not least to give us an example to follow, since ‘we must live as Jesus did’. In one sense this is nothing new; the central call on Israel, in response to God’s gift of liberation from slavery, was to ‘love the Lord your God’ (Deut 6.4). But in Jesus, this call comes with a new clarity, fresh grace, and a radical new breadth, which includes not only those who were near, but those of us who were far off (Eph 2.13)
Challenges within and without: 1 John 2.12–29
This passage begins with repeated reassurance, continues with two warnings, and ends with hope.
The ‘children’ term is used to address all his readers (in 1 John 2.18, 28, 3.1 and so on), all those who have received by faith the gift of the kingdom and eternal life. (Compare Jesus’ use of the term in Mark 10.15 and 24)—not because or our merit but because of his character (name), and so we now know the Father. As Paul says, there is now no condemnation (Rom 8.1) so we can cry out ‘Abba, Father!’ (Rom 8.15). Those who are mature in faith are secure in their knowledge of God; those of the next generation have gained spiritual strength from the victory of Jesus and the word of God. (In a patriarchal context, the sexed terms are natural and should be read as applying to all.)
We need this assurance because we face opposition from within and without. The language of ‘the world’ matches its use in the Fourth Gospel; though God loves the world and gave his Son for it, the world has not received him and so opposes his people (John 16.33). We are in the world but not of it, and we need to recognise the ways in which the desires we see all around us draw us away from him.
But opposition comes from within the community as well—those who deny that Jesus is God’s final word to us, the anointed one (‘Christ’) who is the fulfilment of all God’s promises to his people. The language of ‘antichrist’ has wrongly been blended with the quite separate language of ‘the beast’ in Revelation, and Paul’s obscure ‘man of lawlessness’ in 2 Thessalonians 2. It has been taken to refer to a future ‘end times’ person opposing the teaching of Jesus. But the writer here is clear that he and his readers are already in the ‘end times’—which began when the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost (see Acts 2.17). And in Greek, ‘anti-’ does not mean ‘against’ so much as ‘in place of’. These false teachers claim Jesus is not enough.
But we look with confidence to his ‘appearance’ when he comes again. Then the victory of the cross will be completed, God’s enemies vanquished, and our transformation will be made complete.
The hope of transformation: 1 John 3.1–24
Chapter 3 continues to integrate assurance, warning and hope—it is full of celebration of what God has done for us in Jesus, and the difference that makes for us. And it continues to hold together the gift of God’s love with our need to respond. The language echoes that of the Fourth Gospel, and yet the theological ideas are found elsewhere in the New Testament, particularly in Paul.
There is a radical disjunction, not only between who we are as the people of God and the world around us, but between what we are now and what we once were. In parallel with the language of new birth in John 1.12 and 3.3, we now live a new life as children of God which brings about a complete change. Paul expresses it in an eschatological register in 2 Cor 5.17: ‘When anyone is in Christ—new creation!’ The promised new world of future hope has come into the present as we begin to live the resurrection life of Jesus. How, then, can we continue in sin? As Paul says in Romans 6, we have died in the waters of baptism and been raised from death, so sin belongs to the past.
Here we need to read the whole letter together: there is no sense in which the writer is describing a state of ‘sinless perfection’ when he says ‘we cannot go on sinning’ (1 John 3.9)—otherwise there would be no need for confession (1 John 1.9)! The point is that our change of status, the lavish gift God gives us, cannot leave us unchanged. We come to him as we are, but he loves us too much to leave us as we are. Our experience of the love of God in Jesus transforms our desire to share that love with others, in word and deed, so that we live in God’s love with one another. This is no merely social transformation; the ‘horizontal’ dimensions of human relationships are never detached from the ‘vertical’ dimension of our relationship with God. The command of God is both to ‘love one another’ (verse 11) and to ‘believe in the name of his Son’ (verse 23; compare John 6.29). We cannot do either one without doing the other.
