1 John 3:11-24: Do Not Be Surprised that the World Hates You

For this is [3S Pres Act Indic] the message which you have heard [2Pl 1 Aor Act Indic] from the beginning, that we should love [1Pl Pres Act Subj] one another, 12not as Cain from the evil one was [1S Impf Act Indiv] and murdered1 [3S 1 Aor Act Indic] his brother. And for what cause did he murder [3S 1 Aor Act Indic] him? Because his works were [3S Impf Act Indic] evil, but those of his brother were righteous [ta de tou adelphou autou dikaia]. 13And do not marvel [2Pl Pres Act Impv], brothers, if the world hates [3S Pres Act Indic] you. 14We know [1Pl Perf Act Indic] that we have passed over [1Pl Perf Act Indic] from death into life, for we love [1Pl Pres Act Indic] the brothers. The not-loving-one2 [MS Nom Pres Act Part] abides [3S Pres Act Indic] in death. 15 Every hating-his-brother-one [MS Nom Pres Act Part] a murderer is [3S Pres Act Indic], and you know [2Pl Perf Act Indic] that every murderer does not have [3S Pres Act Indic] eternal life in him abiding [FS Acc Pres Act Part].
3:11

In this we have come to know [1Pl Perf Act Indic] the love,3 that that one (ekeinos) down his life laid [3S 1 Aor Act Indic], and we ought [1Pl Pres Act Indic] down for the brothers lives lay down [2 Aor Act Inf]. 17But whoever has [3S Pres Act Subj] the goods4 of the world and sees [2S Pres Act Subj] his brother having [MS Acc Pres Act Part] need and closes [3S 1 Aor Act Subj] his heart5 from him, how does the love of God abide [3S Pres Act Indic] in him? 18Children [Teknia], let us not love [1Pl Pres Act Impv] in word or in tongue but in work and in truth.
16

And in this we will know [1Pl Fut Mid Indic] that from the truth we are [1Pl Pres Act Indic], and before him we will persuade [1Pl Fut Act Indic] our hearts, 20for whenever our heart condemns [3Pl Pres Act Subj] us, God is greater than our hearts and he knows [3S Pres Act Indic] all things [panta]. 21Beloved, if our heart does not condemn [3S Pres Act Subj], confidence we have [1Pl Pres Act Indic] before God 22and whatever we ask [1Pl Pres Act Subj] we receive [1Pl Pres Act Indic] from him, because his commandments we keep [1Pl Pres Act Indic] and the pleasing-in-his-sight-things we do [1Pl Pres Act Indic]. 23And this is [3S Pres Act Indic] his commandment, that we believe [1Pl 1 Aor Act Subj] in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and we love [1Pl 1 Aor Act Subj] one another, just as he gave [3S 1 Aor Act] us commandment. 24And the keeping-his-commandmentsone [MS Nom Pres Act Part] in him abides [3S Pres Act Indic] and he in him, and in this we know [1Pl Pres Act Indic] that he abides [3S Pres Act Indic] in us, by the Spirit whom he gave [3S 1 Aor Act Indic] to us.
19

2 3 4

The word here is sphazo, a word that John frequently uses in the book of Revelation for slain; e.g., the Lamb who was slain (Rev. 5:6, 9, 12; 13:8); or the martyrs who were slain (Rev. 6:9; 18:24); but also for the wicked or the beasts being slain (Rev. 6:4; 13:3). More: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4969&t=KJV Textual variations: the not-loving-the-brother-one or the not-loving-his-brother-one Interesting that John uses the direct article in front of the word love. Literally, bion means life. We get our word biology from this word, meaning the study of life. Here, the word has a meaning more like our word for livelihood, and it refers to goods. The word is also used in 1 John 2:16 in the phrase pride in possessions, or literally, pride of life. Literally, bowels, the seat of emotions for New Testament writers.

