A Necessary Detour

I spent a lot of time this weekend thinking about what John is writing and why he goes to some length to make the points he makes in the opening of this letter. I was a bit surprised to find the problem he was addressing to be as contemporary as it it. It has a different name or no name at all but the beliefs are the same. Here are my thoughts. Having in the past read several volumes on Gnosticism, I trust these summary thoughts on its basic tenets do it sufficient justice for an understanding of John.

The biblical rule is that everything is established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. (II Corinthian 13:1) John is alluding to the witness of the disciples, 12 of them. That certainly meets the biblical rule and far exceeds the rule by which we are convinced of most things. But why does he dwell on the claim that these witnesses saw, heard and touched? If such was really required for a us to believe the claims and teachings of a religion, there would remain, I think, only one religion on earth. One need only think of the many religions that are based on nothing more than the religious experience of a single man or the claim of a single witness that an angel appeared to him with a message to say nothing of the millions who are misled by modern day pseudo-prophets and their claims that God spoke to them extra-biblically. And given that he is writing to the church, to those who have already believed, one wonders why then he is at such lengths to make a point of the fact that the testimony of the witness is based on the objective experience of the witnesses?

It is held by most that John is writing this letter to the churches to counter the influence of Gnosticism. I could easily get lost in this, as there is much to understand about Gnosticism. But I think recalling as much as possible of Gnosticism will help me better understand John. (It has been some twenty years since studying Gnosticism and more than forty years since studying the Platonism and Pythagoreanism from which it borrows). Some understanding of the tenets of Gnosticism will certainly help us better understand the lambasting John is about to give to the notion of ‘perfectionism’.

Gnostics did/do hold a biblical view of evil; i.e., that evil is sin or rebellion against God. Their view is that evil is essentially ontological in nature rather than ethical in nature. That notion leads inevitably to the notion that whatever “evil” we commit is not something for which we bear the guilt. We simply cannot avoid being evil and thus God holds us guiltless. He holds us guiltless because although we do evil things, we are, in fact, guiltless. This obviously requires some explanation.

Gnostics held that God is pure being. Not pure being in the sense we would normally think; i.e. ethically pure but pure being as opposed to pure non-being which is necessarily “evil” simply due to the fact that it is the opposite of pure being. This all gets a bit confusing but here is the thing – and it will no doubt make it all the more confusing – non-being is not the same as non-existing. It is rather that which is always becoming but never achieving being. The god of non-being is the demiurge who created all things or namely matter, the stuff of which the world as we know it is made. I am massively abbreviating to avoid venturing into the whole Gnostic cosmology. The point is this: matter is evil because it is non-being and thus the contradiction of God who is Being; consequently, I will argue, ultimately evil then is necessarily is thus ontological rather than ethical. In that case, guilt cannot be ascribed for c’est la vie.

Just how is that so? In the gnostic view, the soul, man qua man or the essence of man if you will, while different from God, is nonetheless pure being, individual and different from God to be sure; yet a chip off the old block, a spark of the divine and thus without sin. Perhaps it would be more correct to say Gnostics held man qua man to be without flaws or want of being. The problem comes when the soul is conjoined with matter to form the walking talking individuals we know as mankind. Matter, you remember, is inherently “evil”; i.e., non-being or that which is always becoming, and that is the contradiction of pure being. The Gnostics do not deny that men as we know them are evil things. Rather they hold that the soul, man in his essential being, is not accountable for the evil done by the body, the matter it inhabits. So we get back to the Platonic notion of the body being the prison house of the soul and the Christian Gnostic notion of perfection. The perfection John is countering is not the notion that they never did evil, or never sinned again as some think is the issue. The perfectionism he is opposing is the notion that they are guiltless because, in fact, as the Gnostics held they themselves never were evil. It is only this matter into to which they have been entrapped that is evil. Sin is rather something foisted upon man by his having been conjoined with matter in his creation. It is this that John is opposing when he says “if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves.

Well, that was a bit longer detour than anticipated. I think, however, given the pervasiveness today that somehow man fundamentally good, not really finally guilty of the evil he does and God welcomes all back into Himself, this needed to be said. Gnostic doctrine, while not named, is much more pervasive than we might think.

Whether one agrees with him or not John is saying that man himself, man qua man, the soul, is in ethical rebellion against God and bears that guilt except – and this is his ultimate point – except a man has believed in the Christ who bears that guilt for him – a believing strives to follow after him. That Christ is and that he sacrificed Himself to bear man’s guilt even the devils believe, but they refuse to be being conformed to his image.

I John 1:1-4

"Regarding that which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we have gazed upon and have handled with our hands, the Word of life that was made manifest and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you even the life eternal that was with the Father and was revealed to us, that life which we have seen and heard we also proclaim to you that you may indeed have fellowship with us and join us in our fellowship with the Father and with his son Jesus Christ. And we write these things that our joy may be complete."

The first four verses are one thought, a sentence. John's purpose in writing this epistle is that we may be assured of our position in Christ. John goes to some length to make it clear that what he is writing is not, as some think, simply a record of his personal subjective religious experience; rather it is subjective rooted and grounded in the objective. It seems from the way he is writing that he is opposing Gnostic teaching that either began in the early Christian church with an admixture of Platonic thought by the adoption of Gnostic doctrines. That may be a useful detour at some point. I think it can be said that both subjectively and objectively, body and soul, we are in Christ is a notion contrary to Gnostic teaching.