Staying true: 1 John 4.1—21
Paul’s letters tend to follow a logical sequence, with his argument moving from one issue to another. But this letter resembles much more the teaching of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, where a subject is explored by circling again and again around different issues, and weaving them together. So once again we encounter the themes of truth and falsehood, the ‘antichrist’, the world, and overcoming. The central test is the person of Jesus: whoever denies that God has come to us in the person of Jesus, the fulfilment of God’s promises to his people, is opposed to God and his people. Although this error appears to be internal to the community, and ‘the world’ external, in fact they are one and the same—but we can take heart, because ‘I have overcome the world’ (John 16.33b).
It might seem surprising that, having talked about testing those who teach what is false and separating from them, we move immediately to the question of love. The false prophets bring division, but the truth of the gospel brings unity. Yet the idea that ‘God is love’ (verse 8, repeated in verse 16) has been widely misinterpreted, and taken to mean that, if two people love one another, God is present regardless of what else they believe—or even to make any form of ‘love’ a goal in itself. But this is to invert the text, as if it were saying ‘Love is god’! If God is love, then all our loving must be judged by God’s love, and not the other way around. And his love is expressed in sacrificial action which deals with sin and darkness, at great cost, and brings holiness and light.
The summary of God’s action in verse 9 almost exactly matches John 3.16. In both passages, ‘God so loved the world’ is not an expression of degree so much as manner: God loved the world in this way. True love does not collude with sin, but deals with it, and allows us to make our home in God (‘abide’) and he to make his home in us by his Spirit. We are empowered to live in holiness and obedience, to testify to this good news to others, and to love one another as he has loved us.
Water, blood, and Spirit: 1 John 5.1–21
Once more, key ideas from earlier in the letter—belief in Jesus, new birth, obedience, victory, love—are woven together even more tightly. ‘Those who received him, who believed in his name…[were] born of God’ (John 1.12–13). This new life means we share in Jesus’ victory over the world, so the world no longer has any power over us. It binds us into a new family, where those who also call God ‘Father’ are our sisters and brothers whom we love. And whereas, in the world, our nature is to sin, now it is natural to obey his commandments.
Into this tightly woven cloth, the author weaves another, new, thread. Jesus has come to us ‘by water and blood’—but what are these a reference to? Water might refer to baptism, but the baptism of Jesus is not mentioned in the Fourth Gospel. The claim that water and blood refer to the sacraments of baptism and Communion is to project later concerns onto the text. However, in John 19.34, when the soldier pierces his side, ‘blood and water flowed out—and he who saw it has given testimony’. Though we know this is medical evidence of death (as the serum and red blood cells have separated out), for the gospel writer it meant something more. Jesus claimed he was the true temple (John 2.19), and that from his side will flow ‘rivers of living water’ (John 7.38)—in fulfilment of the eschatological temple vision of Ezekiel 47, where the stream flowing from the temple brings life to the Dead Sea.
Thus we now have weaved in the ideas of life (vv 11, 12), the Spirit, and testimony. These three agree: that we now live a new life in Jesus (water); that he has dealt with our sins and liberated us from death (blood); and that he has given us the Spirit who empowers us testify to him, and live in love with those who have also experienced his transformation as they too confess Jesus as Lord. We are aware that we are not yet perfect; sin still stalks our lives. But this sin does not lead to death if we confess it and receive his forgiveness afresh. We are no longer part of the world, since we have ‘turned from idols to serve the living and true God’ (1 Thess 1.9).
The call for courage: 2 John 1–13, 3 John 1–14
The second and third letters are strikingly different from the first. As with the Pauline letters (and in common with first century conventions), both identify the sender, then the recipient, then offer a prayer of blessing, and both end with a closing greeting or wish. ‘The elder’ could be the apostle John, or ‘John the Elder’ (who perhaps lived in Ephesus), but in fact we cannot know.
‘The elect lady’ has been taken by many modern commentators to be a symbolic reference to a church community, but that reflects a scepticism towards women in leadership. The highly personal style; the strong parallels with 3 John written to Gaius; the reference to ‘your children’ (which could not be used of a ‘church’; people are members of the community, not children of them); and the examples of Priscilla taking a lead in founding the church in Ephesus (Acts 18.19), Phoebe as deacon at Cenchreae (Rom 16.1), and Lydia hosting a church in Philippi (Acts 16.14) all support this woman being a specific individual.
