The Christian’s Key Commandment | 1 John 2:3–11

The first post in this series can be found here.

The term “Christian” has been coopted in our day. I regularly see people on the internet declaring that they no longer refer to themselves as Christian because Christian can mean so many things to so many people. In our day, it seems as though everyone calls themselves Christians. Various Presidents have called themselves Christian over the years. But if everyone is a Christian, what does that label even mean? Labels are meant to distinguish a subset of a population.

A lot of definitions people give for Christianity destroy the beauty of the religion: “Follow rules.” “Don’t have fun.” “Follow the Ten Commandments.” Or worse: “Submit to our power.”

Why would anyone want to join something like that? How could a religion like that take over the world 2,000 years ago?

The reality is that it did nothing of the sort. A religion like that could never distinguish itself enough from every other religion and political force in the world. But Christianity did take over the world. And it does have a distinguishing feature, which the Bible—and later tradition—makes clear:

But he said to him, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. Now the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and all the prophets.”¹

“A new commandment I give to you: Love one another just as I have loved you in order that you also might love one another. By this, all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”²

Let him that hath love in Christ fulfil the commandments of Christ. … Ye see, dearly beloved, how great and marvellous a thing is love, and there is no declaring its perfection.³

Remember, O Lord, Thy Church, deliver it from all evil and make it perfect in Thy love and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom, which Thou hast prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory forever.⁴

On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary. These gifts are, as it were, piety’s deposit fund. For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God’s Church, they become the nurslings of their confession. But it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. “See,” they say, “how they love one another,” for themselves are animated by mutual hatred; “how they are ready even to die for one another,” for they themselves will sooner put to death.⁵

Love. This is the distinguishing feature of Christianity that took over the world.

I believe we need to stand up boldly and loudly proclaim from the rooftops just what it means to be a Christian. We cannot give away this beautiful title because others have cheapened its meaning. In fact, this is what John seeks to make clear in our passage today. Many who claim the title have no business doing so.

1 John 2:3–11

³By this we know that we have come to know him: if we are keeping his commandments. ⁴The one who says⁶ “I have come to know him” and is not keeping his commandments is a liar.⁷ The truth is not in this one.^{8 5}Whoever might keep his message, truly⁹ in this one has the love of God been perfected. This is how we know that we are in him:^{10 6}the one who says they remain in him ought also to walk¹¹ even as that one walked. ⁷Beloved,¹² I am not writing you a new commandment, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the message which you heard.^{13 8}Yet, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in him¹⁴ and in us,¹⁵ because the darkness¹⁶ is passing away and the true light is already shining. ⁹The one who says they are in the light and hates their brother or sister¹⁷ is even now in the darkness. ¹⁰The one who loves their brother or sister remains in the light and there is no cause for stumbling in them. ¹¹The one who hates their brother or sister is¹⁸ in the darkness, walks in the darkness, and does not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded their eyes.

The footnotes above discuss textual variants. The bold numbers are verse numbers.

Jump menu

Exposition and Application
Saint Augustine Assessment
Gospel Plea
Great Commandment Plea
Reflection Questions

Exegetical details

This passage is similar to the previous in that John seeks to differentiate Christian practice from pseudo-Christianity. Here, John assess the validity of three vocalized claims (“The one who says,” 2:4, 6, 9).¹⁹ As the exegesis that follows will reveal, these three verbal claims are three ways to refer to the same reality.

The difference between the claims here and the claims brought up in 1:6–10 is that these claims have a participial subject (“The one who”) whereas the previous ones had an implied, communal first-person plural subject built into the verb λέγω. The idea here is that now that John has delineated the boundaries of the community, he turns to a discussion of whether those remaining would better identify with those who had already split.²⁰

Two overlapping themes between this and the prior section are the light/darkness dichotomy (2:8, 9, 10, 11) and the truth/liar dichotomy (2:4). It is interesting that John uses “true” as an adjective at several points in this section (2:5, 8 [2x]), almost certainly to connect the two dichotomies (truth/lie and light/darkness) more closely. Two primary themes of 1 John are introduced in this section: knowing God, and love. The Greek verb for knowledge (γινώσκω) occurs 27 times in 1 John, the first four of which are in our text today. Love (ἀγαπάω, whether verbal or nominal form) occurs 31 times throughout 1 John, the first two of which are in our text today.