3:11: With almost identical language to 1 John 1:5, John declares This is the message that you have heard from the beginning. This time, however, John is not talking about the nature of God, but about the commandment that we have heard from the beginning. This is also not the first time that John has written that the commandment to love is what we have heard from the beginning, since that was the topic of 1 John 2:7. If we read 3:11 in isolation, we might think that John has nothing new to say. 3:12: Of course, we would be mistaken if we thought that. Here, John transitions from speaking about the fact that we ought to love one another (since the command to love one another is the message that we have heard from the beginning) to speaking about those who don't love one another. The archetype for such non-love, John writes, is Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. It's very important to catch the short phrase that Cain was of the evil one (ek tou ponerou en), which is almost identical to the phrase used as recently as 3:10, of God (ek tou theou), a shortened form of the phrase used in 3:9, born of God (ek tou theou gegennetai). The point is that, just as Abel was (and we are!) children of God, sharing a family resemblance to him, so also Cain was (and those of the world still are) children of the evil one, sharing a family resemblance to the devil. Indeed, this is exactly how John transitioned to this passage from 3:10: By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. Calvin has an important word, although we must extend the significance beyond the particular polemics he engages in here: This explanation ought to be carefully noticed, for men ever blunder as to the way of living, because they make holiness to consist of fictitious works, and while they torment themselves with trifles, they think themselves doubly [page] acceptable to God, as the monks, who proudly call their mode of living a state of perfection; nor is there any other worship of God under the Papacy but a mass of superstitions. But the Apostle testifies that this righteousness alone is approved by God, that is, if we love one another; and further, that the devil reigns where hatred, dissimulation, envy, and enmity prevail.6 The important issue that Calvin raises here is that we cannot create our own versions of holiness. God alone may define holiness, and God tells us that holiness consists of loving our brothers and sisters in Christ. If we fail there, then we are like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. Certainly, Cain functions as an archetype for hatred solely by virtue of the fact that he committed murder almost immediately after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. (Reading Genesis 4, it almost sounds like Cain's fratricide is the second sin committed in all of human history.) But John has a deeper reason for looking at the example of Cain. He asks, And why [for what cause/to what purpose; charin] did he murder him? John's exegesis of the passage and the situation sets up the rest of this passage: Because his own works were evil, but those of his brother were righteous. The subject of why God rejected Cain's sacrifice and accepted Abel's sacrifice seems to me (at least) to be a tricky issue. Did Cain offer the wrong kind of sacrifice? Or was Cain's sin in the way he offered his sacrifices? John doesn't really settle that debate, but he doesn't let us miss the forest for the trees. At the end of the day, Cain's problem was that his own deeds were evil, and he hated his brother because Abel's deeds were righteous. John Stott puts it this way: Jealousy lay behind his [Cain's] hatred, not the jealousy which covets another's superior gifts but that which resents another's superior righteousness, the 'envy' which made the Jewish priests demand the

John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Epistle of John, in Calvin Commentaries, vol. 22 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), 216-17. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/comment3/comm_vol45/htm/v.iv.iv.htm>