It might be that 1 John was a treatise or teaching document, and that 2 and 3 John were covering letters that accompanied it to particular audiences. 2 John follows closely the concerns of 1 John, repeating its ideas of walking in the truth, the commands of the Father, the new old commandment to love one another, our distinctiveness from ‘the world’, and the danger of false teachers. But, in line with its nature as a true letter, it adds personal advice and warning: the false teaching needs a personal response. The call to abide in the love and commandments of God is so important, that the ‘elect lady’ needs to separate herself from those who lead the people astray (verse 10). In a world where hospitality was so highly prized, to withhold it was a serious step.
3 John has a different focus. Holding on to the truth calls for courage—courage to embrace those who are different from us but share the same testimony to Jesus (verse 5), courage to venture out into the world bearing this message (verse 6), and courage to confront those who are causing division (verse 10). This courage flows from Jesus’ victory over the world—but also from the joy we find in fellowship with others who live in this truth.
Summary
These letters attributed to John have a relentless focus on the person of Jesus—who he is, the claims he makes, and the things he commands us. This is not a theoretical conviction; it begins with the author’s own eye-witness testimony of his own tangible encounter with Jesus, and it leads to the tangible difference that this Jesus makes in our lives.
The reason for this is deeply theological. Jesus is the Word made flesh, the one who brings the life and light of God himself into this dark world. In his life he offered us a demonstration of the transformative, servant-like love of God; in his death he dealt with our sin, with all that separates us from God; and by his Spirit he pours out his eternal life for us. We now know God as our Father, and other believers as our new-found sisters and brothers, to whom we are bound in love. The love of God poured into our hearts (Rom 5.5) flows out to one another and is made known in acts of practical service. We love because we were first loved by God, and his pattern of love now shapes our lives.
This distinguishes us not only from our past—as we now walk not in darkness but in light—but also from the world around us. Though the world is loved by him, and Jesus was sent to die for the world, yet the world has not received him, and so stands in opposition to the people of God. More than that, there are some within the community of faith who deny the central truths of who Jesus is and what God has done for us in him. We are therefore called to live lives of confidence and courage, knowing that Jesus has overcome the world, and that we can stand in the truth against those who would deny it.
We do all this filled with hope. We know that we are not yet perfect; sin is still present in our lives, so our daily discipline is to turn from sin to God, receiving anew the forgiveness won for us by Jesus. But we do this equipped by the Spirit and in fellowship with others, who fill our hearts with joy as we share with them our confidence in the truth of God.
For a graphic summary, see this early Bible Project video:
Ian: You are clear in your opinion of what 1 John 2:18 doesn’t mean, but what do you believe it does mean, please? I accept that ‘anti’ can mean ‘other’ rather than ‘against’, but what is the significance of contrasting ‘antichrist’ (singular), referring to some time ahead of when John is writing, with ‘antichrists’ (plural) in the past?
I think it means that, at every point, we will encounter people who displace Jesus as the centre of the gospel, and we need to guard against it.
I’d like to know more Jewish history about how many people claimed to be Israel’s Messiah in the 1st century.
Josephus’s ‘Jewish War’ may reference one or two c. AD 66.
In the first century, there were several individuals who claimed to be the **Jewish Messiah** or were considered messianic figures by their followers. The concept of the Messiah in Jewish tradition during this period was varied, with expectations of a political, military, or religious leader who would deliver Israel from oppression. Here are some notable figures:
### 1. **Jesus of Nazareth** (c. 4 BC – AD 30/33)
– **Jesus** is the most well-known figure who was proclaimed as the Messiah by his followers. According to the New Testament, Jesus did not explicitly announce himself as the political or military Messiah that many Jews expected but was understood by his followers as the **spiritual Messiah**, sent to save humanity from sin. Jesus’ crucifixion by the Romans under **Pontius Pilate** and the belief in his resurrection formed the foundation of **Christianity**.