In the introduction to 1:5–2:2, I mentioned that first-person plural pronouns take the place of “fellowship” after 1 John 1:7. That is true, but John’s use of knowledge and love are two explicit ways we see fellowship play in 1 John. Love is horizontal fellowship, and knowledge is vertical fellowship. It is to the vertical dimension that John first turns.

3. By this we know that we have come to know him (Καὶ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν). John’s readers were probably wondering—as many readers today also wonder—how John can say that claiming sinlessness makes God a liar, but also expect his people to not sin (1:8, 10; 2:1).²¹ The exegesis of 1:5–2:2 touched on this topic, but what was implied there is here made explicit. John offers a test²² to help his readers gauge whether or not they have the fellowship with God that is the purpose of this letter (1:4).

If we are keeping his commandments (ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν). This is the test.²³ The next eight verses all expand on the implications of this verse. As such, I will save a detailed explanation of what is included by “commandments” (plural) for where John deals with that question (see verses 7–8). Throughout 1 John, the word “commandment(s)” occurs fourteen times; its usage is split evenly between singular and plural forms.²⁴

4. The one who says “I have come to know him” and is not keeping his commandments is a liar (ὁ λέγων ὅτι ἔγνωκα αὐτὸν καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ μὴ τηρῶν ψεύστης ἐστίν). This verse offers the first application of the test. It is also the simplest application of the test. If someone claims to know God, do they keep God’s commandments? If not—they are a liar. It is very reminiscent of 1:6 (“If we say that we presently have fellowship with him, but we are walking in the darkness, we are lying and we are not doing the truth”). In other words, failure to obey God—failure to keep his commandments—is what identifies one as walking in the darkness. And those who walk in darkness neither have fellowship with God nor know God.

The truth is not in this one (καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν). Reiterates the seriousness of the reality that the person who fails to obey God is a liar, even if they claim to know God. Not only are they are a liar, but there is no space for the truth in such a person.

5. Whoever might keep his message (ὃς δʼ ἂν τηρῇ αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον). This verse introduces the alternative. Interestingly, it does not use the word “commandment” again, but “message” (λόγος). The verb is the same in verses 3, 4, and here, but the fact that the plural ἐντολή can be exchanged for the singular λόγος helps to justify the position that there is not much difference between the singular and plural uses of “commandment.”²⁵

Truly in this one has the love of God been perfected (ἀληθῶς ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ τετελείωται). This clause explains what is true about the one who obeys God. The initial use of the modifier “truly” (ἀληθῶς) serves to juxtapose this position with that of the previous verse: “a liar” in whom “there is no truth.”

But what specifically is true of the person who obeys God’s commandments? This verse says “the love of God has been perfected” in this person. Commentators debate the meaning of this phrase, but the simplest explanation is found in Jobes: “The goal of God’s love for believers is reached in the transformation of how believers treat others.”²⁶ We are already starting to see what is meant by “keeping his commandments” in verse 3. Whatever it means, it has to do with perfecting the love of God.²⁷

God’s love, as we experience it, is already perfect. To say less is to call God less than holy. But if we have experienced God’s love, then God’s love must be perfected through our demonstration of it to others.²⁸ And we demonstrate it to others by loving them—not by saying we love others or by saying God loves them—by getting our hands dirty and actively loving them ourselves.

This is how we know that we are in him (ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐσμεν). This clause summarizes verses 3–5.²⁹ And given the direction John has already been going—and previewing where he will land in verses 7–8—it is worth noting an interesting textual parallel.

John 13:35 reads, “This is how all people will know that you are my disciples: if you have love for one another.” The first three Greek words are the same: ἐν τούτῳ γνώσονται, the only difference being the form of the final word. However, what is worth noting is that whereas Jesus offered this as a way for outsiders to recognize Jesus’ disciples, John here says it is also how believers themselves recognize other believers. The more actively and passionately we love others, the more confidence we will have that we belong to God. The pronoun is singular, just like it was singular in 2:3, so John has a singular thing in mind for his readers to use to identify if they know God. He has said everything he needs to about it in 2:3–5, but lest anyone doubt his meaning, he clarifies it in verses 6–11.