death of Jesus. Jealousy-hatred-murder is a natural and terrible sequence.7 Burdick points out that This mention of Cain is the only explicit reference to the OT in this epistle (Gen. 4:8), a [page] feature worthy of note when one considers how many references to the OT appear in John's gospel.8 3:13: John now expands upon Cain's story to extrapolate a broader principle about our interaction with the world. Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. In other words, when we consider that from the beginning the children of God have been persecuted and hated by the children of the evil one, then why should we be surprised when they behave toward us in the exact same way that Cain behaved toward Abel? To put it another way, since those of the world are still the children of the same father as Cain had (the devil), then we ought not to be surprised at the strong family resemblance that we see, even so many generations later. The children of God, John explains, must expect persecution from the children of the devil. Again, Burdick points out something interesting: This verse is the only instance in which John addresses his readers as adelphoi, 'brothers.'9 3:14: In verse 14, John extrapolates information from these principles to make a point that I find a bit surprising: We know that we have passed over from death into life, for we love the brothers. The not-loving-one abides in death. John is saying that our love for the brothers (i.e., fellow Christians) functions as evidence of our salvation (that we have passed over from death unto life). If we remained in death, then we would be notloving-ones like the rest of the world. Two concepts arise from what John is telling us in v. 14. First, this principle teaches us that love, as a fruit of the Spirit, flows from the work of salvation that God applies to our hearts. We do not love so that we may be saved, but we are saved so that we may love. The total absence of love for other Christians is a sign that God's work of salvation has not yet begun in our hearts. Calvin is insistent on this point: For as no one sincerely loves his brethren, except he is regenerated by the Spirit of God, he hence rightly concludes that the Spirit of God, who is life, dwells in all who love the brethren. But it woul dbe preposterous for any one to infer hence, that life is obtained by love, since love is in order of time posterior to it. The argument would be more plausible, were it said that love makes us more certain of life: then confidence as to salvation would recumb on works. But the answer to this is obvious; for though faith is confirmed by all the graces of God as aids, yet it ceases not to have its foundation in the mercy of God only.10 Second, John is teaching us that the presence of love in our lives should function as a token of confirmation of our salvation. This is not a small matterJohn means for us to rejoice when we see God's work of salvation producing love in our hearts, because it means that we have actually passed over from death into life! John has more to say about this point, and he will pick up the topic again in v. 19. 3:15: In v. 15, John simply writes the corollary of v. 14 in order to explain the significance of the presence of hatred in the lives of those of the world: Every hating-his-brother-one a murderer is, and you know that every murderer does not have eternal life in him abiding. He does so, however, with an allusion to the teaching of
7 8 9 10 John Stott, The Epistles of John: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 140. Donald Burdick, The Letters of John the Apostle: An In-Depth Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 261-62. Donald Burdick, The Letters of John the Apostle: An In-Depth Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 263. John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Epistle of John, in Calvin Commentaries, vol. 22 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), 218. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/comment3/comm_vol45/htm/v.iv.v.htm>

Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 5:21-22, Jesus teaches: You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' 22But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever say, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire. (ESV)
21

Jesus teaches that the 6th Commandment prohibition on murder isn't the only law on the books. In fact, whoever hates his brother is guilty of violating the 6th Commandment. John is saying the same thing, that everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and by definition, murderers do not have eternal life abiding in them. Obviously, John is talking about the person at the moment that they commit murder. No sin is beyond the forgiveness of Jesus, but just as the presence of eternal life (passing over from death to life) naturally creates love, so the absence of eternal life naturally creates hatred, which is the equivalent of murder, spiritually speaking. 3:16: Verse 16 marks a slight transition within this passage. Here, John begins to describe what love looks like as a contrast to the picture of hatred that he has just given from the life of Cain, who murdered his brother. The picture of love is the exact opposite, so that rather than inflicting death upon a brother whose deeds are righteous, John says that we ought to endure death for the sake of the brothers, following the example of Jesus. It is Jesus' example that teaches us what love looks like: In this we have come to know the love, that that one down his life laid. But also, we are to follow the example that Jesus sets for us instead of the example that Cain sets for us: and we ought down for the brothers lives lay down. Interestingly, John uses the article ho in front of the word love in verse 16 (In this we have come to know the love), which doesn't translate well into English, but puts a particular emphasis on this kind of love in Greek. In a situation like this, John is using it to underscore the fact that this love is the love that he has been talking about in this passage. When he tells us that we should love one another (v. 11) and talks about the love for fellow believers that eternal life has created in our lives which is proof that we have passed out of death into eternal life (v. 14), this is the kind of love that John is talking about. It isn't whatever we want it to be, but the concrete, selfsacrificial love that Jesus demonstrated on the cross when he laid down his life for the brothers. Burdick confirms: The presence of the article with agapen, love, serves to identify the specific love John has in mind God's active, sacrificial love manifested at the cross.11 3:17: But John wants to avoid the possibility that we might leave this love in the abstract, treating the sacrifice of Jesus as something that has no effect on our day-to-day lives unless we should be called to die for someone else in some unlikely, extraordinary circumstance. John wants us to see that this love is practical in virtually every interaction we have with other people, and it begins with our generosity toward those around us. But whoever has the goods of the world and sees his brother having need and closes his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him? This love should lead us to give generously to those in needand if not, then we should not deceive ourselves by claiming that the love of God abides in us. This isn't the first time that John has given us this warning, however.