John begins with an appeal to the objective as encountered by very human senses. “We have heard…” This was not something conjured up in their minds to satisfy some personal spiritual need. As we hear the sound of birds and the voices of friends, John is saying, we heard with our ears this teaching. “We have seen with our eyes” the Teacher.  These are not our own thoughts that came to us from the ether in some moment of meditation, spiritual enlightenment or ‘spiritual’ sight.  Modern day self-proclaimed “prophets” and "apostles"like to say, “I was in the Spirit and I saw, the Lord told me etc.”  No, John is saying, that is not the experience that I nor the others proclaim. Rather “we saw with our eyes….” the same eyes with which we see the sun rise. Moreover, that which we saw was not some fleeting apparition, or phantom conjured in some state of spiritual excitement. “We have gazed upon it,” we observed it intently as spectators engrossed in watching something objective presented to the physical senses. Such is the import of the word translated simply as gazed. Not only, John says, did we see and hear but we “have handled with our hands,” literally touched, groped, palpably examined, laid my head upon the breast of Him to which we bear witness and proclaim to you; even the “Life Eternal that was with the Father and was revealed to us.” We have seen that Life, we have heard that Life, we have touched that Life and we proclaim that Life to you so that you may “join us in our fellowship with the Father and with his son Jesus Christ.”

We profit if we note that the fellowship of men, “our fellowship” or partnership with one another, properly understood and lived out in its fullness is rooted in our first having fellowship, partnership in the Father through the Son by the work of the Holy Spirit within us. He is the vine; we are the branches (John 15:5). We find our life in him and his life flows through us so that “the life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20)

Understanding John's Epistles

It is important in understanding the epistles of John to realize that he is writing to believers. It is an epistle meant for those who are followers of Christ.

In John’s gospel, he writes that his purpose was that those reading it might believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that so believing they might themselves also enter into that life: “These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Son if God and that believing you have life in His name.” (John. 20:31)

His epistles, written to followers, are written that they may have the assurance they have indeed entered into that life by the fellowship they have with other believers and with the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus he writes: “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God that you may know you have eternal life.” (I John. 5:13) While unbelievers would well make this a better world to live in and make their own live better by following the pattern of life seen in Jesus, to call upon them to make the life of Christ their pattern apart from saving grace would mock the impotence of the unregenerate. 

In reading I John, if we are to understand it correctly, we do well to understand that fellowship is the leading thought of John as he writes these letters. John presents this fellowship in two parts. First there is the objective part of fellowship that is the pattern of life provided in Christ (He that says he abides in Him should also conduct himself as Christ conducted himself. I John. 2:6); then, there is the subjective part of fellowship provided by the Holy Spirit, the power by which we are “born from above” and are begotten children of God and thus made “heirs and joint heirs of Christ,” (Ro. 8:17) find our life in Him.

The fellowship John has in mind goes beyond social politeness, if we call it that, which even the beasts exhibit from time to time.. It rather refers to partaking of the same mind as God. (“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 2:5) The word translated as fellowship refers to a partnership, community, participating in. When Jesus says you saw me hungry and did not feed me, you saw me naked and did not clothe me, you saw me sick and in prison and did not visit me he is noting that regardless of what one might think is his relationship with God, he is not in fellowship with Him. In short, the fellowship to which John refers, is a living faith and not a dead faith (Jas. 2:26). And it is this idea of fellowship that will lead John to declare that anyone who does not love those who are in partnership with God,; i.e., those who are followers of Christ, is deceived and cannot himself be one who loves God.

We may say then that the value of the letters of John is found in their presentation of the responsibilities that are woven into the warp and woof of a life of fellowship with the Godhead and that it is in our joyful welcome of those responsibilities and the realization of them in our lives that we know that we have eternal life and our joy is complete. The unanswerable apology for one’s faith is a transformed life; i.e., finding in himself that mind which was in Christ.

Welcome

Welcome to Meditations. The decision to share my meditations on Scripture was primarily for my own benefit as a means of holding myself accountable. I hope you will benefit from them.

In writing these meditation I come from the position that Scriptures is inerrant in the original manuscripts and that God is abundantly able to guide the thoughts of men in translating, transcribing and an preserving them and that He has done so. Consequently, I hold that Scripture interprets Scripture and is thus, properly understood, never at odds with itself. From a philosophical point of view, this is the only position that solves the problem of the one and the many and provides an epistemological basis for certitude. To hold that Scripture is to be interpreted by extra-scriptural considerations simply means that the extra-biblical beliefs to which you hold Scripture subject is your actual rule of faith and practice. Appeals to Scripture in that instance is simply an appeal to authority to support a belief you have adopted on some basis other than the Scriptures. That is your choice. I am OK with that.

Perhaps, at some point, I will detail that apologetic. For the present, my only point in stating this is give you an understanding of my approach to Scripture and to and to make manifest the obvious; i.e., that if you judge Scripture by anything other than Scripture, then Scripture is not the basis of your faith. It is merely a recourse to confirm in your own mind beliefs adopted outside Scripture.

It is my hope that though you may disagree with the approach I take to Scripture, which means soon or late you will disagree with my interpretations, you will find much that is beneficial. Even those who take the same approach find abundant room to disagree; yet, we learn from one another.