6. The one who says they remain in him ought, even as that one walked, also to walk thusly (ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν ὀφείλει, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν, καὶ αὐτὸς οὕτως περιπατεῖν). This verse introduces a second claim to gauge whether or not people know God. It follows after 2:5, much like 2:3b followed after “This is how we know,” and most translations demonstrate this understanding by concluding 2:5 with a colon.³⁰ This verse explains that one can know they are in God—whether they know God—by how they live their lives. Kruse acknowledges the possibility of an inclusio in 2:3–5, but prefers the idea (followed here) that this verse is the “this” of 2:5.³¹

The emphasis in 2:5 was on knowing if we are in God (ἐν αὐτῷ), and the fact that John here connects that same idea to walking like Jesus walked is theologically huge. Just as important as us being in him is him being in us (cf. John 17:21–23), the spiritual reality of which is made plain by how we live—especially toward others. Luther explains: “Where Christ dwells through faith, there He makes that person conform to Him; that is, He makes him humble, gentle, and ready to help his neighbor in any need.”³² This leads directly into verses 7–8.

7. Beloved, I am not writing you a new commandment (Ἀγαπητοί, οὐκ ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν). A quick look at the rest of this verse and the next verse will quickly reveal tension. What is John saying? Does this mean that John is not referring to John 13:34, where Jesus explicitly says, “I give you a new commandment” (Ἐντολὴν καινὴν)? Even the words are identical. Raymond Brown answers this question: “I find it unlikely that the epistolary author, who puts so much emphasis on love, would ever say that he did not intend to write about love.”³³ And the fact that John continues in verse 8 by saying, “Yet, I am writing a new commandment to you,” implies that there is a sense in which the command is new, even though he continues verse 7 by writing:

But an old commandment which you have had from the beginning (ἀλλʼ ἐντολὴν παλαιὰν ἣν εἴχετε ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς). Brown explains the seeming contradiction:

Possibly he is protecting himself against a charge by his opponents that he is imposing on his adherents new commands beyond those found in the tradition. In the author’s view his opponents are the “progressives” (2 John 9), and it is important for him to justify his gospel as one held from the beginning (1 John 3:11), whence the rejection of novelty. But on what basis might his opponents have charged him with writing a “new [novel] commandment”? To answer this, one must recognize that the word “commandment” is doing double duty in 2:7a. The author refers not only to the commandment of love but also to what he just said in v. 6: “The person who claims to abide in God ought himself to walk just as Christ walked.” This opheilein, “ought,” is a commandment aimed at the secessionists, and they are sure to object to his imposing this new obligation. The author denies any novelty; for his kathōs model, “just as Christ walked,” is inherent in the great commandment that all Johannine Christians must acknowledge: “Love one another as [kathōs] I have loved you.”³⁴

If we remember back to 1:1, and the previous occurrence of ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς (“from the beginning”), we will recall that this was something “experienced in time by John.”³⁵ And when we connect this to Brown’s note, it becomes clear that John’s “old commandment” refers to the way Jesus lived his life (which also draws our attention back to John 13:34): “Just as I loved you” (καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς). This manifestation (recall 1 John 1:2) was experienced in time before Jesus verbally commanded his disciples to actively love one another. Thus it is old.³⁶

The old commandment is the message which you heard (ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ παλαιά ἐστιν ὁ λόγος ὃν ἠκούσατε). Here, John identifies the commandment. He says it is the message his readers heard. Jobes explains this by noting that “all of Jesus’ teaching is squarely centered on [the Greatest Commandment]” in Matthew 22:37–40.³⁷ If this is the case, then everything his readers heard—the whole of the Christian tradition—was an exposition of love for God and love for man.³⁸

In fact, this is probably why John can go back and forth between singular and plural uses of “commandment.” Bultmann says, “The ‘commandments’ are included in the ‘commandment’ to love.”³⁹ As Yarbrough explains, the “oldness” of the commandment could refer back to the Decalogue.⁴⁰ This means that whether we want to emphasize John 13:34 here or try to preach all the biblical commands—love is the summary of the commandments. If you “love your neighbor as yourself” you will not go astray (James 2:8; cf. Leviticus 19:18; Mark 12:28–34; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14). If in your preaching of commandments, you elevate rules people must follow over the love people must demonstrate, you have broken the commandment yourself and told others to do the same.