11 Donald Burdick, The Letters of John the Apostle: An In-Depth Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 267.

In fact, John had used the word for goods earlier in chapter 2 of this letter:
15

Do not love the world of the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the worldthe desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessionsis not from the Father but is from the world. (1 John 2:15-16 ESV) In 1 John 2, John had warned us not to love the things of the world, and just like he is doing now in 1 John 3, John is telling us that love for the things of world is a sign that the love of the Father is not in someone. The third sin, pride in possessions is literally pride of life, where life is the Greek word bion, the word from which we get our word biology, meaning the study of life. In 1 John 3:17, John is using it more along the lines of our word livelihood, meaning worldly goods and possessions. This love is practical, driving us to serve our brothers as need arises. If we simply don't care, then we do not have this love abiding in us. Kruse points out a helpful reference to Old Testament law that commands the same kind of generosity: Deuteronomy 15:7-9 may provide the background to the idea of closing one's heart towards others in need. The passage reads: If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near, so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you,a nd you will be found guilty of sin. In this passage the Israelites were cautioned against allowing a calculating meanness to cause them to close their hearts when confronted with a poor and needy person. They were to be generous and lend to the poor even if the seventh year (when all debts would be cancelled) was near. It is perhaps with this passage in mind that the author reminds his readers that the love of God and meanness of spirit cannot coexist.12 Burdick also raises an important exegetical principle for clarifying the interpretive force of the genitive the love of God: The genitive case tou theou has been interpreted in three different ways: (1) as a subject genitive, speaking of God as the author of love (God's love); (2) as an objective genitive, speaking of God as the One being loved (love for God); or (3) as a descriptive genitive (God-like love). Since the immediate context is dealing with love for the brothers (vv. 14-16), it is best not to understand the love of God as love for God abut as God's kind of love or love of which God is the author. Marshall favors the descriptive genitive because he does not think that John teaches that our love for others is simply God's love flowing through us. However, there is good reason to hold that 1 John 4:7-16 does teach that God loves through us (see on verses 7-8, 12, 16.) It is best, then, with Bultmann, Stott, and Houlden, to view verse 17 as speaking of the love of which God is the author. If acts of love are not present, it is unreasonable to claim that one is indwelt by God's love.13 3:18: Rather than beating us over the heads with this warning, John takes up his tender, fatherly tone: Children, let us not love in word or in tongue but in work and in truth. He exhorts us to follow in the footsteps of our Lord
12 Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 138. 13 Donald Burdick, The Letters of John the Apostle: An In-Depth Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 270.

