Do Not Confuse Morality with Righteousness

I John is heavy on obedience. Frequently John tells us that if we claim to know God and believe in Christ then we must obey God's commandments (I John 2:4, 3:22, 5:3).  When we read these verses we often think of being moral. We think of not getting drunk, refusing cuss, not fornicating or being generally a nice person.

But John has a different idea in mind. For him righteousness, obeying the commandments of God, means conformity to Jesus Christ. We see this specifically in two places, but it is woven throughout the epistle. In I John 2:6 John says that anyone who says he abides in God must walk as he walked. Anyone who claims to be a Christian must walk as Jesus walked. In John 3:7 he says that he who practices righteousness is righteous just as he is righteous. Righteousness is defined by Jesus.  This is important for us because there are many good people in the world. There are Muslims, Mormons, and atheists who all live clean, moral lives. They are faithful to their wives. They do good in the community. They are hard workers. So if we define "righteousness" as good clean living then there are a lot of pagans who fit.  The Bible however defines righteousness as Jesus. There will be some overlap of course. There are many things good people will do or not do that correspond with righteous living.  But there is a world of difference between being moral and being righteous.

A Righteous Man Worships God

Perhaps most important is that righteousness is about worshiping God. Being righteous means we obey the first four commandments.  We have no other gods, except Yahweh. We do not worship idols. We do not take his name in vain. We rest so that we might worship him. It is impossible to be righteous without worshiping God. Perhaps this is why I John ends the way it does (I John 5:21).

A Righteous Man Believes in Jesus Christ

In I John 3:23 John commands us to believe on the name of Jesus Christ. A man can be good in some sense without trusting in Jesus, but he cannot be righteous. He cannot be obedient to God if he does not believe in Jesus Christ. Belief in Jesus Christ is the foundation of a righteous life. Without faith in Christ a man is not righteous. By the way, this also means that a righteous man calls upon others to believe in Christ.

A Righteous Man Confesses His Sins

John begins his letter, which is so heavy on obeying, with a reminder that we are sinners and we need to confess our sins (I John 1:8-2:3). Confession of sin is essential to righteous living. A righteous man wants to be more like Christ. When he isn't he repents of his sins and flees to the Advocate (I John 2:1). Here again is a great dividing line between good, moral living and being righteous. Moral men do not confess their sins. They may admit they made mistakes and did something wrong, but they do not confess that they have sinned. Righteous men do.

A Righteous Man is Concerned about His Heart, Not Just His Actions

Morality is concerned primarily about outward behavior. Now, we must be careful here, a righteous man will be concerned about outward behavior. Learning to be more like Christ and confessing our sins when we aren't will result in concrete action. We cannot just be righteous in our hearts. This is clear throughout the whole Bible. Even if we only look at Ephesians 4:25-5:7 we see that we shouldn't lie, steal, fornicate, sin in our anger, etc. Anyone who defines righteousness as primarily internal is going against God's Word. But when we define righteousness as primarily external then we sin the other direction. We are equating morality with righteousness. A righteous man knows that failing to love is like murder (I John 3:14-15). Murder is murder, but so is hate, which is internal. A righteous man knows that lust is adultery (Matthew 5:28). Adultery is adultery, but so is lust. A righteous man knows that coveting is idolatry (Ephesians 5:5). Idolatry is idolatry, but so is coveting. The righteous man understands that who he is on the inside matters as much as what he does on the outside.  A moral man does not understand this.

Taking all of these together we  can see that righteousness, as defined by the Bible, cannot be equated with good, clean living or being moral. There will be some overlap between the two, especially in certain outward actions. But righteousness is vertical.  It requires worship and belief in  God and His Son Jesus Christ. Righteousness is conformity to Christ. It requires confession when conformity is lacking. Righteousness is internal. It requires an inner spiritual life that focuses on movement of the heart and mind toward God, as well as what we do with our hands, feet, eyes, and mouth.

Morality is not righteousness. When John tells us that we need to obey the commandments of God we need to see a picture of Jesus, not a picture of a good, upstanding, moral citizen.

Book Review: Finally Alive

Finally Alive: What Happens When We Are Born Again? by John Piper
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A good book on understanding the new birth. He spends a lot of time in I John, which makes sense. He does a good job showing why regeneration in necessary, how it occurs, and what are the results of it. He also nicely balances God's work and the necessity of means. God does not believe for us nor does God magically change people's hearts apart from the Word of God. I especially enjoyed his last chapter on how to be more proactive in evangelism. A really good book on this topic and worthwhile read for anyone working through I John.

What did I not like? Piper is still too revivalistic for my tastes. Too many altar calls in the book. Second, he has a low view of the institutional church and the sacraments. Both of those are almost non-existent in this book. Finally, I do not think he adequately addresses the continued presence of sin in the believer. That was not the point of this book. However, with all the time he spends in I John he should have explained more clearly how a regenerate person can keep on sinning. His view of regeneration is so dramatic that a natural reading leads to perfectionism. But he does not believe Christians are perfect. I did not think this tension was adequately explained.

View all my reviews

Signs of the New Birth

John Piper in his book, Finally Alive, lists eleven signs of the new birth from I John.

