Is the Jesus of Suburbia the Jesus of Nazareth? (Jeremiah 17:9)

I want to start off with a story you might have heard of, or some form of it, for multiple versions of it exist on the internet. A five-year-old girl was having one of those trouble-filled days with her mother. It seemed they spent the day arguing back and forth. No matter what the mother asked her to do, the young girl would always stomp her foot and scream loudly, “NO!” Finally, the mom had enough. "Jane, go sit in the corner, right now! Your time does not start until you sit in that chair, and don’t you dare stand up until I tell you to!" The little girl, fists clenched, stomped over to the small, wooden chair in the corner and plopped down in it. Arms crossed, she looked back at her mother with the dirtiest look and said, "Mom, I am sitting down on the outside, but I am standing up on the inside!"

Parents here probably can relate to this story, for they might have had similar experiences disciplining their children. Other people, parents or not, might be able to relate if they are willing to admit they were that child! Of course, I couldn’t think of any time I was that child (although if you asked my parents, they could probably tell you). Being the good big brother I am, though, I could think of a time my little sister did. It was Halloween 2001. At my sister’s elementary school on Halloween, the kids would have this Halloween parade, where the kids would dress up in their Halloween costumes and march around the school. Family would come in to watch the parade. For some reason unknown to me, my sister, that year, wanted to be Cleopatra for Halloween, perhaps because the Cleopatra costume came with makeup. For whatever reasons my mom had (I’m pretty sure they were good ones), she instructed my sister not to put on the makeup. I remember at that breakfast my mom told my sister over and over again not to put on the makeup on, and my sister said over and over again she would not. That afternoon, my mom invited to come along to the elementary school’s Halloween parade, since my middle school had the day off. We waited patiently for the fourth graders. When my sister came around the corner…well, let’s just say she looked as good as a nine-year-old putting on makeup for the first time could look.

What drives a person to act this way? Some simply credit it to immaturity. After all, the examples I just gave you all were of children. But let’s be honest. We’ve seen adults act like this, too, perhaps at work. How can even mature adults act like this? I bet the prophet Jeremiah wondered the same thing, for God provides an answer to the question in Jeremiah 17:9.

Please turn in your Bibles to Jeremiah 17:9. While you’re turning there, I am going to put the verse in context. Remember, I’m big into context. Personally, I believe that so many bad interpretations of the Bible and bad theologies started as a Bible verse taken out of context. We, in our western minds, like dissecting things (like that frog in 6^th grade). We like breaking things down and analyzing each piece. There’s some good to that, but to borrow from a metaphor I hear commonly at my seminary, we sometimes spend so much time staring at the tree, we forgot that we’re standing in a forest, with other trees around us, and we forget how that tree is a part of the forest. Before we break down and analyze Jeremiah 17:9, I want to put Jeremiah 17:9 in 3 contexts: the far context, the near context and the immediate context. First, we’ll look at the far context. How does Jeremiah 17:9 contribute to the whole Bible? Second, we’ll look at the near context. How does Jeremiah 17:9 contribute to the book of Jeremiah? Third, we’ll look at the immediate context. How does Jeremiah 17:9 contribute Jeremiah 17?

In the far context of the whole Bible, Jeremiah 17:9 will help Bible readers better understand humanity’s struggle with rebellion towards their God. The Bible has clearly established that God is holy, just, faithful and loving. He looks out for his Bible. These attributes of God alone should provide enough reason to trust in God and follow his commands. Yet throughout the whole Bible, Bible readers can see people throughout history make choices that side them against God. Think about the famous stories of the Bible. Why did Adam and Eve choose to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, when God clearly commanded them, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Why did the people of Israel choose to wander 40 years in the desert rather than enter the land God promised them, a land flowing of milk and honey? Yeah, there were some bad spies who convinced the Israelites that the people there were as tall as giants, but hadn’t God told them that he would take care of it, and hadn’t God proven it with the way he dealt with Egypt? Why did the new nation of Israel, during the time of the Judges, keep going to back to the idolatrous way by worshipping the pagan gods, even though they knew it would lead to the foreign nations conquering and enslaving them? This isn’t just before Jeremiah’s time, for it happened after Jeremiah’s time, too. The biggest example yet is in the New Testament. Why would the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were the teachers of the law, the experts of the law and the masters of law, have the long-awaited Messiah right in front of their faces, and yet they deemed him a blasphemer deserving death? If you ever wondered any of those questions, Jeremiah 17:9 will provide an answer.