Jesus, who did not love his people with empty words, but with works that led him to the cross and with truth that announced the salvation he was bringing through his death on the cross. 3:19: In v. 19, John returns to the theme of evidence for our salvation, an issue that he had raised back in v. 14. Here, John insists that the presence of this love is evidence that we can cling to in order to know that we are of the truth, and to persuade our heart before him (before God; cf. 3:21). John Stott raises an important point on the transition from v. 18 to v. 19: The link between this new paragraph and what has gone before seems to be the word 'truth'. John has urged upon his readers the necessity of loving 'in truth' (18) and immediately goes on to indicate that this is how we may 'know that we are of the truth' (19). Truth can only characterize the behaviour of those whose very character originates in the truth, so that it is by our loving others 'in truth', that we know that we are 'of the truth'.14 There is an exegetical question of whether In this refers backwards or forwards. In my opinion,15 looking backwards seems to make the most sense of the passage, since John doesn't give anything that might be the In this after v. 19; instead, he continues to build on his topic by talking about the need for persuading our hearts before God. So, In this most likely refers to the way that Christians do not close their hearts from fellow believers who have needs, but instead love one another in work and in truth. Burdick helpfully explains that: The verb gnosometha, we shall know, is used in the classical sense of ginowko to indicate the acquisition of knowledge. Here it means something like we shall ascertain.... The use of the future tense (instead of the present, 2:3, 5) looks forward to the fulfillment of the prerequisite for acquiring the knowledge.16 Verses 19 and 20 are a bit complicated to understand, as Stott writes: This passage is a locus vexatissimus (Law). Its general sense is clear, but it is grammatically confused, and the variant readings betray the difficulty which even in the earliest days was found in interpreting them. The three chief problems concern the meaning first of the verb assure (peisomen), secondly of the two clauses in verse 20 beginning with hoti, and thirdly of God being greater than our heart.17 Burdick chronicles that There are at least ten different possible ways of understanding verses 19 -20.18 (!) Calvin warns us, however, that we should be careful not to look primarily to our works as our source of assurance of salvation: If we, in truth, love our neighbours, we have an evidence that we are born of God, who is truth, or that the truth of God dwells in us. But we must ever remember, that we have not from love the knowledge which the Apostle mentions, as though we were to seek from it the certainty of salvation. And doubtless we know now [page] otherwise that we are the children of God, than as he seals his free adoption on our hearts by his own Spirit, and as we receive by faith the sure pledge of it offered in Christ. Then love is

14 15 16 17

John Stott, The Epistles of John: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 145. Also the opinion of Stott, The Epistles of John, 146; Donald Burdick, The Letters of John the Apostle: An In-Depth Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 271. John Stott, The Epistles of John: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 147. By Law, Stott is referencing Robert Law, The Tests of Life (A Study of the First Epistle of John), (T. and T. Clark, 1909). 18 Donald Burdick, The Letters of John the Apostle: An In-Depth Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 273.

accessory or an inferior aid, a prop to our faith, not a foundation on which it rests.19 This is not to discount the importance of love as an evidence or a fruit of our faith, but it only puts the evidence of love in its proper context. Calvin has an important insight here that actually helps to clarify the flow of verses 19 and 20: The whole reason that the Apostle John speaks of times when our hearts condemn us (v. 20) is that the evidence of love will not always be equally as clear to our sight. Whenever we judge the certainty of our salvation from our feelings or the perceived level of our love, we will ride a roller coaster because those evidences, while helpful, are not absolute. Only the promises of God sealed in our hearts by the Spirit of God are absolute, and so while the evidence of love is important and can help to assure our hearts before God, we must take it as one piece of evidence in a broader investigation. 3:20: But why would we need to persuade our hearts before God? John acknowledges that our hearts do condemn us sometimes. Rather than riding an emotional, psychological roller coaster of whether or not we feel like God is doing any work in us, John wants us to look to more concrete evidence of our salvation: the fruit that our lives produce. We could evaluate every act, thought, or desire with endless navel-gazing introspection, but John reminds us that we can't begin to understand the depths of our hearts. How do we evaluate not only where we are, but how far we have come? How do we know whether the struggle in our hearts is not indicative of major change in our hearts, just as the intense pain in my legs that used to keep me up at night when I was younger was actually the growing pains that indicated that my body was rapidly changing? C. S. Lewis has a fantastic passage about how hard it is for humans to judge spiritual progress: Christian Miss Bates may have an unkinder tongue than unbelieving Dick Firkin. That, by itself, does not tell us whether Christianity works. The question is what Miss Bates's tongue would be like if she were not a Christian and what Dick's would be like if he became one. What you have a right to ask is whether that management, if allowed to take over, improves the concern. We must, therefore, not be surprised if we find among the Christians some people who are still nasty. There is even, when you come to think it over, a reason why nasty people might be expected to turn to Christ in greater numbers than nice ones. That was what people objected to about Christ during His life on earth: He seemed to attract 'such awful people'.20 Our problem is that we don't have objective measurements that enable us to evaluate progress. Whenever we stumble into sin, our hearts condemn us: A real Christian would never do anything like that. John, however, wants us to look at the fruit in our lives: A non-Christian could never love other believers in some of the ways that I have begun to love my brothers and sisters in Christ. It would be easier for roses to bloom from solid concrete than it would be for non-Christians to love people whose works are righteous. Lenski writes magnificently here: John does not deny the finding and the verdict of our heart or imply that our falling short escapes God or amounts to nothing in his sight. That would be lying, to use John's own expression. No; in connection with this great fact shall we know that we are from the truth and shall persuade our hearts before him when we come into his presence, for instance, when we pray (v. 22), namely the fact (epexegetical hoti) that God is greater than our heart, so much greater that he knows everything. To be sure, he knows all our failures in love, all that our own heart finds against us; but he knows
19 John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Epistle of John, in Calvin Commentaries, vol. 22 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), 221-22. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/comment3/comm_vol45/htm/v.iv.vi.htm> 20 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 210, 213.