1. Those who are born of God keep his commandments (I John 2:3-4, 3:24).

2. Those who are born of God walk as Christ walked (I John 2:5-6).

3. Those who are born of God don't hate others, but love them (I John 2:9, 3:14, 4:7-8, 4:20).

4. Those who are born of God don't love the world (I John 2:15).

5. Those who are born of God confess the son and receive (have) him (I John 2:23, 4:15, 5:12).

6. Those who are born of God practice righteousness (I John 2:29).

7. Those who are born of God don't make a practice of sinning (I John 3:6, 3:9-10, 5:18).

8. Those who are born of God possess the Spirit of God (I John 3:24, 4:13).

9. Those who are born of God listen submissively to the apostolic Word (I John 4:6).

10. Those who are born of God believe that Jesus is the Christ (I John 5:1).

11. Those who are born of God overcome the world (I John 5:4).

I would add two more.

Those who are born of God know they are sinners and flee to Jesus when they sin (I John 1:8-2:2).

Those who are born of God believe that Jesus came in the flesh (I John 4:2).

I would also add to his number three that the emphasis in I John is on loving the brothers, that is other Christians. Of course, John is not excluding loving our enemies and pagans, but that is not the emphasis in I John.

Imitating Christ in John's Writings

Imitation is an important part of the Christian life.  We imitate those around us whether we want or not. No doubt this is part of the reason for Paul’s command to avoid bad company (I Cor. 15:33).  Paul also encourages his readers to imitate him as he imitates Christ (I Cor. 4:16, 11:1). Our entire Christian life is summed up as becoming a disciple and obeying everything Christ taught (Matthew 28:18-20).  Fundamentally this means looking to and like Jesus.

In John’s writing there is an emphasis on imitating Christ. This begins in John’s Gospel and carries through in his Epistles. Throughout this post I am going to focus on places where John uses the word “kathos,” which is usually translated “just as” or “as” in the English.  Here are the places where John focuses on imitation using the word "kathos." Each use of the word makes a comparison between us and Christ. 

Summary of "Kathos" in John’s Gospel

• We are to serve one another just as Jesus served us (John 13:15).
• We are to love one another just as Christ loved us (John 13:33, 15:12). 
• We are not of this world, just as Jesus was not of this world (John 17:14, 16).
• We are sent into the world, just as the Father sent the Son into the world (John 17:18). 
• We are to be one, just as the Father and Son are one (John 17:11, 21-22).
• We are to be one so the world will know that we are loved by the Father just as the Son is loved by the Father (John 17:23). 

What is most striking to me from this list is how we are sent into the world just as Jesus was sent into the world. Our mission is a similar mission to the mission of our Savior. He is gone, but his work continues through his Spirit empowered people. Do we view our mission as a continuation of the work of Christ? Many commentators note that when Luke wrote Acts he used language that linked up the work of the early church with the work of Christ.

Summary of "Kathos" in John’s Epistles

• If we are to abide in the Father we must walk just as the Son did (I John 2:6). 
• When we get to heaven we will see Christ just as he is and therefore we will be like him (I John 3:2). 
• Those who look forward to seeing Christ purify themselves just as Christ is pure (I John 3:3).
• The one lives a righteous life is righteous just as Jesus is righteous (I John 3:7)
• We are not to be just as Cain was, a murderer (I John 3:12).
• We are in this world just as He is in this world (I John 4:17). 
• We are to walk in the truth just as the Father commanded us to (II John 1:4, III John 1:3). 

The two uses of “kathos” in 2^nd and 3^rd John are interesting. Both of these are connected with walking in the truth. II John 1:4 says that John was glad that some children were walking in the truth just as the Father commanded. In III John 1:3 he is glad because Gaius is in the truth, just as he is walking in the truth. While there is no specific mention of Jesus, John tells us that Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6) and the idea of  walking is associated with being like Christ (I John 2:6).  So I think we can say that John is glad that his children and Gaius are walking in the truth, just as Jesus walked in the truth.

John says we will be like Jesus when we get to Heaven and see him. But he also says that the one who does righteousness is just like Jesus right now. Here is the classic already/not yet paradigm. We are already like Jesus. We have been sent by the Father, we do righteousness, we purify ourselves, etc. But we are not yet like Jesus. We will not be truly like him until we see him face to face. The future hope of seeing Jesus helps conform our present lives to his image. 

A Declaration of Insanity

It is odd that a book that is usually the cornerstone of a doctrine of sinless perfection begins with an extended section on the nature of sin, which removes any doubt that we are sinners. I just finished preaching I John 1:5-2:2. Here are some thoughts from this great passage.

God's character restricts who he fellowships with. God cannot have communion with darkness therefore we must be light (Ephesians 5:8) if we are to be in fellowship with God.

A man cannot be a Christian and live a life dominated by sin.

People can claim to be Christians and yet be lying. They are shown to be liars by their actions (walking in darkness) or by their theology (I am sinless). There is such a thing as a false profession.

When we have fellowship with God by walking in his ways we also have fellowship with other Christians. We cannot claim fellowship with God and live in bitterness and antagonism towards our fellow believers. Yet this does not mean that everyone who claims to be a Christian we must be in fellowship with. See point above.

A claim to be without sin is a declaration of insanity. Any man who believes this about himself is living in a fantasy land.

Few of us will say we are sinless. However, many of us function as if we are not sinners. When we are confronted with our sin our mouths drop open and we say, "Impossible!" So while theologically we may not claim to be sinless, practically we live as if we are.