8. Yet, I am writing a new commandment to you (πάλιν ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν). John backpedals and explains that he is describing a new commandment. Brown clarifies: “The adjective involved is not neos (‘young’ versus ‘aged’) but kainos, ‘fresh, novel,’ as opposed to ‘old, worn out.’”⁴¹ John goes on to explain exactly why he calls it “new.”

Which is true in him and in us (ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ημιν). Its freshness is seen when it is revealed in people’s lives. John says that the commandment is true in him and in us. This means that if you want to know if you know God (2:3, 5), you must ask yourself if you are obeying this commandment. Does your life look like Jesus’ life (2:6)? This is why John’s primary purpose of writing was for his readers to have fellowship with God and each other (1:3). We obey this commandment by remaining in fellowship with God and each other. When we do this, “our joy will be complete” (1:4).

Because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining (ὅτι ἡ σκοτία παράγεται καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει). This clause explains how we know that his command is truly being lived out in our lives. Apathy and hatred are tired; love is fresh. Love makes the darkness pass away. Love makes the light shine. Light is found in fellowship with God; this is where we experience the love of God and learn how to show it to others (1:5–7). The more our experienced love of God is passed on to those we meet, the less space there is for darkness, and the more light shines. As Yarbrough writes,

John testifies to a time in which the light Jesus promised is an increasing reality in the community he founded … But despite the problems that his epistle addresses, John is sure that “the true light” … already has the upper hand. This light “is the real thing” (Marshall 1978: 130). The challenge is for this reality to be embodied in the life and lives of his readers.⁴²

It is to this that John turns in 2:9–11.

9. The one who says they are in the light and hates their brother or sister is even now in the darkness (Ὁ λέγων ἐν τῷ φωτὶ εἶναι καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ μισῶν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ ἐστὶν ἕως ἄρτι). This verse ties together everything we have seen so far (going all the way back to 1:5). God is light, and he is incompatible with darkness (1:5). The point of our section today is to determine if we know God (2:3). We know God if we keep his commands (which can all be boiled down to “love!”). We cannot fellowship with God if we are in darkness, but if we are in the light, we fellowship with others (1:6–7). Practicing God’s commandment results in light destroying darkness (2:8).

Here, in 2:9, we get the third “The one who says” statement. These statements are all subpoints of 2:3—how do we know we know God? —rhetorically asking us: “How do you stack up in obeying God’s commands?” In 2:4, if you do not keep his commandments, you are a liar if you simultaneously claim to know God. In 2:6, you do know God if your life looks like Jesus’ life. In 2:9, you do not know God if you do not love others. All three of these tests are describing the same reality, but each one gets more and more obvious regarding what exactly it is that John expects of his readers.

John says that those who hate their fellow Christians are lying about their claim to know God and are actually in darkness. This ties in clearly with 1:6, where we read, “If we say that we presently have fellowship with him, but we are walking in the darkness, we are lying and we are not doing the truth.” A claim to Christian faith is false if you do not love God’s people. As Lieu explains:

The behavior that demonstrates the falsity of any claim is not simply a failure to keep his commands, but is hatred of a brother (or sister). This author deals in antitheses, light against darkness, love against hatred: he knows of no middle or neutral ground. At this point, neither hatred nor love (in the next verse) has any specific content; the former may be only the absence of the latter rather than active emotion or behavior, but the active content of love will as yet be left unexplored (see 3:13–18).⁴³

John’s point is not, “Check these boxes to make sure you are loving like Jesus did.” John wants his readers to go out of their way to love. There should be no question about the quality and reality of their love for others. What we call “love” today might count for hatred in John’s eyes. That is a scary thought.

10. The one who loves their brother or sister remains in the light and there is no cause for stumbling in them (ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ μένει, καὶ σκάνδαλον ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν). This verse interrupts the discussion of hatred, making 2:9–11 a chiasm, where 2:9 and 11 discuss hate, and 2:10 focuses on love.⁴⁴ Christian fellowship is the definition of walking in the light (1:7), so at the very least, the way we can know we know God is if we love other believers and fellowship with them. However, fellowship with other believers is a lot more than just attending church together on Sunday mornings. In fact, a person could attend church every Sunday—maybe even every Wednesday too—and never love their fellow Christians. And just because we shake hands with our neighbors during the greeting portion of service does not mean we have fellowshipped with other Christians. But John will expand on his understanding of love as the book continues, though we should remember 2:6. How does our love compare to the example Jesus set?