– Sources: The **New Testament** (especially the Gospels) and contemporary Roman historians like **Tacitus** and **Josephus** mention Jesus’ execution.
### 2. **Theudas** (c. AD 45)
– Theudas was a Jewish rebel who claimed to be a prophet and led a group of followers to the Jordan River, promising to part the waters. He was defeated and killed by the Roman authorities. His movement is mentioned in the **Book of Acts** (Acts 5:36) and by **Josephus** in his work *Antiquities of the Jews*.
– **Josephus** dismisses Theudas as a false prophet, and his death discouraged his followers from further rebellion.
### 3. **Simon of Perea** (c. 4 BC)
– Simon was a former slave of King **Herod the Great** who declared himself king and messiah after Herod’s death. Simon led a brief revolt but was ultimately defeated by the Romans, and he was beheaded. His revolt was one of several that arose in the vacuum left by Herod’s death and the Roman transition of power.
– Sources: **Josephus**, in *Antiquities of the Jews*, describes Simon as one of many messianic claimants in the turmoil after Herod’s death.
### 4. **Athronges** (c. 4 BC)
– Athronges, like Simon, was a messianic figure and a shepherd who proclaimed himself king. He gathered a group of followers and led a rebellion against the Romans. Though a peasant, Athronges gained a considerable following but was eventually defeated. His rebellion is part of the larger **anti-Roman** unrest following Herod’s death.
– Sources: **Josephus**, in *Jewish Antiquities*, discusses Athronges’ uprising as part of a larger series of revolts.
### 5. **Menahem ben Judah** (c. AD 66-70)
– Menahem was a leader during the **First Jewish-Roman War** (AD 66-73) and a member of the **Sicarii**, a radical Jewish faction. He was believed by some of his followers to be the Messiah. Menahem took control of **Masada**, the fortress near the Dead Sea, and led a revolt in **Jerusalem**. He was eventually killed by rivals in the city.
– Sources: **Josephus** describes him in his work *The Jewish War*, linking him to messianic expectations during the revolt against Rome.
### 6. **Simon bar Kokhba** (c. AD 132-135)
– Though slightly outside the first century, Simon bar Kokhba is significant. He led the **Bar Kokhba revolt** against the Romans from AD 132-135 and was hailed by many, including the prominent Rabbi **Akiva**, as the **Messiah**. Bar Kokhba established a short-lived independent Jewish state before being defeated by the Roman army. His failure marked a significant turning point in Jewish history.
– Sources: **Cassius Dio** and **Eusebius** discuss the Bar Kokhba revolt, and rabbinic literature records the messianic hope associated with him.
### Messianic Expectations:
– The first century was a period of heightened **messianic expectation** among Jews, largely due to the oppressive Roman rule and the hope for liberation. Many Jews were looking for a **military leader** to restore Jewish sovereignty, especially after the Roman destruction of the **Second Temple** in AD 70.
### Conclusion:
These messianic claimants varied in their aims and impact, from spiritual leaders like **Jesus of Nazareth** to political rebels like **Simon of Perea** and **Menahem ben Judah**. Jewish messianic hopes during the first century were often intertwined with aspirations for **political independence** and **religious renewal**, which led to numerous uprisings and claims of messiahship.
Thank you very much Ian. Is this your own writing or is there a source, please?
ChatGPT! But you can check all the details.
Thus not many in the 1st century after Jesus himself. John says that ‘many antichrists have now come’ . But the query is on the wrong tack.
John defines the term himself: ‘This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.’ ‘Denies’ supports the view that ‘anti’ has the sense of ‘against’, as in other words where it is a prefix. The ‘-christ’ component refers to Jesus as the anointed one – hence the significance of John’s saying ‘but you have been anointed by the Holy One’, referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
The implication of v. 18 is that many antichrists will come, because this is the ‘last hour’. Prophetically John is referring not merely to a few individuals but to followers of entire belief systems that deny the sonship of Jesus – in our time, everyone who (following Darwinism) believe that there is no Creator God at all and therefore no Son of God; Muslims (for whom it is a central tenet that God cannot have a son ); and modern Trinitarians (who hold that Jesus is equal and co-eternal with God).
