Finding True North In 1 John

By John Niemelä [1]

John Niemelä received a B.A. (University of Minnesota) and earned the Th.M. and Ph.D. degrees in New Testament Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary. John is Professor of Hebrew and Greek at Chafer Theological Seminary. His email address is languages@chafer.edu.

Introduction

All too often, respected expositors lose their way in 1 John: Consulting their theology as a compass, they start their verse-by-verse hike only to become disoriented and lost. They are like hikers depending on magnetic compasses in the Mesabi Range (Minnesota’s Iron Range) unaware that their compasses point to magnetic iron ore deposits, not to true North. And like those wandering the Mesabi without knowing true North, how much hope exists that these expositors (gifted or not) will reach their destination anytime soon? [2] Thankfully, this situation need not exist. Knowing true North in 1 John means accurately ruling out false statements of the book’s purpose, sorting out grammatical concerns associated with purpose statements, and determining whether the audience consists of believers, unbelievers, or both.

Johannine Purpose Statements

Those who would expound 1 John must guard against eisegetically paralleling the wrong passages. Although many verbal similarities exist between 1 John and John’s Gospel, [3] do semblances of language between John 20:31 and 1 John 5:13a make them parallel? Likewise, is the placement of these two passages (towards the ends of both John’s Gospel and first epistle) evidence that he used them in the same way? As attractive as these notions are, the answer to both is a resounding “No!” Although many expositors perceive John 20:31 as the overall purpose statement for John’s Gospel and 1 John 5:13a as 1 John’s overall purpose, nothing could be further from the truth.

John 20:30–31	1 John 5:13a
30And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book;
31but THESE ARE WRITTEN THAT YOU MAY believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.	13aTHESE THINGS I HAVE WRITTEN to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, THAT YOU MAY know that you have eternal life….[4]

Discerning true North requires a deeper examination of the various purpose statements contained in both books.

John 20:30–31 and 10:10b

Two key purpose statements occur in John’s Gospel: John 20:30–31 and John 10:10b. First, consider John 20:30–31.

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these [signs] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ [5] the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Specifically, other signs and these [signs] refer to eight miracles:

1.	Turning water into wine	2:1–12
2.	Jesus’ Resurrection	2:18–19 (20:24–29) [6]
3.	Healing a son from afar	4:46–54
4.	Healing at Bethsaida	5:1–15
5.	Feeding the 5000	6:1–14
6.	Walking on the water	6:15–21
7.	Healing a man born blind	9:1–7
8.	Raising Lazarus	11:1–44

All eight are in the book’s two signs sections (sections 2 and 4):

1.	Prologue	1:1–18
2.	Christ’s Signs and Public Ministry (Seven of eight signs)	1:19–12:50
3.	Discipleship Discourse	13:1–17:26
4.	Passion and Resurrection  (The last sign, the Resurrection)	18:1–20:31
5.	Epilogue	21:1–25

Technically, John 20:30–31 is not the Gospel of John’s overall purpose. Rather, it is the purpose statement for the two signs sections. That is, it is the purpose for John 1:19–12:50 and chapters 18–20. So, what is the whole book’s overall purpose?

John 10:10b, I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly not only encompasses John 20:30–31’s purpose, [7] but also goes even further to include the purpose for Christ’s ministry to believers. Notice that John 10:10 has two sequential purposes. The first, that people may have life, is for unbelievers (as is John 20:31). The second, that those having life may have it more abundantly, is for believers. Since this verse links the unbeliever-centered purpose to the believer-centered purpose, it is comprehensive. It is appropriate as the overall purpose for the book. When Jesus deals with unbelievers, He challenges them regarding their need for life and how they may acquire it. Thus, John 10:10b’s two purposes stair-step.

Gaining life is the main thrust of the two signs sections. When dealing with believers, He challenges them to the abundant life. This is the focus of chapters 13–17, 21. Of course, believers are present in the two signs sections and Judas is present for most of John 13. Even so, each section has a main thrust.