In the near context, Jeremiah 17:9 plays a crucial role in preparing Jeremiah for what he’ll face in rest of the book of Jeremiah. Over the years, Jeremiah has received the title of “the weeping prophet” from Bible scholars and church layman alike, for a number of reasons. Mainly, the title comes from the bad news he always has to deliver and how Jeremiah responds to it. Indeed, after receiving his first batch of bad news, Jeremiah says in Jeremiah 9:1, “Oh that my head were waters, and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!” I call Jeremiah the weeping prophet, not just due to the bad news Jeremiah has to give the people, but I believe the way the people received the news must have caused Jeremiah to weep as well. Just take a look at these 3 instances. In Jeremiah ch. 27&28, Jeremiah goes out to the people of Judah and preaches, “Because of your sin, God has handed you over to King Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians, and you will serve them!” How do the people of Judah respond? Out of them arise false prophets and sorcerers (more like “fortune tellers”). They preach to the people, “It’s not that bad. At the worse, King Nebuchadnezzar will be around for 2 years. But after that, it’s peace and restoration!” Of course, the people favor the latter and no one will take Jeremiah seriously. Then, in chapter 38, Jeremiah proclaims to Zedekiah, the King of Judah, “If you want King Nebuchadnezzar to spare you, your family or any of household, just surrender and the Lord will take care of you. If you do not surrender, however, you will face utter destruction, and so will your family and household. Of course, King Zedekiah and his household don’t take too kindly to this. They throw Jeremiah into a muddy cistern, and Zedekiah and his family attempt to flee anyway. Long story short, Jeremiah gets out of the cistern. Zedekiah witnesses his two sons murdered in front of him, and then King Nebuchadnezzar blinds Zedekiah so the last thing Zedekiah sees is his sons dying. Once King Nebuchadnezzar takes away the upper class citizens of Jerusalem, Jeremiah gathers the leaders of the lower class remnant and says to them in chapter 42, “Stay here, and God will take care you. Just whatever you do, don’t go down to Egypt, for if you do, Nebuchadnezzar will follow you down there, and you will be walking into your own demise.” In chapter 43, the people respond to Jeremiah, “No, you’re wrong, God did not tell you that. We’re going down to Egypt, and we’re taking you along as our good luck charm, you like it or not.” Jeremiah almost literally goes to Egypt kicking and screaming, and he stays there until he dies. Sure enough, King Nebuchadnezzar decides to continue his campaign right into Egypt, and the Jews who fled to Egypt find themselves right in the middle of it again. Poor Jeremiah! God has granted Jeremiah one of the most precious gifts of his time, to be the mouthpiece for God, and the people do the opposite of what Jeremiah says. Fortunate for Jeremiah, God prepared Jeremiah ahead of time with Jeremiah 17:9.

In the immediate context, Jeremiah 17:9 answers Jeremiah 17:5-10. In this section of the book of Jeremiah, the Lord reminds Judah about the covenant they entered with him. Prior to Jeremiah 17:5, God exposes Judah for breaking the conditions of the covenant. Now comes the time for the Lord to remind Judah that those conditions came with a promise of blessing to those obeyed and curses those who did not. In Jeremiah 17:5-8, the Lord contrasts the man who trusts in man and the man who trusts in the Lord with an illustration of a shrub in the desert and a tree planted by water. Just like nothing good ever happens to a shrub in the desert, the man who trusts in man is cursed, and no good will come to him. Just like the tree planted near water, the man who trusts in the Lord bless. He will continue to reap blessings, even when hard times comes, like a well-watered tree will continue to produce, even during a heat wave or drought. From this illustration, the right answer should be clear. You’d want to be like that well-watered tree, that tree planted near water, so you could always reap the blessings. Therefore, you should want to put your trust in the Lord so you could reap his blessings. Yet Judah had chosen to be like the shrub in the desert by choosing to trust in man. Soon, this illustration would become quite literal, as the invading Babylonians would destroy that land so badly, that even the most fertile lands would look like barren deserts. Clearly, from this illustration, choosing the desert shrub is the wrong answer! Why would anyone choose that, knowing it will lead only to curses?