The truth and God's Word are equivalent (See also John 17:17). Notice this pattern
I John 1:6 We lie and do not practice the truth
I John 1:8 We deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us
I John 1:10 We make him a liar and his word is not in us

Truth is not just a person, Jesus Christ, nor simply a set of beliefs, though it is both of those. Truth is something we practice or do. True grasp of the truth produces actions formed by that truth.

Regular confession of sin is the antidote to an elevated view of our own holiness.

I John 1:9 is not an excuse to keep on sinning. Anyone who uses God's mercy in forgiving sins as excuse to keep on sinning does not understand God's mercy. (See also Psalm 130:4).

One goal of Christ's death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and sending of His Spirit is so we might not sin. Jesus, John, Paul, and Peter all believe we can make substantial progress in holiness in this life. We can never be perfect. We just begin to obey in this life, but it is real Spirit fueled obedience that is conforming us to the image of Christ.

Jesus' blood is the key to our forgiveness and cleansing. It is easy, much easier than we would like to admit, to forget the cross.

God is faithful to his promises to forgive our sins and make us clean. He has shown this faithfulness in the death of His Son.

Christ is our propitiation, a covering our for sins that turns God's wrath away from us. Trying to remove God's wrath from the equation is a compromise.

Jesus Christ is our ever present intercessor. This means we always need intercession. There is never a day when we don't need Christ pleading before the Father on our behalf.

Our Intercessor is righteous. We can put complete faithfulness in our High Priest. He will never do us wrong.

I John 2:2 does not teach that Christ's death on the cross was a covering for all the sins of all the men who ever lived. But it does teach that he covered our sins at the cross.

Structure of I John 1:5-2:2

I will finish preaching I John 1:5-2:2 this Lord's Day. Here is the structure for those verses, which form one unit of thought. John give us three different if-then statements that expose a false claim. All three are followed by the correction to that false claim, as well as pointing us to Jesus Christ and his sacrifice on the cross. In these verses John expresses some glorious gospel truths with a wonderful literary structure. I end each section with a paraphrase.

False Claim #1 (I John 1:6-7)

If we say that we have fellowship with God, but walk in darkness

     We lie and do not do the truth

We cannot live a life dominated by sin and still claim to be saved. 

Truth #1

If we walk in the light as he is in the light. 

      We have fellowship with one another

      Jesus cleanses us from all sin.

A life dominated by righteousness will be seen by our fellowship with one another and with Christ. 

           

False Claim #2 (I John 1:8-9)

If we say that we do not have sin 

     We deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us

A claim to be without sin (or possibly without a sin nature) will cause us to live in a fantasy land. We will be living a lie. 

Truth #2

If we confess our sins 

     He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness

                       

Regular confession of sin is one of the antidotes to believing ourselves sinless. We can confess our sins with confidence because God has promised to forgive us. 

False Claim #3 (I John 1:10-2:2)

If we say that we have not sinned

      We make him a liar and his word is not in us.

A claim to be without sin blasphemes God and shows that his word does not live in us. 

Truth #3

These things I write so you might not sin

If anyone might sin

         We have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous 

         and He is the propitiation for our sins and the sins of the whole world. 

We are to strive to be without sin. The previous verses (I John 1:5-10) are not meant to encourage loose living. However, we will sin and when we do we have a present righteous intercessor whose past blood-sacrifice covers all of our sins. 

What Does It Mean to Be Saved?

John loves to use simple, everyday words to get across grand truths. Words like light, darkness, bread, know, walk, all have deep meaning within John's writings. Here are the different ways John describes our salvation in his first epistle. I did not try to list all the ways John writes of our salvation. Nor do I list all Scripture references for each concept. Many of these he mentions several times. I also understand that some of these are causes of our salvation and others are effects of our salvation. We often view our salvation in a narrow way. The different ways John describes our salvation can help open our eyes to what it means to be saved. Rather than comment on them I am going to list them to show the variety he uses.

Being saved means we have eternal life and have passed from death to life (I John 1:2, 2:25, 3:14, 5:11, 13).

Being saved means we have fellowship with the apostles, with the Father and the Son, and with each other (I John 1:3,7).

Being saved means we walk in the light (I John 1:7, 2:10).

Being saved means that by the blood of Jesus our sins are cleansed and forgiven (I John 1:7, 9).

Being saved means that Christ is the propitiation for our sins (I John 2:2).

Being saved means we know God and know the truth (I John 2:3, 21).

Being saved means we keep the commandments of God (I John 2:3-4).

Being saved means we abide/remain in God and abide/remain in the light (I John 2:6, 10).

Being saved means that God abides/remains is us (I John 4:4, 13).

Being saved means we are anointed (I John 2:20, 27).

Being saved means we are children of God, have been born of God, and God's seed remains in us (I John 3:1, 9).

Being saved means we believe on the name of Christ (I John 3:23, 5:13).

Being saved means we love God and the brothers (I John 3:17, 4:7, 19).

Being saved means we have the Spirit (I John 4:13).

Being saved means we confess that Jesus is the Son of God (I John 4:15).

Being saved means we have overcome the world (I John 5:5).

Being saved means we believe the witness/testimony of God (I John 5:9-11).

John Murray on Regeneration

I have been enjoying Redemption-Accomplished and Applied. I have not read it before. Murray is not the most exciting writer on the planet. But he is precise and clear. All of these quotes come from Part II, Chapter III. Here is his definition of regeneration.