1 John 5:13a, 1:4, 2:4, and 2:26

Most regard 1 John 5:13a as the book’s purpose statement: These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life… Three similarities between John 20:30–31 and 1 John 5:13a lead expositors to this supposition:

1. both give a purpose for writing something;
2. both use a neuter plural these, and
3. both appear near the end of a Johannine book.

These three similarities lead expositors to assume that the parallel is legitimate. I. Howard Marshall is typical.

We are fortunate that John has given us in his Gospel a statement of his purpose in writing it (John 20:31). In the same way he here [1 John 5:13a] summarizes his purpose in the composition of this Epistle. [8]

Why does Marshall consider it fortunate that John 20:31 appears? After surveying seven other commentaries’ general outlines, [9] he despairs of finding John’s original outline.

… it seems preferable to regard the Epistle as being composed of a series of connected paragraphs whose relation to one another is governed by association of ideas rather than by a logical plan. This does not mean that John is illogical, but rather that his epistle is not meant to be divided into larger sections on a logical basis. [10]

As a result of his despair, he wants the Gospel of John to identify 1 John’s purpose for him. Otherwise, Marshall is clueless. He admits that his construct of John’s argument does not flow well. This does not inspire confidence in his assignment of the book’s purpose statement. Having taken his compass reading from the wrong verse in John’s Gospel, Marshall continues veering off the course in discussing 1 John 5:13.

John has at last reached the end of what he wants to say; he has shown clearly the differences between the true believer [?!] and the false [?!], and he now concludes by reiterating his purpose, which was to assure those of his readers who believed in Jesus as the Son of God of their possession of eternal life. [11]

For someone who cannot find an outline in 1 John, Marshall is dogmatic about its message. How can he be so certain that he understands? He imagines that his compass points to true North, because he views 1 John 5:13a as its purpose statement. If that were the central purpose statement, the epistle would seem to assure those readers who pass its tests, while not assuring those who do not. However, this involves two gratuitous assumptions: (1) that the epistle addresses both believers and unbelievers, and (2) that 1 John 5:13a is its purpose statement.

Likewise, Donald Carson also surmises that 1 John 5:13’s semblance with John 20:31 makes it 1 John’s overall purpose.

It is worth comparing these verses [John 20:30–31] with the stated purpose of 1 John: ‘I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life’ (1 J[oh]n 5:13). [12]

However, since John 20:31 is only the purpose statement for the two signs sections of John’s Gospel, not for the whole book, Carson stakes his claim on shaky ground. It is demonstrable within 1 John’s own context that 5:13 is not the book’s overall statement of purpose. Meanwhile, Marshall and Carson are not the only commentaries that suppose that 1 John 5:13 is the center of that epistle.

Robert Law, who popularized viewing 1 John as “Tests of Life” (versus as “Tests of Fellowship”), abandons all hope of finding an outline in 1 John. By default, he centers on 5:13.

The course of thought… is like a winding staircase—always revolving around the same centre, always recurring to the same topics, but at a higher level…. And the clue to the structure of the Epistle will be found by tracing the introduction and reappearances of these leading themes. 

These are Righteousness, Love, and Belief. For let me say at once that, in my view, the key to the interpretation of the Epistle is the fact that it is an apparatus of tests; that the definite object is to furnish its readers with an adequate set of criteria by which they may satisfy themselves of their being “begotten of God.” “These things I write unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life” (513) [Bold emphasis added]. [13]

He admits that this is only a personal opinion “in my view,” but never validates his theory that 1 John 5:13 is the center of his merry-go-round. In the absence of proof, his repeated assertions carry no weight. On what reasonable basis can Laws’ inability to perceive a linear outline in 1 John prove that it lacks one? Is that not an argument from silence? Law should have labeled his inquiry into 1 John’s outline as: “Unsolved.” Amazingly, he proclaims his quandary as a solution.

The theme of the whole Epistle [of 1 John], moreover, is Life. Its whole scope is summed up in this: “These things write I unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life” (513). [14]

Law repeats his refrain without proof.