Those who have been anointed by the Holy One will not be so deceived.
So most Christians are in fact anti-Christs? How odd.
And many Christians believe evolution. Pl stop pitting scientific findings against Christianity.
One cannot have rational discussion if the reply is rhetorical misstatement of what is being objected to.
It does not follow that most Christians are ‘antichrists’. Most Christians merely believe what others teach them to believe. But whoever tells them to believe such things is indeed promoting doctrine contrary to Christ, just as the A of C does in the field of sexual ethics.
It is not I that pit ‘scientific findings’ (what faith in science’s so-called findings you have!) but Science as an ideological system that pits itself against Christianity, assuming that Christianity is defined by what one finds in the Word of God.
I find it quite hard to balance the endless commands to “love one another” with the very harsh commands not even to greet anyone who thinks differently from the writer. (Paul and Jude are equally aggressive; Peter and James perhaps less so.)
Hi Penelope,
But love is often a verb in Scripture indicating actions not feelings. Love should protect who or what we love?
You might love your teenage son but would indicate in rather strong language that it is not a good idea to be a drug dealer on the local housing estate.
Yes, I agree with Colin.
The command to love is so important that we must challenge those who distort the gospel. Love expresses itself in protection of the vulnerable who could be led astray.
And we must hold fast to the gospel if we are to know what love looks like…
I agree with Ian and Colin that “love” can be a woolly word, and shouldn’t just mean “agree with” or even always “be polite to.” But the history of the Christian church suggests to me that one person’s false doctrine is another person’s understandable different interpretation, and courtesy to such people and fellow Christians is preferable to anti-heresy crusades and burnings.
He is a jealous God – jealous for his people and his bride, that they not fall for heresies.
It is interesting to note that nowhere in Scripture is it recorded that ethnic Israel expressed a reciprocal love for God — despite his protestations of such for Israel (e.g., Psalm 135:4; Zecheriah 2:8; Malachi 1:2)
Yes…but how does this sit with the central command to ‘Love the Lord your God…’ in Deut 6.4?
…. the term “love “is absent, there is certainly ample OT evidence to keep us informed as to the *nature ” of such love. In any case, how does one monitor “love” on the basis of a nation?
In the contemporary context, I have over many years witnessed corporate manifestations of the term love in acts of worship, yet followed by “off- stage” displays of self interest.
Why? It’s not “thinks differently.” It’s false teaching. Remember, in the first century Christian teachers relied heavily on the hospitality and good-will of Christian communities to provide for their needs when they came to teach. They would travel from place to place and stay in the homes of Christians wherever they went. John commands his readers not to let false teachers stay at their homes to prevent the spread of their doctrines and advantage being taken of them by these false teachers. It’s reasonable and practical advise!
Ian thank you for another very clear and helpful exposition. Your comment that God is love and not love is God, and that should be our perspective was illuminating.
Thanks. Yes indeed! I get frustrated that people use this verse to impose their own understanding of love on God, instead of the other way around…
Not to mention the multiple Greek words for love gathered under one word in English.
Yes – you have hit on the double whammy. First, people eisegete their own definition of love, then they compound that by showing no awareness of the vagueness of the English word ‘love’. (And thirdly, since what we have here is specifically agape, we can well imagine how far at variance their ideas are from the text.)
Yes, yes, I know it is not a book of scriptural exegesis, but it is suggested that CS Lewis has much to say to current self absorbed philosophies of love centring on transient feelings, in his book, ‘The Four Loves.’
I now think that he over-egged that. We can see that agape and philia are used as synonyms in the fourth gospel.
Yes, as in heard preaching on Peter and Jesus breakfast conversation post resurrection.