God effects a change which is radical and all-pervasive, a change which cannot be explained in terms of any combination, permutation, or accumulation of human resources, a change which is nothing less than a new creation by him who calls the things that be not as though they were, who spake and it was done, who commanded and it stood fast. This, in a word is regeneration. 

And later in the same chapter

Regeneration is the beginning of all saving grace in us,  and all saving grace is exercise on  our part proceeds from the fountain of regeneration. (emphasis his)

And later commenting on several verses in I John (2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 4, 18)

This simply means that all of the graces mentioned in these passages are the consequences of regeneration and not only consequences which sooner or later follow upon regeneration, but fruits which are inseparable from regeneration. 

Finally:

Far too frequently the conception entertained of conversion is so superficial and beggarly that it completely fails to take account of the momentous change of which conversion is the fruit. And the whole notion of what is involved in the application of redemption becomes so attentuated that it has little or no resemblance to that which the gospel teaches. Regeneration is at the basis of all change in heart and life. It is a stupendous change because it is God's recreative act. A cheap and tawdry evangelism has tended to rob the gospel which it proclaims of that invincible power which is the glory of the gospel of sovereign grace. 

 

Sin to Death in I John 5:16~My Position

Yesterday I posted what several commentaries say about I John 5:16, which is one of the more difficult verses to interpret and apply in the New Testament. Here is the verse:

If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. (ESV)

Here are my thoughts on the text.

First, I lean towards the "brother" in the first part of the verse as being a true Christian, even though "life" in John's writings usually refers to eternal life.  John is clear in chapters 1 and 2 that Christians do sin. The "his" at the beginning of the verse would also indicate that this brother is a Christian. Colin Kruse's suggestion that "life" refers to resurrection life is a tempting interpretation, though I have not researched it enough to say for sure.

Second, while the "sin to death" might mean blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, this seems unlikely given the context of I John. I John revolves around three main tests to see if one is a believer: the doctrinal test (believe Jesus came and died), the ethical test (obey God), and the relational/social test (love the brothers). I John orbits around these three ideas. In I John these three ideas are inseparable, though I would argue that the doctrinal test forms the foundation for the other two. John writes his letter so his readers can know who is in and who is out by looking at these three sign posts. That is not all John is doing, but it is a large part of what he is doing. The "sin to death" is a reference to someone who either denies Jesus came in the flesh, rejects obedience, and/or refuses to love the brothers. More than likely all three of these are involved in the "sin to death." I think it is referring to an apostate.

Third, but it is important to remember what type of apostate this is. We are not talking about a man who simply walked away from the faith. We are probably talking about teachers or those who want to teach who are trying to lead John's readers astray and who have denied by both word and life central tenets of the Christian faith. John is not talking about some who slipped quietly into the night. He is speaking of someone who has visibly rejected Christ in both doctrine, life, and love.

Fourth, I do not think John is commanding us not to pray for the apostate. I think Yarbrough's suggestion that John is stating an option is a solid one. We are obligated to pray for the sinning brother. We are not obligated to pray for fire-breathing apostate.  The phrase, "I do not say that one should pray for that,"is awkward in the Greek and could have been stated as a command, but wasn't. John does not say, "Don't pray for him/that situation." John says, "I am not saying he should pray for that." He seems to leave the reader the freedom to make the choice whether or not to pray for that man.

Finally, while a situation like this is rare, it does happen. There are people who leave the Christian faith, deny its central tenets, and begin teaching others to do the same. When someone does that John does give us the option of crossing them off our prayer list.

Sin to Death in I John 5:16~What the Commentaries Say

Recently a parishioner asked me about I John 5:16

If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. (ESV)

Here is the verse broken down into parts:

Person A: If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death.

Person B: There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that.

John has just encouraged his readers to be confident in their prayers (I John 5:14-15). He then applies this exhortation by telling his readers that if they see a brother committing a sin not to death and they pray for that brother God will give the brother life. John goes on to say that if someone is sinning a sin to death we should not pray for him. This is a very difficult verse to interpret and apply. The strangest part is the phrase to "not pray" for the person who has sinned to death. There are two main questions: What is the "sin to death?" and Why shouldn't we pray for the person?

I have several commentaries on I John. Here is what they say about the passage. I am not going to give all the arguments they put forward, but try to summarize their position.

John Stott
Stott's viewpoint is that neither person is a Christian. So the first prayer that leads to life is a prayer for salvation. The sin to death is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Therefore we should not pray for this person because they cannot be forgiven (Matthew 12:31).

John Calvin
Calvin does not view the first person as unregenerate, he sees him as a wayward brother.  He argues that the second person is an apostate, which includes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. However, he does not emphasize blasphemy against the Spirit because that is not mentioned in I John. Calvin admits that it can be hard to tell if someone has totally fallen away. He also notes that this is seldom the case, but when it is we should not pray for that man.

I. Howard Marshall
Marshall does not say it explicitly, but he implies that the first man is a Christian who is struggling with sin, while the second man is an apostate. He thinks the second person is someone who refuses to repent and refuses to believe on Christ. He does not mention blasphemy against the Spirit. He extensively qualifies the command to not pray for the second man so that his exegesis almost leaves no room to ever stop praying for someone.