With this theme [life (with or without the adjective “eternal”)] the Epistle begins (12) and ends (520), while the purpose of the whole expressedly is, “That ye may know that ye have Eternal Life” (513). Its predominance is complete; it is the centre to which every idea in the Epistle is more or less directly related. [15]

And again:

One peculiarity of the Epistle [1 John] among the writings of the New Testament is that the practical purpose for which it is avowedly written is a purpose of testing. [16] To exhibit those characteristics of the Christian life, each of which is an indispensable criterion, [17] and all of which conjointly form the incontestable evidence of its genuineness, is the aim that determines the whole plan of the Epistle [18] and dictates almost every sentence: [19] “These things I write unto you, that ye may know that ye have Eternal Life” (513). [20]

Again, where is the proof?

In the foregoing chapters we have seen with what urgency St. John sets before the readers the three fundamental and inseparable tests by which they may satisfy themselves that they have eternal life (513). [21]

The only time that Law discusses his evidence (related to whether 1 John 5:13 is the book’s purpose statement) is in a note hidden in the back of his book. Few find this admission.

513 ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν εἰδῆτε, κ.τ.λ.[“I wrote these things to you that you might know, etc.”]. 

Those words accurately define the governing aim of the whole Epistle. Contextually, however, they refer to the contents of 56–12, and most directly to 511, 12. At the same time, they effect the transition to the new subject, confidence in Prayer [all emphasis mine]….[22]

The bold words in Law contradict the underlined ones. If “Contextually… they refer to the contents of 56–12,” does not his making verse 5:13 into “the governing aim of the whole Epistle” violate the context of the book? [23] Again, how trustworthy or helpful is this kind of exposition? Law time-and-again superimposes his theological scheme, in order to deny “certitude of personal salvation other than (that which) is based on the fulfillment of those tests,” despite not proving that 1 John 5:13 is the purpose statement for the book. [24]

… St. John sets before his readers the three fundamental and inseparable tests by which they may satisfy themselves that they have Eternal Life” (513)…. And, in general, it has to be asserted that the Epistle acknowledges no certitude of personal salvation other than is based on the fulfillment of those tests. In its scheme of thought no place is provided for any immediate, self-certifying consciousness of regenerate life [emphasis mine]. [25] 

John’s Gospel does not leave any room for such systematic doubt, so how can Law conclude an absence of certitude in 1 John? Does the apostle John deny the bedrock certainty of passages like John 5:24 and 6:47? Law’s construct of 1 John fundamentally contradicts the Gospel of John and misconstrues 1 John.

Unfortunately, misunderstanding loves company. True North has eluded a wide variety of expositors: They are utterly lost in the woods. Rather than admitting, I have uttered what I did not understand (Job 42:1), far too many expositors miss the main things, but claim mastery of the inscrutable anyway. For example, Werner Georg Kümmel [26] reflects Law’s outline. Even F. F. Bruce joined the chorus, after he abandoned hope of finding an outline intrinsic to the book. He was quite willing to adopt the outline that Law innovated. [27]

On a more productive note, Brooke Foss Westcott offers a testable thesis (albeit, one which does not pass his own test).

The object of the Epistle corresponds with its character. It is presented under a twofold form: 

(i) i. 3, f… That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us: yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ: and these things we write, that our joy may be fulfilled. 

(ii) v. 13… These things I have written unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God. 

With these must be compared the account given of the object of the Gospel. 

(iii) John xx. 31… But these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name. 

There is a complete harmony between the three. The acceptance of the revelation of Jesus—the Son of man—as the Christ, the Son of God (iii), brings the power of life (ii). Life, in other words, life eternal, is in Christ Jesus, and is realised in all its extent in union with Him: it is death to be apart from Him. [28]

Westcott attempts to draw a parallel between 1 John 1:3–4; 5:13; and John 20:31. He claims that 1 John 1:3–4 and 5:13a constitute an inclusio (bookends), [29] but it fails this test.