John gives one hint as to what his understanding of love looks like when he writes that “there is no cause for stumbling” in the one who truly loves. This statement, the word σκάνδαλον (scandalon) has been a topic of some debate. It occurs in the Septuagint 21 times, including Leviticus 19:14, where we read: “Do not speak badly of the deaf, and do not place a stumbling block (σκάνδαλον) before the blind, but you will fear the Lord your God. I am the Lord your God.” Given that the point of this section is all about love, of which Leviticus 19:18 is the original “love commandment,” it seems right to identify Leviticus 19:14 as the background for this idea of “stumbling.”⁴⁵

Before moving to verse 11, which will continue to elaborate on this idea of “stumbling,” it is worth taking a moment to parse out what this “stumbling” looks like. Literally, the verse says “There is no stumbling block in him.”⁴⁶ This does not mean that the one who loves cannot ever sin (look back at 1:8, 10). It also does not mean that this person himself is guaranteed safe from apostasy.⁴⁷ Rather, just like in Leviticus 19:14, John’s point is that the person who loves others as God has loved him⁴⁸ will never be guilty of causing someone else to stumble to destruction. The text is clear that it identifies the person himself or herself as the stumbling block in question.⁴⁹ As Akin explains, “Christians can walk without stumbling because they see where they are going and the result is they do not cause others to fall.”⁵⁰ The more our love is perfected, the more we look like Jesus, and the more we look like Jesus, the less likely we will be to cause others to stumble.⁵¹

But is this directed outside the community, or limited to within the community? Brown understands the stumbling as not pertaining to outsiders.⁵² However, given verse 11, and given the context of Leviticus 19:14, one would have to agree that the “false converts” within the community potentially possess a bit more light than the pagans (at least according to Hebrews 6:4).⁵³ Our goal should be that all people know Jesus (John 13:34–35; 17:21–23). So the true believer—the one who truly loves their fellow believers—does not cause anyone to stumble, whether believer or not (and whether claiming belief or not). But at this point in John’s argument, the focus is on the community itself. The seeds for an external mission are definitely present though, and I will continue to draw attention to them throughout.

11. The one who hates their brother or sister is in the darkness (ὁ δὲ μισῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ ἐστὶν). With this verse, the section concludes, and John returns to the idea of hate.⁵⁴ The first phrase here reiterates in no uncertain terms the message of 2:9. If you hate, you are in the darkness. The light is not even mentioned here. John continues by giving three consequences of what it means to be “in the darkness.”

Walks in the darkness (καὶ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ περιπατεῖ). The first consequence is that they experience no Christian fellowship. Walking in the light was earlier related to knowing God and fellowshipping with others (1:6–7). The one who hates their brother or sister does not partake in Christian fellowship. They walk in darkness.

And does not know where they are going (καὶ οὐκ οἶδεν ποῦ ὑπάγει). The lack of Christian fellowship—hatred of other believers—means they do not know where they are going. This connects clearly to the possibility for stumbling. They are lost. They are blind. Destruction awaits.

Because the darkness has blinded their eyes (ὅτι ἡ σκοτία ἐτύφλωσεν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ). Akin explains this reality well:

Spiritual darkness is not a passive reality. It goes on the offensive. Darkness attacks those living in it so that they become increasingly trapped in this realm of confusion and blindness. In a real sense what we do is what we become. How we live is who we are. The longer one remains in this realm of darkness, the more difficult it becomes to see the sin that is in one’s life, and the less likely one is to see his need to confess his sins so that fellowship with God can be restored. Habitual hatred leads to more hatred, and the possibility of loving becomes less and less likely.⁵⁵

Return to menu

Exposition and Application

Jesus said, “All people will know that you are my disciples by your love for one another” (John 13:35). What is a disciple, but someone who follows Jesus? Disciples know their master. Therefore, if others know that we belong to Jesus, then we can also know that we belong to Jesus.