Colin Kruse
Kruse sees the first man as a true brother who sins. He sees the "life" as resurrection life. He sees the second man as someone who has rejected that Jesus came in the flesh and atoned for our sins. The second man is an "antichrist." His rejection of Christ puts him outside the realm of forgiveness. Kruse does not believe the sin to death refers to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit because no where does John accuse these men of attributing the work of Christ to the Devil, which is a sign of blasphemy against the Spirit (Mark 3:22-30).

F.F. Bruce
He spends very little time on the first person. He does put brother in quotes, which may mean he does not consider him a Christian, but it is hard to tell. He thinks the sin to death is either a sin that leads to physical death, as with Ananias and Saphira or apostasy.  In the first instance, we should not pray for the person because they are dead. In the second place, we should not pray for them because they are past the point of repentance (Hebrews 6:4-6). He views this as an exceptional situation.

Robert Yarbrough
He sees the first person as a fellow believer who is committing some sin. He rejects the idea that the "sin to death" is specifically blasphemy against the Spirit for the same reasons Kruse does. However, he notes that what John is talking about is similar to blasphemy against the Spirit, but a different manifestation since Christ is no longer on earth. He thinks the sin to death is apostasy, specifically the failure to believe, obey, and love that is outlined in I John. Yarbrough believes that John is making a suggestion about not praying, not a command. He is not telling his readers they "must not" pray for this man, but rather that they do not have to. Here are four reasons he gives for why John suggests that we do not have to pray for that man:

1. John did not want to micromanage people's prayer lives.
2. He understood that actions are often misinterpreted. Yarbrough is not very clear here.
3. To pray for someone means to identify with them therefore we should be careful in praying for an apostate.
4. John's entire message runs against praying for apostates. They willfully abide in death and therefore are not to be prayed for.

Peter Leithart
Leithart believes the first one is a wayward brother whom we should pray for. He roots the distinction between sins to death and sins not to death in the Old Testament distinction between inadvertent and high-handed sins. He believes the second group is apostate false teachers. He does not think we should pray for these men. He uses Jeremiah to set a precedent for not praying for apostates (Jeremiah 7:16, 11:14, 14:11).

So what do I think...I will put that in the next post.

(Updated 6/12/14 at 9 am.)

Systematic Theology and I John 4:2

Does doctrinal precision have a place in the life of the church? Shouldn't citing the Bible, chapter and verse, be enough? This is another way of asking, "Do systematic theology and confessions have a place in the life of the church?" There has been a reaction against systematics in recent theological discussion. There is a "back to the Bible" movement that we are seeing. In many ways this is understandable and good. Whenever man creates a system there is always the danger that his system will trump what God's Word says. We need men to stand up and say, "I am not sure the Scriptures actually teach that." But when that man stands up and does that there is a subtle, but deadly assumption, that the man has no systematic theology. We think, "Here is a man who is just using the Bible without any creed or confession." But this is false assumption. Just like every church has a liturgy, every man has a systematic theology.

I want to use I John 4:2 as an example of why systematic theology and confessions are not just necessary, but inevitable.

Here is I John 4:1-3

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

In this passage John tells his readers to make sure they do not suck down every bit of theology they hear because there are false prophets who bring false doctrine. Therefore teaching must be tested. John gives them a very specific test: Do these teachers confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh?

If we ask someone do they believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and they say, "Yes" is that enough? Have they fulfilled what John requires of true teacher? Is that as far as the testing needs to go? The answer is, "No." A Mormon could agree with that bare statement. So could a Muslim on some level. A liberal Christian who believes that Jesus was a just a good moral example might agree with this. In fact if you paraphrased it, "Did a man named Jesus Christ live on earth 2,000 years ago" millions of people could answer in the affirmative and not be confessing what John is saying.

There must be follow up discussion. There must be a systematic discussion of who Jesus was, what it means that he came, and what it means that he came in the flesh.

Was he truly God? Was he truly man? Did he come from God? Was he created? Is he the Christ, that is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament and come to fruition in the New? Was he just a good man, a great prophet, a great moral example? One could even ask, especially in light John's teaching, did he come to offer Himself as a sacrifice for man's sins? For John the terms Jesus, Christ, flesh, and even came all have specific meaning that can only be filled out by using other texts of Scripture.

That is what systematic theology and confessions do. They take a topic like "Jesus" gather all the Biblical data on the subject and try to give what the Scriptures say about that topic. These systematic theologies and confessions are not God's Word. They are not a substitute for reading and studying the Bible. They must be tested against God's Word.  But they are good, necessary, and inevitable. Anyone who rejects them and claims to be just using the "Bible" still has a systematic theology. Their's is just not written down anywhere. It is floating around in their heads.

Are You the Antichrist?

           One of the great myths of modern end times study is the rise of the antichrist.  The picture is usually some great world leader who is inhabited by the Devil and takes over the United Nations. What is odd about this is that the only author to speak of the antichrist is John. And John does not speak of a “him” but of a “them.” And he does not speak of someone future, but someone present.  Here are the verses where John speaks of the antichrist.

             

(18) Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.  (19)  They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.  (20)  But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.  (21)  I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.  (22)  Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. (I John 2:18-22, ESV)

            Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

(1Jn 4:1-3, ESV)

           

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

(2Jn 1:7, ESV)

            There are several things to note about these verses.

First, John plainly says it is the last hour.  The end came 2,000 years ago. 