At first glance, Westcott’s construct appears promising. However, 1 John contains four (not two) statements in which John indicates his purpose for writing these things. This fourfold repetition renders the notion of bookends unsupportable.

1:4	These things we write to you that your joy may be full.
2:1	My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
2:26	These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you.
5:13a	These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life….

Did John write every part of the whole book to fulfill joy, every part to prevent sin, every part to warn of deceivers, and every part to assure them? The natural referent of each purpose statement is the paragraph immediately preceding it. For example, 1 John 2:18–24 is the referent of these things in 2:26.

Likewise, 1 John 2:1 says that he wrote these things that they may not sin. The logical referent is 1:5–10. Thus,

• 1:4 refers to 1:1–3;
• 2:1 to 1:5–10;  
• 2:2 to 2:18–24; and
• 5:13a to 5:6–12.

Raymond Brown, a Catholic Johannine scholar, asserts:

… in 5:13 the author is referring back to the whole of 1 John[?!]. The parallel with the Conclusion of GJohn [Gospel of John] supports this; for there “I have written these things to you so that you may believe” (20:31) refers back to the whole Gospel[?!]. Also 1 John 5:13 constitutes an inclusion with the “We are writing this” of the epistolary Prologue (1:4) which looks ahead to all that follows. [30]

He is wrong. Like Westcott, Brown argues for an inclusio between 1:4 and 5:13. He also supposes that these things in John 20:31 refers to the whole Gospel. Thus, he incorrectly surmises that 1 John 5:13 would similarly refer to all of 1 John.

Commentaries can make half-truths sound like the whole truth. These things (John 20:31) does not refer to the whole Gospel, [31] but only to its neuter-plural antecedent signs.

30And truly Jesus did many other SIGNS [NEUTER PLURAL] in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but THESE [SIGNS (NEUTER PLURAL)] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

In turn, the phrase, many other signs, refers to the signs of the two signs sections of John (John 1:19–12:50 and 18:1–20:31). Brown overstates the evidence. Thus, his suggestion that these things in 1 John 5:13a refers to the whole book is a dead-end. Instead, the natural referent for these things in each of four occurrences in 1 John is to its immediately preceding paragraph.

C. H. Dodd regards the purpose statements near the end of John’s Gospel and 1 John as such marks of finality that the books must have ended there (according to liberal form-critical criteria).

The epistle is thus rounded off, and the author appears to have intended to wind up with the brief summary of his purpose in verse 13, recalling as it does the words with which the Fourth Gospel was apparently at first intended to close: These signs are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing may have life through His name (John xx. 31). As a literary whole, the epistle must be held to be complete here. The rest is postscript. [32]

Dodd uses form criticism destructively to brand portions of the New Testament text as secondary accretions. However, beyond that, John 20:30–31 only summarizes the two signs sections of John, not the whole book, while 1 John 5:13a is not an inclusio (sandwich structure) for the whole book. Thus, Dodd has no support for his theory that either verse originally ended its respective book. Nothing good can come out of destructive form criticism and nothing good can come out of making the wrong verse into a book’s purpose statement.

1 John 5:13a is not the whole epistle’s purpose statement. Any supposed verbal links with John 20:31 in support of the theory is incorrect, because (1) John 20:31 is not the purpose statement for John’s whole Gospel, and (2) these things only refers to signs (a neuter word) in John 20:30. Furthermore, 1 John 5:13a is merely one of four purpose statements within the epistle, each of which refers to the immediately preceding paragraph. Thus, one cannot prove contextually that 5:13a is the purpose of the entire epistle. Where, then, does John reveal his purpose in writing 1 John? The overall purpose appears in 1:1–4.