I know the data you mean and moreover there are similar pairings elsewhere (even as a chief and characteristic feature) in John. The caveat is that John has his own internal patterns and internal thought-system/theology that dictates his word-choice/diction. So when for example Liddell and Scott cite a John word-usage as evidence for a potentially important slightly different meaning, the aforementioned can sometimes be the reason behind this, rather than John’s actually providing evidence of a more widespread non-private usage we did not otherwise know. When an author is so extremely committed to his internal system and to numerics, it is difficult to use his work as lexicographical evidence.
Aside from which, if you mean there is overlap in the usage for the words for love outside John, you are again right.
Christopher writes:
‘When an author is so extremely committed to his internal system and to numerics, it is difficult to use his work as lexicographical evidence.’
Why?
Simply because, just because eg John uses language in a particular way, need not imply that others do so.
We need to remember that lexicons are just a summing up of how they see words being used, not a magical key into meaning separate from that use.
Thanks Ian. Exactly.
Yes – and and agape and agapao can mean erotic ‘love’ as well, as in 2 Sam 13.15 LXX (Amnon and Tamar).
I think Lewis’s point is generally correct, but language isn’t so tidy.
I remember reading one commentator who likened
this trilogy of letters as John setting forth “The Way, The Truth and The Life”which is the summary of who Jesus is and our fellowship with Him.
If Matthew is concerned with accurate numbers John has a regard to the number 3.
To separate Love from Truth and Life is another gospel to be accursed.
Yet, even there, the context of language, words, was up- close- and – personal between Jesus and Peter, even within a wider gospel -Jesus-message of the whole book of John.
Peter was challenged by Jesus as to who/ what was his ‘first love’, devotion in life.
I have found it helpful to see the two themes of God is love and God is light as an underlying dynamic in 1 John—perhaps like the two themes in a sonata-form movement being worked through creatively and in a mutually developing and informing way. Thanks for your notes, Ian
Lovely musical analogy!
John 7,38 says that living water will flow out of the innermost being of believers not of Jesus
Thanks for commenting.
The verse reads: ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ, καθὼς εἶπεν ἡ γραφή, ποταμοὶ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ ῥεύσουσιν ὕδατος ζῶντος
‘The one believing in me, as the Scripture said, rivers out from his side/belly will flow of living water.’
Two things to note in the grammar:
a. many translations assume the antecedent to ‘his’ is ‘the one believing’ but it could also be ‘me’.
b. the waters will flow out from this person, which is never the way the Spirit is described for the believer. The Spirit flows into us, not out from us.
Further, there is no Scripture which says this about an individual. But there is a scripture (in Ezekiel 47) which says that the river of living water will flow from the side of the temple. In John 1.14, the eternal Word ‘tabernacles’ with us; in John 2.19–21, Jesus claims to be the new (eschatological) temple; and in John 19.34, water flows from Jesus’ side.
Thus this verse means ‘For anyone who believes in me, the new temple presence of God, for them streams of living water will flow from my side, bringing life where there is death’.
So I am persuaded (by Richard Bauckham) that this is what the text means. Does that help?
I think Bauckham’s collection of essays on Johannine theology ‘Gospel of Glory’ (2015) says some very illuminating things on the exegesis on John 1.14, esp. on ‘we beheld his glory’, contrasting this with Moses’ experience in Exod 33-34.
If that’s the case then why does the scripture not record Jesus saying’Out of *My* side/belly will flow rivers of living water’?
I’ve always taken this verse to be about the Holy Spirit working through believers, empowering and enabling them as they minister in the world in service and witness bringing peace reconciliation, healing, light where there was darkness and life where there was death etc
The only obvious answer is because Jesus introduces the saying by ‘As the Scripture says..’ And that scripture refers to ‘it’ (the temple) which is now ‘him’ (that is Jesus).
Note we have a similar change from ‘it’ to ‘him’ in John 1.51. In Genesis 28.12, the angels descend and ascend on ‘it’ (the ladder); but this is a masculine pronoun, so could be read as ‘on him’. Jesus takes this ambiguity to now claim he is the fulfilment of this vision; he is the ladder which connects earth and heaven. And of course it was the temple that was believed to provide this connection, a place where the heavenly presence of God touched the earth.