Second, John knows it is the last hour because many antichrists have come. This is past tense to John. He is not looking for some future Antichrist.  There are antichrists everywhere he looks. He says a similar thing in 4:3.  His readers knew antichrist was coming. John is telling them they are now here. Antichrists were a sign of the end. But again the end came 2,000 years ago. 

Third, these antichrists went out from the Apostles. This is the point of verse 19. If they had stayed with John and the Apostles they would have shown themselves to be true prophets. As it is, they are liars and antichrists. John knows these antichrists personally. They went to seminary together.

Fourth, John shows very clearly what an antichrist looks like: an antichrist denies the Father and Son (2:22) and confesses that Jesus did not come in the flesh/is not from God. (4:2-3 and II John 1:7) An antichrist is not a great world leader who takes over the planet in the name of Satan.  An antichrist is someone who denies a basic part of the Christian faith: Jesus left God and came in the flesh. Anyone who denies this is an antichrist. 

Fifth and finally, note that John says that many antichrists have come and that many deceivers who are antichrists have gone out into the world.  He does not speak of a single Antichrist. Many pastors associate this passage with the “man of lawlessness” from II Thessalonians 2:3. I have no idea why. The person in II Thessalonians tries to replace God with himself. There is nothing in I John that parallels that. John and Paul are talking about two different people.  Ditto for the beast in Revelation. The antichrist denies a fundamental Christian doctrine, that Jesus came in the flesh. H is not someone who wants to be Jesus or God. 

The upshot of all this is that we should not be looking for the rise of an Antichrist. We should be looking for false teachers who deny the Son and the Father. Our failure here has allowed us to write hundreds of books about the end of the world, while rarely dealing with what John is talking about.  We tell lots of scary stories about some bald guy who rules the world with 666 tattooed on his forehead. But that man doesn't exist. While there are many, including Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, who deny the Son and the Father. So every time a Jehovah's Witness comes to your door, you should say, "Do you know that you are the Antichrist?" This may not open up evangelistic doors, but it is the truth. 

The Antichrist in John's Epistles: Part III

Another line of argument for a future Antichrist is the phrase “is coming” in 2:18. The verb is in the present tense. Normally it would be translated as “you have heard that antichrist comes.” However, most translations take this as “futuristic present.” This is described by Daniel Wallace as when “the present tense may describe an event that is wholly subsequent to the time of speaking, although as if it were present.”[1] Wallace adds this use of the present tense is commonly found with the verb “erchomai,” which is the word “is coming” in our text. Whether or not this is futuristic is difficult to determine. Even if it is, the question still remains as to whether it is future to the time of John writing or was future when he told them about it in the past (you have heard).  Notice the parallel between 2:18 and 4:3:

 

2:18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come.

4:3 This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

It is possible to read 2:18 as, “you have heard that Antichrist is coming in the future, but even now there are many antichrists who prefigure that coming antichrist.”  This is how Pastor MacArthur reads the passage.   

Or it could be read, “You heard in the past that antichrist would come and now he/they have arrived." The second reading fits better with the rest of John’s references to the antichrist, while the first reading does not.

Either way, this is not a slam-dunk argument for making the Antichrist an end times world leader.

One final argument is used to say antichrist refers to end times world leader.  John says in 2:18 and in 4:3 that the people “have heard” that the antichrist is coming.  Some pastors take this as a reference to II Thessalonians 2. They will say that Paul speaks of the Antichrist in II Thessalonians and that is where John’s readers heard about it. While this is possible, it is sheer speculation. There is nothing in I John that indicates he was writing to the same group that Paul wrote to or that his readers had access to Paul’s letters.  There is no direct connection in words or concepts between I John 2 and II Thessalonians 2.  It is just as likely that John has previously told them about the antichrist when he planted or visited the church he was writing to.

Everything in I and II John points to antichrists and the spirit of the antichrist being present during the time John was writing.  There are no verbal or conceptual parallels with other passages which speak of an end times leader, even in John’s book of Revelation. John’s epistles are pastoral in nature, discussing particular problems that were facing his readers. There is nothing in the text that demands we read antichrist as The Antichrist.

So what is the antichrist? The simple answer is that antichrist was a set of doctrines or beliefs that denied that Jesus was the Christ. This set of beliefs denied especially the Incarnation.  Any man who holds to these beliefs is a deceiver and the antichrist. So antichrist is both the set of beliefs and the men who hold those beliefs. By the way, Pastor MacArthur implies that all Christians are antichrists. This is overstating the case.  I think this was in his second sermon on this passage.  

            Readers may ask, “Why does this matter?”  First and foremost, all Christians should desire to be faithful to the biblical text. Before we move on to “practical” considerations, there must be a foundational desire to know exactly what the text says.  So our love for Christ demands that we properly understand what I and II John are teaching. Second, by showing that I and II John do not teach us about an end times leader called the Antichrist we are able to focus more clearly on what the text does say. Someone who believes that John is talking about a world leader who shows up during the Tribulation ends up spending a lot of time on passages that have nothing to do with I John. I think this can confuse the flock. Third, John is talking about religious leaders, false teachers who went out from the Apostles. The modern depiction of the Antichrist is that he is a political leader. Again this muddies the waters and causes a focus on nations and world leaders instead of teachers and pastors. Finally, too often when I and II John are preached they are couched in speculation. The flock does not get practical exhortations on how to fight the antichrist who shows up at their door, like the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons, Unitarians, or the liberal Presbyterian. (In fairness to Pastor MacArthur he only spends half of one sermon on the world leader. Most of his three sermons are devoted to how to combat present day antichrists.)