Grammatical Concerns

The Relationship between You and We

Four interpretive issues are requisite to identifying 1 John 1:1–4 is the purpose statement for John’s epistle. The first concerns the meanings of you and we. John distinguishes between first person plurals and second person plurals. First person plurals are epistolary, referring to himself; second person pronouns refer to the readers. In other words, in a context in which both you and we occur, it is self-evident that you may not equal we. [33] Two relationships between you and we are possible:



An example of inclusion is: “We are brothers, because you and I have the same parents.” Members of the you-group are part of the we-group. An example of exclusion is: “We want to teach you.” None in the you-group is part of the we-group. 1 John 1:3 shows that John uses the terms exclusively. He says, That which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us. John has fellowship with God already, but regards it as potential (purpose clause) for the readers to have fellowship. This requires an exclusive usage of we in relationship to you.

Both the Majority Text and the Critical Text correctly say our joy, rather than your joy in 1 John 1:4. In this exclusive use of we versus you, John refers to his own joy. This parallels 2 John 1:4 and 3 John 1:4. Those passages use a first person singular. Furthermore, the Majority Text, the Critical Text, and the Textus Receptus agree on the following verses.

I rejoiced greatly that I have found some of your children walking in truth, as we received commandment from the Father (2 John 1:4). 

I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth (3 John 1:4).

Thus, 1 John 1:4 indicates that the author-centered purpose for writing these things (the contents of 1 John 1:1–3) is to fulfill John’s joy. However, 1 John 1:1–4 consists of two sentences (1:1–3 and 1:4) containing two distinctly different and yet similar purpose clauses. 1 John 1:1–3 expresses John’s audience-centered purpose for announcing his message, while 1:4 gives the author-centered purpose. In other words, John sought for his readers to benefit from fellowship with God, while he desired (as a result of their fellowship) to have greater joy. [34] Therefore, the Prologue (1:1–4) has two interrelated purposes reflected in each of the two sentences.

Five Neuter Relative Pronouns

The first verse starts with a series of neuter relative clauses and culminates in a prepositional phrase containing a noun phrase. Verse 2 is parenthetic. Verse 3 starts with another relative clause and concludes with a purpose clause. The grammar is unusual, so it requires careful analysis to determine the exegetical subject. Both the Critical Text and the Majority Text correctly place an m-dash (—) at the ends of both verses 1 and 2. In other words, both Greek texts agree that verse 2 is parenthetic. What does this mean? It signifies that the passage makes grammatical sense even if one reads verses 1 and 3 without reading verse 2. However, the passage does not make interpretive sense without verse 2, because it contains the definition for the five neuter relative pronouns: that which.

Verses 1–3 follow in Greek and English. Each arrow points to an m-dash. The Critical Text adds the word in strikeout font:

1	῝Ο ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὅ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς—
2	καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν—
3	ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν, καὶ ἡ κοινωνία δὲ ἡ ἡμετέρα μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ

1	That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the word of life—
2	the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us—
3	that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

From a grammatical standpoint, verse 2 is parenthetic. It clarifies the content, but verses 1 and 3 would constitute a sentence whether or not verse 2 were present.

The following shows that it makes grammatical sense without verse 2:

1	That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the word of life…
3	that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

At first glance, it is tempting to say that these five relative pronouns refer to Jesus Christ. However, the relative pronouns are neuter (which), not masculine (whom). Therefore, although the following is theologically correct, John’s grammar shows that it is not his point (hence, the strikeout font):

1	Who was from the beginning, Whom we have heard, Whom we have seen with our eyes, Whom we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the word of life…
3	Whom we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

Clearly, verse 2 is parenthetic, because the connection between verses 1 and 3 does not pass through verse 2. Verse 3’s purpose clause attaches to its relative clause (the fifth neuter relative pronoun). Thus, does the main thrust of the passage center on verses 1 and 3 or on verse 2? Although verses 1 and 3 (as relative clauses) would not normally seem to be likely candidates for the sentence’s subject clause, verse 2 serves simply to explain the postcedent [35] of the relative clauses.

The Meaning of From the Beginning

If the five neuter relative pronouns referred to Christ, then one might think that from the beginning parallels John 1:1 (looking at eternity past). Since that is not the referent, it is good to consider other uses of this phrase in 1 John.

Four times (three in the Critical Text) this phrase refers to a point soon after John’s audience became believers.