vastly more, namely all about our real spiritual state, that the measure of love we do have shows that we have stepped over from the death into the life (v. 14), that although we are as yet imperfect in love, and our own hearts penitently acknowledge it, we have been born from him and are his children (2:29, etc.).21 (Calvin takes the perspective that God is greater than our heart refers to God's severity of judgment, and not to his mercy; however, Stott raises a good point that Calvin's is a difficult position to hold in the context of this passage. John has been talking about assurance, and not about our guilt. Still, see his quotation included below for v. 21.) 3:21: John again speaks with extraordinary pastoral compassion as he tenderly encourages our fragile hearts: Beloved, if our heart does not condemn, confidence we have before God. In other words, if we evaluate our lives and our hearts do not condemn us after seeing how God has worked genuine love for other believers into our lives, then we have confidence before God. John is making the same point as Paul did when he thundered at the conclusion of his magnificent 8th chapter of Romans, Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who diedmore than that, who was raisedwho is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us (Rom. 8:33-34 ESV). If God the Father and God the Son have taken the initiative to justify you, to die for you, and to continue to intercede for you, then who in all the cosmos could possibly raise a charge against you? Even when Satan does his worst to accuse you before God, the Judge of all the earth will certainly do what is rightto throw the case out. When Jesus died, Justice was served to exhaust the punishment for all your sins, and there is nothing more to condemn you. You, then, may stand with confidence before God. Calvin is fantastic on this point: Here, however, arises a greater difficulty, which seems to leave no confidence in the whole world; for who can be found whose heart reproves him in nothing? To this I answer, that the godly are thus reproved, that they may at the same time be absolved. For it is indeed necessary that they should be seriously troubled inwardly for their sins, that terror may lead them to humility and to a hatred of themselves; but they presently flee to the sacrifice of Christ, where they have sure peace.22 3:22: Confidence, though, has a specific purpose: prayer. And whatever we ask we receive from him, because his commandments we keep and the pleasing-in-his-sight-things we do. John will write more about this confidence for the sake of prayer in 1 John 5:13-17, but for now, John simply insists that our confidence before God is the ground of our confidence and boldness to expect to receive anything that we ask from him. Why such boldness? Because we keep his commandments and we do the things that are pleasing in his sight. (Things that are pleasing in his sight is a fantastic definition of commandments.) Stott has a fantastic line clarifying John's point here: Obedience is the indispensible condition, not the meritorious cause, of answered prayer.23 3:23: These are his commandmentsthat is, the things that are pleasing in the sight of God: that we believe in the name of God's Son Jesus Christ, and that we love one another, just as God has commanded us. God takes our response to his Son personally (cf. 1 John 2:18-27), and so the central, core commandment of God is that we
21 R.C.H. Lenski, The interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 476. 22 John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Epistle of John, in Calvin Commentaries, vol. 22 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), 224. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/comment3/comm_vol45/htm/v.iv.vi.htm> 23 John Stott, The Epistles of John: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 149.