The answer to the far context, the near context and the immediate context all come to answer in Jeremiah 17:9. It all comes back to the heart. Jeremiah 17:9 describes what the heart is like that causes it to act this way. First, it says it is “deceptive,” or in the Hebrew, עָקֹב (aqob). Yes, this is Hebrew root from which get Jacob. If you recall, the name Jacob literally means “grasps at heel,” but metaphorically means “deceiver.” Think back to Jacob in the book of Genesis. How did Jacob get the birthright? By taking advantage of his brother’s weakened state of hunger. How did Jacob get the blessing? By tricking his father Issac to believing he was Esau, even making sure he felt like Esau, smelt like Esau, and had stew that tasted like Esau. That’s what your heart does to you! It takes advantage of your weakness to get you to do the wrong thing. It gets you to go out of way to do something you don’t even want to do, just to satisfy the sin.

Second, Jeremiah 17:9 describes the heart as אָנַשׁ (ʾānašh). The New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version definitely have the most literal translation of the word. It means “to be sick” or “to be ill,” but in the case, the Hebrew tense is in the absolute, meaning there’s an emphasis on the word, almost to an extreme, hence the “desperately” part. It’s almost like chronic illness, a sickness that has no cure, hence why the NIV says, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure.” But keep in mind this isn’t a medical heart illness, like coronary heart disease or a heart palpitation. No, this is an inner heart disease, a spiritual heart disease. That’s why this time I turn to the King James Version’s interpretation of Jeremiah 17:9. The KJV says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” The heart desires and yearns to that which is selfish and wicked, even if it brings about harm to others and self. It has no desire to be healed. It only wants more sin.

After understanding how depraved the heart really is, you might wonder aloud the rhetorical question the ends verse 9. “Who can understand the heart?” Sin has corrupted the heart. Since the heart is so deceitful, no person can even trust his or her own heart. That’s where the Lord steps in. The Lord can understand the heart, for he is the omniscient God who can search it and test. God cannot be deceived, for not even the worst heart can hide evil intentions from the Lord. Only a holy God can therefore be trusted, for he has not been corrupted or deceived by evil.

And may I be clear this isn’t an intellect vs. emotions kind of thing. As much as I would like to say this verse is promotion us to abandon our emotions and feelings for strict intellectual thought, being the intellectual thinker I am, it is not. In this passage, the “heart” is verse 9 is paralleled to the “mind” (Actually, the Hebrew word literally translates to “the kidneys.” You might be tempted to laugh at that, but if you think about, how much medical research proven that the heart’s job is to solely work with the blood in our circulatory system, and yet we still use it as a metaphor for the source of our emotions.) in verse 10, which means they are treated as synonyms. In the original audience’s context, in the Hebrew context, the people of Judah would not have separated intellect and emotions like we do, but have understood both heart and mind as synonyms symbolizing the inner being. Still, for our context, the parallel reminds us that the sinful nature infects both the head and heart alike.

Someone who would have understood this the doctrine of sin nature would be Aurelius Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo. Augustine struggled with what has been described as “every man’s battle.” Augustine struggled with lust, making him very relatable to every man. Now usually people don’t ask questions like, “Why does God allow suffering?” or “Why do bad things happen to good people?” until the bad or evil thing happens to them. Not for Augustine. Augustine recognized that he was the evil, and he needed to know how to stop. Augustine tried many worldly philosophies attempting to solve his questions, but they could not. The best solution came from the Scripture. In his studies of the Scriptures, Augustine learned a lot about sin. For example, he learned how sin was the absence of good. Most importantly, he learned that his fallen heart had enslaved him to sin. If Augustine knew about drugs like we do in the 21^st century, he would have described our sin nature just like a drug addiction. Just like the drug addict will lie, cheat and steal to get his or her fix, so they sinful nature will commit all kinds of sinful act to get his or her selfish wants, even if it destroys him or her.