1 John 2:7: Brethren, I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning (all Greek texts). The old commandment is the word which you heard from the beginning (Majority Text). 

1 John 2:24: Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. 

1 John 3:11: For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

This is not a technical phrase: In 1 John 2:13–14, it refers to God’s eternality, while in 1 John 3:8a it points back to Satan’s fall. Context determines the time referent of from the beginning.

The Meaning of The Word of Life

The prepositional phrase at the end of verse 1 (concerning the word of life) defines the five neuter relative pronouns as content. The last clause in verse 1 does not have a direct object, whereas the first four do. It says, and our hands handled concerning the word of life. It does not say, “and our hands handled [that which] concerns the word of life.” Neither does it say, “and our hands handled… the word of life.”

The idea is that John heard, saw, and handled the message concerning life. Note 1 John 1:5a. Christ embodies eternal life. He manifested it to His disciples, because in seeing Him, they saw His eternal life manifested in Him. In this light, John declares it to his readers (verse 3) that they might have fellowship with God and with John. The best way to take the neuter relative pronoun is as content (word) concerning life. John declares this content in its fellowship aspects throughout the epistle.

Does the Greek word logos refer to Christ? Many think so, because John 1:1 and 14 use it that way. However, in 1 John this would create contextual difficulties between concerning the word of life (verse 1) and the parenthetical clause (verse 2). Specifically, if Word meant Christ here, the genitive of life would need to be attributive. In other words, one would paraphrase it as: the living Christ.

1	That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the living Christ—
2	the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us—
3	that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

It would be unusual for the main subject of a parenthetical clause (life in verse 2) to have as its antecedent a word that functions adjectivally (as in the above paraphrase). Is the emphasis in the phrase word of life on word or on life?



The fact that verse 2 focuses on LIFE suggests word of LIFE. In that case, one may paraphrase word as “message.” The following interpretive paraphrase makes the meaning clear:

1	That [message] which was from the beginning [of our contact with Christ], which [message] we have heard, which [content] we have seen with our eyes, which [message] we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the message of life—
2	the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us—
3	that [message] which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

1 John 1:1–3 declares that John was an eyewitness to the message concerning eternal life, which Christ manifested from the Father. The declaration’s purpose is that his readers would have fellowship not only with the Father and with Christ, but also with John who has fellowship with the Father and with Christ. In other words, this purpose relates to John 10:10b’s ending, I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly. That is, fellowship is a message of life (1 John 1:1) to believers, those who already possess eternal life. This message of life is that they would have it more abundantly.

Audience

John desires for his readers to have fellowship with God, as John does. What does the term mean? Does it signify the possession of eternal life? Or does it refer to having that life more abundantly?

John 10:10b’s stair-stepped purposes for Christ’s incarnation illustrate how the two purposes relate.



1 John 2:12–14 addresses little children, fathers, young men, little children, fathers, and young men. The repetition and the use of terms to which the entire readership would belong, show that John addresses his entire readership. [36]

12	I write to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for His name’s sake.
13	I write to you, fathers, because you have known Him who is from the beginning.
	I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the wicked one.
	I write to you, little children, because you have known the Father.
14	I have written to you, fathers, because you have known Him who is from the beginning.
	I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the wicked one.

The fact that John addresses his audience with six carefully juxtaposed statements about his reasons for writing to them, makes it unlikely that he would have ignored any of his readership. Some expositors claim that John wrote to both believers and unbelievers. If the book addressed unbelievers, why did he stop with six statements (2:14–16) identifying only believers as his readers? By analogy, James 1:1 addresses the twelve scattered tribes. Should one assume that James also directed his letter to Gentiles and to unscattered Jews? John did not absent-mindedly address only part of his audience in 2:14–16. Surely, such exposition is merely a pretense for reading theology into an otherwise clear audience statement.

None of the six statements could possibly address unbelievers. The readers have received forgiveness, have known God, and have had victories over Satan. These cannot describe unbelievers. Yet, despite their attainments, 1 John 2:15 warns them against loving the world. Their possession of eternal life is eternally secure, but believers do break fellowship with God. John challenged regenerate believers to a life of fellowship with God, because abundant life is not automatic.