This is the test John offers. Yes, you struggle with sin. If you call yourself a believer, you must admit to sinfulness, specifically confessing it. To fail to do so is to call God a liar when he says you are a sinner.

But sin is not primarily a private matter between you and God. Sin is a breach in a relationship, and the sin John primarily has in mind here is failure to love like Jesus loved. We can introspect all day about pride, lust, and selfishness, but we must get out of our own heads and love others—actively! As Flame says, “God doesn’t need our good works, but our neighbor does.”⁵⁶

It is a tall order, but it is the commandment we see in the text today. And John specifically ties the validity of our Christian profession to whether or not we love others. It is not about whether you dance or not, smoke or not, drink or not, or have tattoos or not. It is about whether or not you love like Jesus. He reached out to those the religious elites thought were under God’s curse. And he ate with them, drank with them, and set them on a new trajectory.

Living in relationship with others will only further highlight your sinfulness. Your inclination to selfishness will be constantly before you. But you will daily have opportunities to repent by choosing the less selfish option next time. Your failure to live up to Jesus’ model will be stark. You will find yourself lazy to love at points. But this is why we confess. This is what the blood of Jesus covers. This is why every day is a new day.

Do we persevere in love? Or do we give up and throw up our hands in despair? To give up is to break the commandment and prove to not know God.

Prove your faith true. Prove your love real. Prove that you know God!

Press on in Christian love!

Who can you love today? Who has God put in your path? Who is God asking you, “Do you really know me?” about today?

Return to menu

Return to menu

Gospel Plea

Perhaps you are reading this and your first thought is, “There are no real Christians. Every so-called Christian I have ever met has been fake and judgmental. If that is their definition of love, they can keep it.” Perhaps you agree with the aphorism, “There is no hate like Christian love.”

I would not try to correct your assessment. Our experience is part of who we are as people. It shapes our worldview. And if Christians have mistreated you, then I grieve with you.

But I would challenge you: Just because existing Christians do not look like Jesus does not mean a new generation of Christians cannot take back the mantle of living as he did in this world.

Your recognition that Christians are missing something is good. It means you are awake to the reality of what God expects of people. But if all you do is say, “Current Christians bad,” you are still failing to live up to God’s expectations.

If you want to see change—be the change! Trust in Jesus for salvation, confess your failure to love like him, and set an example for everyone of what it means to love like Jesus. I promise you people are watching!

Trust him today!

Return to menu

Great Commandment Plea

This text is an indictment of the church today. John’s whole point is obeying the “love commandment”—the Great Commandment. How is your love?

If we are in Christ (2:5–6), then when we act, Christ acts. This is why I mentioned in the exegesis at that point that this is “theologically huge.” It is why hatred (2:3–11) and sin (1:5–2:2) are so blasphemous for Christians. It is why we must confess our sins, because confession is agreeing with Christ that an action was improper. It is taking responsibility for that action and exonerating Christ of any responsibility in that act. Failure to confess is an admission that you (and Christ) see nothing wrong with your actions.

I will not belabor the point.

But if we do not love like Jesus loved, we are lying when we say we know God. This is a terrible lie, a stumbling block that leads others to destruction, because they are looking at the Church for a sign of something different. They know Jesus said we are supposed to be known by our love. But if our love is hatred, then when they see it and turn away in disgust, they are lost. And it is our fault. Mark 9:42–50 speaks of the consequences for those who cause others to stumble.

Live in love! Model your life after Jesus’ life, and watch the darkness disappear!

Return to menu

Reflection Questions

• What sort of things have you been told identify someone as a Christian? Are you inclined to agree or disagree with the perspective put forward in this blog post?
• Does love really summarize all the commandments? How so?
• What does it look like in your life to walk as Jesus walked?
• Can you explain the “contradiction” John makes regarding the age of the commandment he discusses in 2:7–8?
• What—historically—does the existence of Christian denominations say about our ability as Christians to love one another?

Return to menu

---

Thanks for reading!

In this with you!