---

[1]  Wallace, Daniel B., Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996),  p. 536.

The Antichrist in John's Epistles: Part II

One of the other arguments used to show that John is referring to some future world leader is the use “anti” on the front of Antichrist. “Anti” is a preposition, which can mean in the place or against. Usually what happens is that someone takes “anti” to mean someone who seeks to replace Christ. Then they are able to find the Antichrist in all sorts of places he is not mentioned, such as II Thessalonians 2:3-4 and the beast in Revelation 13. Here is long quote from Pastor MacArthur where he does this exact thing:

“Now without needing to go into all of the rest of what's in this wonderful section, we can sort of focus, to begin with, on this matter of Antichrist, a term that has become very familiar to Christians in this generation, as I'm sure in many other generations. The word Antichrist is well known to us. It occurs in the New Testament only in John's letters. It occurs in 1 John several times, and then it occurs in the seventh verse of 2 John. And though it is limited as a term to John's epistles, it expresses a widely known reality that is dealt with in other portions of the Bible, not only in the New Testament but even in the Old Testament as well. The term "Antichrist" which John uses is antichristos in the Greek. Christos obviously means Christ, anti can have two possible meanings. It is a Greek preposition that can mean either against or in the place of...against or in the place of. Antichrist can then mean either someone who is against Christ, or someone who seeks to replace Christ. Someone who is an adversary of Christ, or someone who is a false representation of Christ. We can take it then to mean the one who opposes Christ. In that case, the opposition is clear, it is plain. Or we can take it to mean one who seeks to be put in the place of Christ and then the opposition becomes more subtle and more disguised. And antichrist can mean either of those, or both. We don't need to choose between them. Clearly antichrist is one on some fronts who is openly and overtly against Christ. That is to say they speak lies concerning Christ, such as in verse 22 that I just read. They deny that Jesus is the Christ, a denial of the nature and identity and work of Jesus Christ. This is clearly an antichrist perspective.”

By focusing on the anti at the beginning of the word, Pastor MacArthur finds the Antichrist in places where the word is not used and where John’s picture of the antichrist is absent. For example, II Thessalonians 2 describes a man of lawlessness who exalts himself and tries to take the place of God. This fits with Matthew 24:17 and Daniel 9:27. However, this idea is absent from I and II John. The same thing is done with the beast of Revelation (see Revelation 13). The beast is someone who is worshipped, who makes war on the saints, etc. But none of these ideas are found in John’s teaching on the antichrist, which is all the more odd since John wrote Revelation. In other words, the man of lawlessness and the beast are not the Antichrist. 


D.A. Carson warns against what he calls the “root word” fallacy.[1] This is where the root of a word is used to determine its meaning instead of the context. This is what has happened here. Because “anti” can mean “seeks to replace,” and the person in II Thessalonians seeks to replace God then it must be the Antichrist. However, just because a word can mean something does not mean that it does. The context of I and II John must determine the meaning of antichrist, not the various uses of “anti.”  I and II John are clear on the character traits of antichrists. They are false teachers, who have left the Apostles, gone out into the world, so that they might deceive churches by teaching that Jesus did not come in the flesh and that he is not the Christ. Of course, Pastor MacArthur will agree with these points, but by using “anti” he can drag in another point, that Antichrist is the beast and man of lawlessness, which is foreign to I and II John. 

---

[1] Carson, D.A. Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), p.26-32.

Two Types of Fear

Pastor Leithart commenting on I John 4:18, “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love”

“John is not contradicting the rest of Scripture when he says that perfect love dispels fear.  He assumes, with the rest of Scripture, that here are different sorts of fear.  We have a right fear of God if we are awed by his power and majesty.  We have a right fear of God if our fear of God draws us close to him. We have a right fear of God when we honor him as our Maker, Lord, and Savior.  John is talking about a cowering fear, the fear that God is out to get us, the anxious worry that we will not stand in judgment.  Johns is talking about the fear of Adam, the fear that came from a bad conscience and drove Adam to hide in the garden. This kind of fear is driven out by the love that God has shown us…fear moves us, and the difference between right and wrong fear is the direction it moves us. Adam feared God, and hid in the garden. Wrong fear drives us away from God’s presence.  Right fear draws us closer, in awed fascination and quaking love toward the God who is a consuming fire.” (From Beyond the Veil, p. 157-158)

The Antichrist in John's Epistles: Part I

Perhaps no vision has shaped contemporary eschatology like that of the Antichrist. He is the epitome of evil and will reign over all the earth supplanting Christ and bringing in  the rule of Satan. However, "antichrist" is only mentioned in I and II John. He is not mentioned in Revelation, where one would expect to find him, especially since John wrote both books.  As I read I and II John I tried to determine if John actually teaches what so many people think he teaches. The exegesis of the antichrist passages in John’s Epistles is usually informed, not by careful examination of the text, but rather by a prior commitment to a certain eschatological viewpoint.   A good example of using prior commitment to examine the text is Pastor John MacArthur’s sermons on I John 2:18-26.[1] He preaches three sermons on these verses. The second half of his first sermon covers passages like II Thessalonians 2, Daniel 8-10, and Revelation 13, not I John 2:18-26. It is interesting that the first part of his sermon, (and in his remaining two sermons on this passage) when he focuses on I John is all about contemporary antichrists. He does a great job exegeting the text. He lays open exactly what the text says. He tells us who these antichrists are and how they behave. But this is not enough. He believes in a final, all powerful Antichrist. But to find the one he must go to other passages. (By the way, I really enjoy Pastor MacArthur, but I disagree with him on this point.)