Thus, the announcement to them of the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to John (1 John 1:2), does not address unbelievers. He does not announce how to receive eternal life, but how to have that life more abundantly. Jesus came that people might have eternal life and that they would have that life more abundantly. 1 John devotes itself to that second purpose, not the first. John has a linear purpose in this book for believers. He clearly shows where true North is.

Conclusion

It is possible to be always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (2 Timothy 3:7). Commentaries tend to follow their intuitive compasses to John 20:31 and to 1 John 5:13a. Though important, these verses do not define the overall purpose for either John’s Gospel or for 1 John. Efforts to fit 1 John around 1 John 5:13 as an overall purpose statement involve a serious navigational error. Is it not odd that commentaries admit that they regard 1 John’s outline as inscrutable, but claim to understand the book anyway? Unfortunately, blind guides rarely admit that they are lost in the woods.

When all else fails, maybe it is time to read the directions. John indicates where true North is, but the commentaries seem oblivious. It is time to follow the text, not the traditions and folklore of the commentaries. After all, when the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit. As with the Mesabi Range, there are many open pits, into which unwary students can and do stumble in 1 John. The book itself points to 1 John 1:1–4 as its overall purpose statement.

—End—

Notes

1 The author read an earlier version of this article at the National Teaching Pastors’ Conference, Kansas City, MO, May 15–18, 2000.

2 The author’s ancestors were Finnish immigrants who settled there: He knows the Iron Range. He also owes a great debt to Zane C. Hodges for pointing him to true North in 1 John since 1983. Consult his: The Epistles of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999). Cf. the review in CTS Journal 6 (January-March 2000): 63-66.

3 Cf. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Leicester, England: Apollos; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 873.

4 Unless otherwise noted, Scripture references come from the (NKJV) New King James Version (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1982). The Critical Text only includes verse 13a (omitting 13b). The author accepts verse 13b’s authenticity (Majority Text), but the present argument does not utilize 13b.

5 Donald A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 90, attempts to translate it as “believe that the Christ is Jesus,” rather than believe that Jesus is the Christ. However, Martha said, I believe that You [subject] are the Christ [predicate nominative] (John 11:27). She corrects Carson’s error: You is the second person verb’s subject, Christ is the predicate nominative. John 11:27 parallels John 20:31, so Carson’s theory errs.

6 Though John does not directly call the resurrection a sign, he implies it. John 2:18–19, So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What SIGN do You show to us, since You do these things?” Jesus answered and said to them, “DESTROY THIS TEMPLE, AND IN THREE DAYS I WILL RAISE IT UP.” The resurrection is a sign. In conjunction with John 2, John 20 seals the case. After John 20:20–29 confronts Thomas with Jesus’ resurrection, verse 30 refers to MANY OTHERSIGNS. Why did John say other here, unless he meant other than the sign of the resurrection?

7 Often, those who see John 20:31 as John’s overall purpose statement fail to understand how it could be a sufficient message. Is believing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God sufficient for an unbeliever to receive eternal life? In John 11:25–27, Christ’s conversation with Martha defines this content in clear and certain terms: Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. “And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

Theses 1A and 2A		Theses 1B and 2B		Thesis 3
I am the resurrection	=	He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live
+		+	=	Do you believe this [1A-1B, 2A-2B]?  “Yes, Lord.”
I am the life	=	whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.

Martha’s answer (John 11:27) not only restates John 20:31, but also definitively elaborates John 11:26b (thesis 3): She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.” Jesus does not correct Martha: She grasped the meaning of the Christ, the Son of God. According to John 11:25–27, to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (the this of Thesis 3), is to believe that Christ will resurrect believers in the future (Theses 1A and 1B) and has already given eternal life (Theses 2A and 2B) to all who believe in Him. Thus, although it is not the overall purpose for the Gospel, John 20:30–31 is sufficient to give eternal life. Indeed, it must be sufficient, because EVERYONE who believes this content HAS eternal life. That is exactly what John meant. Cf. 1 John 5:1a, which does not say that 99% of those who believe that Jesus is the Christ are born from God. It says that 100% are.