believe in his Son. Apart from his Son, we have nothingnot even the ability to love the brothers, since love is a fruit that arises from our eternal life. Burdick would see commandments and pleasing-things as two separate categories: The apostle seems to refer to two categories: tas entolas, commandments, and ta aresta, things that are pleasing to Him. Bultmann thinks that this is a hendiadys, that is, that both terms refer to the same thing. Keeping God's commandments is what pleases Him. While this is true, it is probably better to view the two items as distinct and different. The commands are explicit expressions of God's will that call for obedience, whereas the things that please Him do not refer merely to acts specifically called for by law but to any action that is pleasing to Him.24 With respect to a great biblical scholar, I'm not convinced. This seems to me to misunderstand the nature of God's commandments. The commandments are not barely literal rules that we ought to follow to the letter no more and no lessbut all of them unfold into larger expressions of pleasing God. So, Jesus tells us that whoever looks at a woman with lust in his heart violates the commandment against committing adultery (Matt. 5:27-28), suggesting that there is a wider application of the 7th Commandment than simply avoiding sleeping with someone else's spouse. Unless you keep the whole scope of that wider application (even if parts of that scope are not specifically enumerated in the law), then you are neither keeping the commandments nor doing the things that please God. Burdick does, however, have a very helpful explanation of name: The name in biblical usage is inseparably related to the person who bears it. To believe in the name of Christ is to believe in Him and in all that He isDivine Son, perfect Man, Savior, Propitiation for sin, and Advocate for the saved.25 3:24: To close this section and to transition to the next, John explains that whoever keeps God's commandments abides in God, and God in them. Abiding was the major theme of the previous section, 1 John 2:28-3:10, and now John is connecting the dots between commandments, love, and abiding in God. To transition the next section about testing the spirits, John then connects abiding with the presence of the Spirit: in this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he gave to us. God abides in us by his Spirit. God's Spirit is the anointing that teaches us about Christ (1 John 2:18-27), and God's Spirit is the one who personally carries the love of Jesus into our hearts, so that we can love one another and keep God's commandments. I love how Lenski closes his chapter on this passage with a warning and an exhortation about the way in which we experience God by his Spirit: To say that God gave us the Spirit immediately, and that from the Spirit so given we known in an immedaite way that God remains in us, is to open the door to fanatical ideas, fancied revelations from the Spirit, morbid mysticism, etc. On Pentecost Christ sent the Spirit immediately, miraculously. He sent him to remain, to work in all the world. The Spirit was ever given by Word and sacrament. Peter preached at Pentecost, the Twelve baptized 3,000. So God gave the Spirit to John's readers; so we have him as God's gift today. As he is given us by Word and sacrament, so he is now ours only by Word and sacrament. He speaks to us and in us, works in and through us, only by Word and sacrament. There we actually hear his voice, experience his power, and thus know fully with affect and effect (ginoskomen) that God remains in us. Those who attribute to him anything that is different from Word and sacrament

24 Donald Burdick, The Letters of John the Apostle: An In-Depth Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 278. 25 Donald Burdick, The Letters of John the Apostle: An In-Depth Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 280.

do so without him. He is the source from whom by Word and sacrament we know, indeed, that God remains in us.26

26 R.C.H. Lenski, The interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 483.