Before we begin exegesis of the Apostle John’s passages on the antichrist we need to ask, what is the commonly held view of the antichrist?   Pastor MacArthur sums it up well:

“The Bible is clear that one man will be the final, most complete and powerful Antichrist. He will appear in the future history of the world in a time which is called the time of the Tribulation. This is a time that will end man's day. It is a time, a seven-year period of time divided into two three-and-half year sections in which Satan releases his power in the world, at the same time God releases judgment in the world. And there will be in that day a world ruler who is identified as the Antichrist. He is the culminating and final one, that's why we have here the singular "Antichrist is coming.”

So the Antichrist is the final culmination of all evil and will come at the end of the world to set up a kingdom that is opposed to Christ. But does John actually teach this?

Let’s look carefully at the text in John’s Epistles which mention the antichrist and then determine if the commonly held view of the antichrist is correct. I will begin with what is agreed upon and then move to the areas of disagreement.  The following passages will be in discussed: I John 2:18-27, I John 4:1-3, and II John 1:7.  I would recommend having your Bible open has you read.

There are several areas of agreement between those who see the Antichrist as a culmination of all evil at the end of history and those who do not. Let me list those briefly. First, all parties agree that antichrists live in the world. This is clear from I John 2:18. John says explicitly that there are many antichrists who have gone out into the world. Second, all parties agree that these antichrists prove that it is the last hour. Of course, there is much disagreement about what exactly that means. Third, all parties agree that the antichrist is someone who denies Jesus came in the flesh (II John 1:7) and denies the Father and the Son, especially the Son as Christ (I John 2:22).  Fourth, all parties agree that anyone who is an antichrist is not a Christian. They do not know have the Son or the Father (I John 2:23).  On all of these major points and several minor ones most commentators agree.

However, does I and II John teach that we are to look for a future all powerful Antichrist?  There are numerous arguments used to back up the claim that John is talking about an end times leader: the use of a singular antichrist in 2:18, the use of anti in the term antichrist, the phrase “is coming” in I John 2:18, and the phrase “have heard.”  I will address these items in order. By the way, I am not arguing against an end times, all powerful figure.  I am simply asking whether John teaches us about this end times figure.

What Does the First Amendment Prohibit?

Pastor Leithart commenting on I John 4:1, “ Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God”

“We live in a dazzling carnival of religious options. You can find a hundred and one varieties of Christianity, anything to suit your taste-classical Christianity, country Christianity, crunchy Christianity, be-bop Christianity and hip-hop Christianity. And that’s not even to mention the hundreds of NRMs-New Religious Movements-invented every year in this country. Our culture wants to persuade us to just accept it all: let a thousand flowers bloom. Celebrate the diversity and richness and variety of the American religious life. Above all, make no judgments. Don’t examine, test, judge.  That is the main thing the first Amendment prohibits, which, freely paraphrased, says, “Thou shalt not test the spirits.” 

Open God's Ears by Opening Your Own

“When our hearts are assured by God, we have confidence in prayer. We can ask whatever we want because we keep his commandments and live in a way please to God [I John 3:22].   John is not talking about ‘works righteousness,’ as if we could coerce God into doing us favors by our good works.  But he does say there is a causal connection between effective prayer and obedience: ‘whatever we ask we receive from Him, because [hoti] we keep His commandments.’ If you prayers are not being answered, examine yourself. Ask if you are walking in obedience. If you want God to open his ear to you, open your ears to him.” (Peter Leithart, From Beyond the Veil, p. 127)

Do You Act Like an Alien?

“Unfortunately the modern church has too often tried hard to avoid being strange. Modern Christians have adjusted to the world’s standards.  We don’t want to sound unscientific, so we find ways to reinterpret Genesis 1 so it fits with current scientific theory.  We don’t want to look odd, so we conform our fashion sense to that of the world, without considering whether or not God has something to say about our clothing. We don’t want to be uncool, so our tastes become identical to the world.  This makes things a lot easier.  There’s no conflict between the church and the world when the church imitates the world. We don’t seem alien and strange, as if we have come from another planet, but we are acting against our nature: we are children of God, children of the resurrection, but we behave the same as the children of the devil, as if we were still in the same old, dead flesh as everyone else.” (Peter Leithart, From Beyond the Veil, p. 115)”

You Still Need Teachers

Peter Leithart commenting on I John 2:27, “His anointing teaches you all things.”

“Christians have sometimes taken John’s statement out of this context and concluded they don’t need any human guidance or instruction. Even Christians who do not renounce teachers in principle act as if they don’t need any help, as if they the can survive and flourish in the Christian life without any instruction from anyone. The rebellious child who refuses to listen to his parents; the husband who won’t take counsel about how to deal with a troubled marriage; the young man with credit card debt who keeps trying to solve the problem without getting help: refusal to hear instruction is not a sign of spirituality, but a sign of arrogance, and a sure prescription for failure. Teachers are God’s gift to the church; we can’t prosper if we are contemptuous of God’s gifts.” (From Beyond the Veil, p. 104)