8 I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, NICNT, ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 243.

9 Ibid., 22-26.

10 Ibid., 26.

11 Ibid., 242.

12 Carson, John, 90.

13 Robert Law, The Tests of Life, 2d ed. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1909), 1.

14 Ibid., 45.

15 Ibid., 184. Bracketed words also come from this page of Law.

16 1 John is not “avowedly written” to give “(Litmus) Tests of Life.” Law eisegetically reads it into 1 John. Instead, it offers “Tests of Fellowship.”

17 Treating certain practical “characteristics of the Christian life” as indispensable criteria of the genuineness of one’s possession of eternal life begs the question. Law assumes what he first needs to prove, his assumption that 1 John 5:13 is the purpose for the whole book.

18 Where does he prove that this is the epistle’s “whole plan”?

19 Where does he prove that this “dictates almost every sentence”?

20 Law, Tests of Life, 208.

21 Ibid., 279.

22 Ibid., 405.

23 Since 1 John refers on four occasions to writing these things (tauta, neuter-accusative-plural) to you, one would expect each to refer to a section of the book (e.g., a paragraph), not to the whole: these things we write to you (1:4), these things I write to you (2:1), these things I have written to you (2:26), and these things I have written to you (5:13).

24 If 1 John 5:13a is not the purpose statement for the whole book, Law’s construct fails. He admits that no other NT book has such an approach. He claims that almost every sentence of the book leads to his thesis, but he does not expound in a verse-by-verse and paragraph-by-paragraph manner. Instead, this late professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Knox College superimposes a theological model derived from Reformed dogma. Showing that 1 John 5:13a is not the purpose statement is sufficient to disprove Law. That is only one of many lines of evidence possible, but is sufficient by itself.

25 Law, Tests of Life, 279.

26 Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed., trans. Howard Clark Kee (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1975), 435–36.

27 F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 29, “Attempts to trace a consecutive argument throughout 1 John have never succeeded. For the convenience of a commentator and his readers, it is possible to present such an analysis of the epistle as is given on pp. 31f., but this does not imply that the author himself worked to such an organized plan. At best we can discern three main courses of thought: the first (1.5-2.27), which has two main themes, ethical (walking in light) and Christological (confessing Jesus as the Christ); the second: (2.28-4.6), which repeats the ethical and Christological themes with variations; the third (4.7-5.12), where the same two essential themes are presented as faith and love and shown to be inseparable and indispensable products of life in Christ [emphasis mine].”

28 Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistles of St John: The Greek Text with Notes, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), xxxviii-xxxix.

29 This requires wrongly reading Pauline theological usage into John. Paul and John use terminology differently.

30 Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John: Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 30 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982), 608.

31 Cf. p. 26-27 in this article regarding John 20:30–31’s function.

32 C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, Moffatt New Testament Commentary, ed. James Moffatt (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1946), 133.

33 Another minor issue is whether John uses we in an editorial sense as I. This author regards it as editorial, which is a bigger issue elsewhere in the book (not here). He sees some flexibility in singular versus plural.

34 As an aside, could 1 John 1:1–3 be the book’s (audience-centered) purpose statement, in light of these things (verse 4) having a narrow referent? This is not a difficulty. The reason is that verse 3 introduces the idea of fellowship. Verse 4 narrowly refers to those verses. The rest of the book further expands the concept of fellowship and the abundant life.

35 An antecedent is the word before a pronoun to which the pronoun refers. A postcedent is the opposite: It is the word after a pronoun to which the pronoun refers. Antecedents are more common than postcedents.

36 The author sees each of the six addresses encompassing the entire readership, looking at them from three different vantage-points. The unusual order in each set (little children, fathers, young men) supports this, because this is not chronological. Even if John addressed three separate groups, they would together encompass every reader and would be all-inclusive.