• Threads
• Bluesky
• X
• Facebook

---

Notes and References

1. Matthew 22:37–40. ↩︎
2. John 13:34–35. ↩︎
3. 1 Clement 49:1; 50:1, translated by J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, ed., The Apostolic Fathers (London: Macmillan and Co., 1891), 78. ↩︎
4. Didache 10:5 translated by Francis X. Glimm, Joseph M.-F. Marique, and Gerald G. Walsh, ed., The Apostolic Fathers, FC (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1947), 179–180. ↩︎
5. Tertullian, “The Apology,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. Thelwall, ANF3 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), sec. xxxix, p. 46. Emphasis in original; I provided the quotation marks. ↩︎
6. It ultimately does not matter whether we read the ὅτι or not. In my translation, ὅτι could be understood by the addition of quotation marks. ↩︎
7. Starting a new sentence here shows that I am reading the καὶ at this point. ↩︎
8. I read the text here according to the accepted text in NA²⁸. There is not enough textual evidence to overturn it, and even if there was, it would not greatly alter the translation, except Sinaiticus’ sole reading of “The truth of God.” ↩︎
9. I read ἀληθῶς at this point, since only two late manuscripts are listed as omitting it. ↩︎
10. I ignore the insertion at the end of 2:5, since it is very weakly attested (Augustine [fifth century] being the earliest), and easily explained as an attempt to make the end of 2:5 read in parallel with 2:3 (see Brown, The Epistles of John, 259). ↩︎
11. I omit οὕτως and rearrange the Greek structure for ease of reading. The apparatus admits that keeping οὕτως or omitting it are essentially equal decisions. ↩︎
12. I do not accept the variant αδελφοι, especially given the content of the command under discussion in this context. ↩︎
13. I do not read απ αρχης here as original; it was likely added at this point as an explanatory gloss to tie the prior απ αρχης to the one in 1:1. ↩︎
14. The variant at this point changes very little about the meaning of the phrase, and does not possess much manuscript evidence. ↩︎
15. I read as ημιν, since John is offering a test here. He is not assuring people unnecessarily. He wants his readers to realize they are part of the “us.” ↩︎
16. I read as σκοτία, since σκια only has one manuscript in support of it, and σκια can be understood as a specific example of σκοτία. ↩︎
17. I do not read with the inclusion of ψευστης εστιν και, even though it makes good sense of the text. The lack of manuscript evidence points away from its originality. ↩︎
18. I do not read as μενει, since the manuscript evidence is weak. ↩︎
19. While the phrase “The one who…” occurs 30 times throughout 1 John, these are the only three uses of “The one who says.” ↩︎
20. See Brown, The Epistles of John, 252–253. ↩︎
21. Pace Brown, The Epistles of John, 248–249: “There is very little relationship to what immediately precedes” (249). ↩︎
22. Note that the pronoun τούτῳ is singular. ↩︎
23. See Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 45. ↩︎
24. Commentators note that there is not a significant difference between the two options. See especially Brown, The Epistles of John, 251; Brown, John XIII–XXI,.638, 641. ↩︎
25. See prior footnote. ↩︎
26. Jobes, 1, 2, & 3 John, 84. ↩︎
27. It should be noted, as Marshall helpfully points out, that this is not a discussion of Christian perfection (Marshall, The Epistles of John, 125). It is a discussion of maturing in Christian love. John has already made it clear (in 1:5–2:2) that while Christians must strive for sinlessness, it will never happen. ↩︎
28. See Brown, The Epistles of John, 255–258, where he spends six paragraphs discussing God’s love and the concept of perfection as it relates to this passage in 1 John: “since 1 John 2:5b speaks of the love of God reaching perfection, it is human love for God that is most easily conceived as perfectible” (256). ↩︎
29. See Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles, 26. ↩︎
30. I checked HCSB, NRSV, NIV, ESV, NASB, CSB, NLT, KJV, and NKJV. Of these, only the last three concluded 2:5 with a period. We must remember that verse numbers (and even punctuation) were added later and often have the unfortunate consequence of causing us to misunderstand the flow of the text. ↩︎
31. Kruse, The Letters of John, 80–81. ↩︎
32. Luther, LW 30:240. ↩︎
33. Brown, The Epistles of John, 264. ↩︎
34. Brown, The Epistles of John, 264–265. Emphasis in original. ↩︎