Jean, I agree with your point. Jesus would have said ‘my’ if that is what he meant. Moreover, the Greek word is ‘belly’, not ‘side’.
When he says “As the Scripture said”, he is referring necessarily to an OT scripture. Not the Ezekiel passage, because that refers to a physical river flowing from a physical temple, ‘life-giving’ in the sense of fresh water, not salt. Jeremiah says that Yahweh is Israel’s fountain of life-giving water in a spiritual sense, but that does not fit here.
That leaves Song 4:15, where the Bridegroom describes the Bride as “a garden fountain, a well of living water and flowing streams from Lebanon”. Here we have an OT reference to both living water and rivers. Thus: Whoever believes in Jesus will be part of the Bride, and when he has married her, all who have the Spirit now will find that source welling up like a river or fountain to eternal life. So,
“Awake, O north wind,
and come, O south wind!”
Jesus may again be tacitly referring to Song 4 when he says,
“The wind blows here it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Hi Ian
Thanks for this, as I like Jean had always understood this verse as she has described. You (and Bauckham) may very well be right, however earlier Jesus in John 4 gives the image of the water (the Spirit) acting like a spring within the person. Im assuming of course the English translation of the Greek is accurate, you will know better! This image would seem to fit in with the John 7 description, if the ‘traditional’ understanding is correct, rather than Bauckham’s.
Of course it could be both – on conversion the Spirit flows from Jesus to the believer (from His side being the new Temple), and now indwelling the water/Spirit becomes like an eternal spring flowing from the believer’s heart. I think Im right in saying believers, at least corporately, are also now viewed as the ‘temple’.
Comments?
Peter
Thanks. Yes, in John 4.14 we read
τὸ ὕδωρ ὃ δώσω αὐτῷ γενήσεται ἐν αὐτῷ πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
The water I will give to him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life
The focus here is all within the believer; there is no sense of this water flowing to others. The reason for that is we receive the Spirit, and we pray that others might receive the Spirit from God. But it flows from him, and not from us. The image in John 7 is of the Spirit flowing from the person referred to.
The result of the welling up in John 4 is life for that person. The result of the Spirit flowing in John 7 is life for others.
Does that help?
Yes that makes sense.
Just seen this.
Series of comments, which reminds me of yet more contention, over ‘second blessings’ being fulled with Holy Spirit, and repeated fillings, because ‘we leak’.
It was around the time of Toronto, and Sunderland, ‘revivals’.
Also in that theological mix were the writings of Anglican, David Pytches.
One of the mattrrs of concern, which applies to any Christian, ministry is that Jesus doesn’t get a look in -it’s all about me.
That even applies in reformed circles, which emphasise Christocentric, traching, preaching.
But. Alec Motyer, Anglican, briefly comments on 1 John, that it is about becoming more like Jesus.
And there we have Unity in Diversity in Union with Him.
At the very same time I was listening to “Come Together in Jesus name ” I read Ian’s comment . ” Let His Spirit flow among you, let His light Shine…” I suppose that ultimately Jesus 8s The Source but now that we are in Him we are channels too?
I have mixed feelings about all of that. I wouldnt dismiss it as unreal or not from God even if there were excesses.
What Ive never quite understood is why these things seem to happen in a particular geographical area, and people have to go there to be ‘blessed’ (hence the many thousands who visited Toronto). Yet the Spirit is supposed to live in all believers. Go figure.
I really like this comment made online by John Carstensen:
A thought provoking question: By “Anyone who loves is born of God” should we take John to mean that anyone feeling “goodwill toward men” is presumably saved? One might gather from comparing the “purpose statements” in the Gospel of John [20:30f] & the 1st Epistle of John [5:13] that John wrote the latter to reassure those already Christian of their salvation [“If our heart condemns us…”].