Now I know what I am preaching right now would be a hard message for the non-Christians, those outside church. Psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists and anthropologists would all say that all people are born good and all throughout their lives are generally good people. Yeah, they will admit people do bad things, but they account those bad things as good people doing the wrong thing, almost like “mistakes,” but still call them good people. Only a few people can truly receive the title of “evil,” like Nebuchadnezzar, Nero, Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Yet I am going to a bold statement. In all honesty, I really think that Americans of the past two centuries, the 20^th and 21^st centuries, don’t really believe this, and I have both a classical example and a more modern example to prove my point.

Who has read the book The Coral Island by R.M. Ballaytne, whether that be in a college, high school or middle school literature class? Written in 1857, the book is about 3 British boys, eighteen-year-old Jack, fifteen-year-old Ralph and thirteen-year-old Peter, who all get shipwrecked all alone on an island in the Pacific Ocean. Despite having little modern technology, they are able to create a self-sustaining lifestyle on the island, adequately providing themselves with food and shelter. Life is idyllic and idealistic on the island. It is almost as if they made their own little utopian society with the three of them thereon the island. Eventually they decide it is time to leave the island with the boat they have made. They come upon another nearby island, where they meet a barbaric and savage Polynesian tribe. Through teaching Victorian-era manners and ideals, however, these 3 young men are able to civilize the whole village. Once again, the boys leave the island and come ashore on another island. Here, they run into Christian missionaries, who have struggled to convert the native polytheist to Christianity. Again, once the boys teach the native people proper Victorian etiquette, the missionaries can successfully convert the Polynesian polytheists to Christianity. I’m betting a lot of you never read this books, and I think there’s a reason for that.

But who has read The Lord of the Flies by William Golding, even if it is in a college, high school or middle school literature? This book was written in response to The Coral Island. William Golding read The Coral Island and thought to himself, “No, that’s not how it would happen.” He wrote his book, The Lord of the Flies, as a response, almost a satire, of The Coral Island, even giving the main characters the same name. In the same way, Jack, Ralph and the other boys find themselves stranded on an inhabited island. Instead of working together to form a self-sustaining society, they argue with each other, they curse at each other, they bully each other, and even near the end (spoiler alert!) they begin to kill each other! By the end, the last “good” boy is merely trying to survive from the other boys on the island!

I bet a lot of you have read The Lord of the Flies, at least a lot more than The Coral Island. Indeed, The Lord of the Flies seems to be more popular than The Coral Island. One reason some books become more popular than others is because of how relatable they are. With popular books, we can relate with the character and their life more than in the unpopular books, where we can’t relate to the characters. The Coral Island is unpopular because we can’t relate to that experience; The Lord of the Flies is popular because we can relate to that story. We have no experiences of everyone coming together to create a greater good, yet we can name the countless experiences where people have turned on us, betrayed us, and caused stress and conflict just to get what they wanted. See, people really don’t believe that good-at-heart philosophy. They too recognize the heart is sick with evil.

But The Coral Island was written in the late 1800s, and The Lord of the Flies was written in the early 1900s. What about the 21^st century? Maybe we’ve matured or culture ourselves so we are working together for good. Let’s use less of a classic example and more of modern example. In the late 1980s, three teenagers in Los Angeles came together to form a punk rock band which the world would come to known as Green Day. At first, their songs were about typical things that caused 90’s teenagers angst: parents, teachers, school, work, friends and girlfriends. Eventually, everyone got tired of their music, including the band themselves! In 2005, instead of the typical songs, lead singer Billie Joe wanted to create album that told of story from his life. This album would become known as American Idiot. To date, this is their most popular album, so popular, it became a tour, a live album and even a music. Let’s take a look at it.

 

The first track serves as a prologue of the story of the album, and it sets the scene. The song “American Idiot describes how the main character sees the world he is in. American is run by politics and the media, all driven by agendas and bias. They tell the American people what to believe in how to act. They use propaganda as a tool, and it only leads to a paranoid people. In the end, it turns all Americans into American Idiots, hence the title of the album and the song title [“American Idiot”].