35. See “Exegetical Details” on 1:1. ↩︎
36. We must also consider the possibility that enough time has passed between Jesus’ earthly life and John’s writing to now describe the love commandment as “old.” ↩︎
37. Jobes, 1, 2, & 3 John, 95. ↩︎
38. This makes sense of Bultmann’s claim: “He is thinking of the commandment which is mediated through the Christian tradition, and [‘beginning’] … means the point within history in which Christian proclamation was received by believers” (The Johannine Epistles, 27). Jobes (1, 2, & 3 John, 95) understands 1 John 2:3–6 as “Love God,” and 2:7–11 as “Love people.” ↩︎
39. Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles, 27. See also Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 55; Strecker, The Johannine Letters, 48. ↩︎
40. Yarbrough, 1–3 John, 97. ↩︎
41. Brown, The Epistles of John, 266. Emphasis in original. ↩︎
42. Yarbrough, 1–3 John, 102–103. ↩︎
43. Lieu, I, II, III John, 79. ↩︎
44. In chiasms, the main point to be emphasized occurs in the middle. Yarbrough comments on 2:9, 11 and saves 2:10 for the end (1–3 John, 103–109). ↩︎
45. As Lieu does (I, II, III John, 81). ↩︎
46. Throughout, I have used gender inclusive language which also resulted in pluralizing the pronoun. But literally, everything is masculine and singular. ↩︎
47. See Brown, The Epistles of John, 274–275. ↩︎
48. The “perfection of love” as described in 1 John 2:5. ↩︎
49. Yarbrough (1–3 John, 111) highlights the variant here as proof for reading ἐν αὐτῷ as “in him” instead of “in it.” ↩︎
50. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 100. Emphasis added. ↩︎
51. Jesus is the only one perfectly in the light and perfectly capable of not letting anyone stumble. We must seek to be perfected in love so we do not destroy others by our lack of conformity to Christ. If one was to read ἐν αὐτῷ as “in it” (referring to the light), there is only a small difference between “in the light” and “in him (Jesus).” Perhaps this is why Brown notes that there is not an enormous difference between these two options (The Epistles of John, 274). The closer we are to Jesus, the more “in the light” we are, the less likely we are to cause someone to stumble. ↩︎
52. Brown, The Epistles of John, 275. ↩︎
53. However, John seems to work with a very dualistic framework: you either have light, or you do not; you either love or you hate (see Lieu, I, II, III John, 79). He would likely lump pagans, nonbelievers, and the secessionists in the same category. ↩︎
54. It will require further thought, but it is possible that this verse is not meant to reiterate the point of 2:9, but rather to summarize John’s whole point in 2:3–11 (all of the “the one who says” statements). If so, it supports my point that the whole section is about “love.” I will include this discussion in the published commentary if I can justify it as legitimate. ↩︎
55. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 100. ↩︎
56. Flame, “Good Works,” Extra Nos (St Louis, MO: Clear Sight Music, 2020), Spotify. ↩︎
57. Augustine, Homilies 1.13, p. 36. ↩︎
58. Augustine, Homilies 1.9, p. 30. ↩︎
59. Augustine, Homilies 1.12, p. 33. ↩︎
60. Augustine, Homilies 1.12, p. 34. ↩︎
61. Tilley, The Bible in Christian North Africa, 1–8, introduces the methodology she used to weed through this one-sided portrait. Without Tilley’s work, Augustine’s writings on the Controversy would be completely useless for Protestant retrieval and ressourcement. ↩︎
62. For instance, Luther (LW 30:239) writes, “The loathsome Donatists boasted much of their faith, life, and continence, also of suicide (αὐτοχειρία), of death inflicted either on themselves or on one another. For when two had met each other early in the morning, they immediately added the words “Kill me” to their greeting. If one had refused, the other hastened to take his own life. Among them these were most splendid deeds. Yet the truth was not in them. For Augustine, who writes against them, says that a cause and a punishment are required for martyrdom.” Luther pulls his understanding from Augustine, On the Correction of the Donatists (aka Epistle 185), penned ten years after these homilies on 1 John (c. 417). This sort of rhetoric might be provocative, but it falls prey to the fallacies of hasty generalization and stereotyping. It also results in dehumanization, and probably played a role in transitioning Augustine’s view of the Donatists as “lost brothers” to “dangerous, violent criminals.” ↩︎