Three of what we might call “signs of life” he discusses are orthodox belief/confession [noetic, creedal], obedient practice [practical, your “walk”] & love [motive?]. These are not three independent ways to be saved but are intertwined, informing each other. So, for example, love must be in action [practical]. In 2nd John, love is even defined as obedience to Christ. So I would say that John here means “love”, not in its most general sense as willing the good of the loved one, but in a theologically informed sense. [He even seems to dwell on love for one’s fellow believers.]
Loving is not a way to obligate God or to win him over, but is in response to him first loving us & sending his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Great follow-up comments, thanks.
I could ask a question on this last quotation, but will not, as it would take us down a road less travelled today, may even have been blocked off as no entry, even though there are eternal vistas of beauty to be found there.
John Stott wrote a fine exposition of 1 John in the Tyndale commentary series back in the 1960s in which the key idea is ‘The Tests of Life’ (‘This is how we know that we are children of God’). The three tests are:
1. Doctrine (confessing that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh);
2. Conduct (keeping his commandments)
3. Love for each other.
Many years ago, this provided a fine trio of sermons for me!
It is great to see such a diversity of people commenting on this, and helpful engagement with one another.
Would that all articles had such a mix of comments!
John begins his pastoral epistle in much the same way as the Gospel, as to his impression and experience of Jesus Christ and Fellowship with Him.
We can only bring people to where we are and to where Jesus Christ is set forth and the joy of our fellowship with Him.
I have been in churches that I have felt that I could not bring anyone into.
Mission is not inviting one to join our family but come and experience the wonder of fellowship with Christ.
Part of the great commission is to “feed my lambs/sheep” If we do then we will not want for priest or volunteers.
There have always been seasons of declension in spiritual life but the great mercy of God is that he does “keep our souls alive in famine” and our souls are undiminished.
The first epistle indicates that the readers were confronted with the error of Gnosticism, which became a more serious problem in the second century. As a philosophy of religion it held that matter is evil and spirit is good. The solution to the tension between these two was knowledge, or gnosis, through which man rose from the mundane to the spiritual. In the gospel message, this led to two false theories concerning the person of Christ, Docetism—regarding the human Jesus as a ghost—and Cerinthianism—making Jesus a dual personality, at times human and at times divine. The key purpose of 1 John is to set boundaries on the content of faith and to give believers assurance of their salvation. [.gotquestions.org/Book-of-1-John.html]
The 3rd Epistle identifies unscrupulous individuals who have already gained power in the church.
If we were to ask about our Church, “How did we arrive at where we are today?
Where did we go wrong and how do we recover a true Doctrine of the Church?
I recommend this sermon on the foundations that were undermined historically and the joy and gladness of a right worshiping church.
John spoke of what he saw, “What seest thou?”
The Sword and the Song,A Sermon on Psalms 149:5-6
@ /www.mljtrust.org/sermons/old-testament/the-sword-and-the-song/
While MLJ was before my time as a Christian and his voice and vocabulay, cadences are of their time, I found him sound, taking the time and trouble to listen.
I’ll look/listen this up thanks.
Of,ourse it is well known that of three main evangelical voices in the UK at the time, MLJ parted ways with Anglicans, Stott and Packer on the future of the Church.
I’ve recently come across a short overview of John’s letters which struck me as reliable, guide to interpretation and understanding, but probably to the relief of all who may read comments, I can’t recall where, at the moment.
Look at John Stott’s old Tyndale commentary on The Letters of John – or check out the All Souls sermon library, whence this commentary arose.
Thanks, James.
Pertinent? One point? Ultimately, Yes.
So no apologies for linking this, spoken and text from today.
“What’s New in the New Covenant?” from Ligonier Ministries https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/things-unseen-with-sinclair-ferguson/whats-new-in-the-new-covenant
Thanks, Geoff, for the links
I feel that the undertone of the epistles is one of Fellowship, with God, and each other and false fellowships.
Fellowship, I think, is predicated on the various Covenants in the Bible.
To understand Salvation more completely perhaps those covenants, need to be explained more fully;
that the New Covenant/Testament may be fully understood and enjoyed.
To this end I recommend a profitable and enlightening study @
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/covenant/