The second track of the album introduces the main character. Billie Joe Armstrong gives him the name “Jesus of Suburbia.” Armstrong has carefully chosen the name, as the first part of the song uses Biblical imagery to describe his main character. The lines “the bible of none of the above” and “No one died for my sins in hell” describe the Jesus of Suburbia as a self-centered and self-righteous egotist. He says/sings, “There’s nothing wrong with me. This is the way I’m supposed to be,” yet he seeks answers for the problems of life. He starts his search in his hometown, following the adage “home is where your heart is,” but it only leads to disappointment. Singing “…everyone’s heart doesn’t beat the same, we’re beating out of time,” he says there is no connection in relation.  He sings, “Like the holy scriptures of a shopping mall /And so it seemed to confess / It didn't say much / But it only confirmed that / The center  of the earth / Is the end of the world.” He means that no one knows the answer any better than he does, and he concludes that listening to one another then just make everything worse.  So the Jesus of Suburbia denounces his home city, concluding it to dead and damned [“Jesus of Suburbia” Part 2 – City of the Damned]. What hurts Jesus of Suburbia is that no one seems to care, even looking upon the dirty faces of lost children. Jesus of Suburbia denounces them again, calling them liars, hypocrites, and the worse, “hearts recycled but never saved.” He condemns their beliefs as “make believe,” and therefore he doesn’t believe. So he replies in the song, “If you don’t care, then neither do I!” At the end of part 3, subtitled “I Don’t Care,” two phrases describe the Jesus of Suburbia: not believing and not caring [“Jesus of Suburbia” Part 3 – I Don’t Care.” Jesus of Suburbia cries out for help, hoping someone can give him therapeutic advice, but no one answers, further reinforcing his belief that no one cares about anyone but himself or herself [“Jesus of Suburbia” – Part 4 Dearly Beloved] Because of his home city’s lack of concern, Jesus of Suburbia concludes he will never find his answer in his home city. To stay and die there would be tragic because he’d never have his answers. So he runs away, and leaves the city behind, to find out what he really believes [“Jesus of Suburbia” – Part 5 Tales of Another Broken Home].

Jesus leaves his home city for the big city. The big city give him new life. For Jesus of Suburbia to be in the big city, it’s like his life is one big holiday, one big vacation (In British English and Australian English, the words “holiday” and “vacation” can be used as synonyms)[“Holiday”]. Yet when the emotional high of new beginnings settles down, Jesus of Suburbia then experiences an emotional hangover. Despite being in a big city, he realizes he is all alone. The only companion is his own shadow. He still longs for someone to find him and give him his answers [“Boulevard of Broken Dreams”].

Upon realizing he is alone, the Jesus of Suburbia begins to have his doubts. Things seem to be no different. Whether he’s in his home city where he is metaphorically alone (no one cares),  or the big city where he’s literally alone, he ends up alone either way. Doubts enter his mind, “The Jesus of Suburbia is a lie.” He repetitious scream, “Are we, we are, are we, we are the waiting” has him thinking, “What am I waiting for?” He feels like he’s waiting for something that will never happen, something that will never come true, a fairy tale [“Are We The Waiting”].When all of a sudden, lo and behold, another character enters the story. Billie Joe gives him the name St. Jimmy. St. Jimmy describes himself as “the needle in the vein of establishment,” “the product of war and fear that we’ve been victimized” and twice “I'm the patron saint of the denial, with an angel face and a taste for suicidal. St. Jimmy seems to be the typical bad boy. He interests are in crime, gangs, sex, drugs and rock and roll [“St. Jimmy”].

St. Jimmy convinces Jesus of Suburbia to take the same route as he does. Jesus of Suburbia follows St. Jimmy’s footsteps. He takes drugs to numb the pain his problems have caused [“Give Me Novocain”]. It appears that Jesus of Suburbia will fall into a slump he will never get out off, when all of a sudden a new character appears out of nowhere. Armstrong gives her the name Whatserface, which will make more sense by the end of the album. The singer describes Whatserface as a rebel, a saint, salt of the earth, dangerous, vigilante, missing link on the brink of destruction, the symbol of resistance and the mother of all bombs. Her path of life involves liberating people of the old way of thinking and starting a revolution of new thinking [“She’s A Rebel”].

Jesus of Suburbia falls in love with Whatserface. The two enter some kind of relationship, whether it be friendship or a romantic one. Either way, Jesus of Suburbia falls deeper in love with her, both with who she is and what she does. Unlike the people of his home city, Whatserface legitimately cares for people. Jesus of Suburbia finds Whatserface to be an extraordinary girl. Yet problems arise in their relationship. [“Extraordinary Girl”]. It’s not her; it’s him. In “Letterbomb,” a letter from Whatserface to Jesus of Suburbia ending the relationship, Whatserface confronts him with his problems. For Whatserface, Jesus of Suburbia not only represents the problems in the city she’s trying to solve, he seems to be contributing to them. The climax of the song, and the album, comes near the end of the song. Whatserface says/sings, “You're not the Jesus of Suburbia. The St. Jimmy is a figment of your father's rage and your mother's love, made me the idiot America.” This reveals so much. For the first time, the listener realizes that St. Jimmy isn’t real. St. Jimmy either been a schizophrenic hallucination or a bipolar alter ego. On top of that, Whatserface calls out the main character for daring to call himself the Jesus of Suburbia. His whole title, “son of rage and love,” was from his father’s rage and his mother’s love, and both of them were formed by the American Idiot condemned at the beginning of the album. If the main character really was the “Jesus of Suburbia,” he would be doing more like what Whatserface was. Ultimately, Whatserface blames Jesus of Suburbia for the city’s problems. She decides to take the same path Jesus of Suburbia (we’ll still call the main character that until the end to prevent further confusion) took at the beginning of the album and leave the city behind, and leave Jesus of Suburbia behid with him [“Letterbomb”].

In the song “Wake Me Up When September Ends,” Jesus of Suburbia realizes that he still had some innocence in him, and now he lost the last bit of innocence. His innocence led him to think that he could find the perfect answer to all his problems. His innocence led him to believe that the big city and the “holiday feeling” could give him the answer.  His naïve innocence led him to follow St. Jimmy’s path of sex, drugs and rock and roll for an answer. Instead of gaining from his innocence, those events resulted in losing innocence. And ultimately, he loses Whatserface as a result.

In the beginning of the song “Homecoming,” Jesus of Suburbia finds himself alone once again, with doubt. St. Jimmy makes another appearance. He argues that Whatserface was wrong. He blames other people, mainly Jesus of Suburbia’s mother and father, and offers the solution, returning to the world of sex, drugs and rock and roll. Jesus of Suburbia faces a challenge. He can either return to St. Jimmy or start all over and try again. The end of part 1 of the song sums up the decision: “St. Jimmy died today. He blew his brains out into the bay. In my state of mind, my own private suicide.” St. Jimmy’s metaphorical suicide represents that Jesus of Suburbia acknowledged St. Jimmy was not real, but a part of Jesus of Suburbia, a part that needed to stop [“Homecoming” Part 1 - The Death of St. Jimmy]. Yet it comes at a cost. St. Jimmy at least made Jesus of Suburbia felt like he had company. After killing St. Jimmy, Jesus of Suburbia comes to an even harder realization that he is alone, and no one cares. Aiming to really become his namesake, Jesus of Suburbia signs up for community service (Part 2 is called East 12^th Street. East 12^th street is where Billie Joe Armstrong had to do community service after his DUI arrest). The job is not as life changing as Jesus of Suburbia hoped, as he is only doing paperwork. He finds himself wishing again to get out [“Homecoming” Part 2 - East 12^th Street]. Yet Whatsername’s word won’t get out of his head, “Nobody likes you. Everyone left you. They're all out without you havin fun.” Not only can he not get her words out of his head, he can’t her out of his head. He finds himself constantly missing her, hoping she’ll come back [“Homecoming” Part 3 – Nobody Likes You]. Going back to his old life in the big city isn’t an option. In a postcard from a friend, Jesus of Suburbia learns that his friend Tunny has sobered up and cleaned himself up, which allowed him to start a famous and successful rock band. His friend asks Jesus of Suburbia to get off his case and leave him alone [Homecoming Part 4 – Rock and Roll Girlfriend]. So Jesus of Suburbia decides to return to his home city. Running away has not solved his problem. When he left home, his problems followed him, and the big city made them worse. Neither the holiday feeling of the big city or St. Jimmy’s lifestyle gave him the answer. Jesus of Suburbia gives up on finding the answers out there and just goes home. Yet, Jesus of Suburbia still can’t get Whatsername’s words out of his head, “Nobody likes you. Everyone left you. They're all out without you havin fun.” [“Homecoming” Part 5 – We’re Coming Home Again].

The last song, “Whatserface,” takes place years after the previous song “Homecoming.” It would seem that Jesus of Suburbia has changed to be like Whatserface, which would be liberating people from the old way of thinking to start a revolution of new thinking. This is why Jesus of Suburbia says/sings in the last line of the last song of the album “Forgetting you, but not the time.” While Jesus of Suburbia might have forgotten the girl’s name, hence calling her “Whatserface,” he has not forgotten her personality and what she stands for. He lives on her legacy by living out that lifestyle himself. Yet he can’t help but miss her and wish she was back [“Whatserface”].

Now that we have all observed a summary of the story in American Idiot, let’s make some interpretations. Now that we have a full view of the story, the listener comes to recognize that St. Jimmy was never a real person. I’d like to go further and say that the Jesus of Suburbia is not a real person either. Jesus of Suburbia too is a name given to describe the personality of a character. Then who is the main character? The album does not say. The musical, which goes by the same name, gives the main character the name “Johnny,” so let’s call him Johnny.

So what does Jesus of Suburbia and St. Jimmy have to do with the main character, Johnny, if each one is not the main character himself? For that, you need to know some Freud. In Freud’s model of the psyche, Freud said that the ego was mediator between the super ego and the id. The id is the part of the self that drives the instinctual drives, desires, wants and needs. Of course, Freud being Freud, is was about sex and power. The super ego is the critical and moral side of the self. In short, the ego is made up of the balance between id and superego. What does this have to with American Idiot? I believe the Freudian psyche model accurately describes what is happening to the ego of Johnny. The super ego is the Jesus of Suburbia. Johnny’s superego, Jesus of Suburbia, is not happy with American being idiots. He wants change. The id is St. Jimmy. Sex, drugs, and punk rock are examples of things the id goes after. The whole story is about this battle between Johnny’s id and super ego to comprise his ego. At first, it’s Johnny’s super ego which pushes him to not accept unbelieving unsympathetic society he’s grown up in. Then the id steps in under the name of St. Jimmy, telling Billie the answer is in sex, drugs and rock and roll. Johnny listens to him, but his problems only become worse.

There it is again. We see again the heart’s tendency to lean towards the evil and lean away from the good. Johnny found it easier to listen to St. Jimmy, but found it hard to listen to Jesus of Suburbia. I believe this album became so popular because people could relate on how easy it is to evil and how hard it is to do good. Also, we notice another key aspect everyone can relate to: the struggle part. For years, people have tried to explain what this struggle could be.

Sigmund Freud tried to explain this is in terms of id, superego and ego. For Freud, the id is the selfish wants and desires that demands “I want it now,” the superego is the altruistic, utilitarian and moralistic side that informs you, “That’s not right,” and the ego is the real you, the compromise between the superego and the id. While Freud might have been onto something, I don’t like his conclusions. For starters, a Jew gone atheist does not belong in the church. Most importantly, Freud’s ego consists of a compromise between the selfish and the altruistic, the good and the evil. Freud’s philosophy states that the ego finds a moral excuse to act immorally. The Bible clearly teaches that no action is moral unless our thoughts and feelings are also moral.

The media tries to explain it, mainly in children’s cartoons. It is portrayed in the imagery of a “shoulder angel” and a “shoulder demon.” The shoulder angel whispers into one ear the right, good thing to do, and the shoulder demon whispers into the other ear the mean, selfish things to do. My favorite example of this comes from the Disney animated film The Emperor’s New Groove. While this may help explain to children moral decisions and moral dilemmas, I wouldn’t build a theology around it. This illustration makes it look like the shoulder angel and shoulder demon have equal strength and an equal opportunity to influence the person. The Bible makes it clear that the person with the deceitful heart is enslaved to do evil, unless the Almighty God intervenes, which we will get to now.

So how should Christians respond to this doctrine of the sinful nature?

First, people should admit and confess their sinful nature. There’s a saying that goes something along the lines of, “The greatest lie the Devil ever told was convincing people that he didn’t exist.” I would say along those lines that the next greatest lie that the Devil ever told was convincing people that they are good. When people are convinced they are good, even the most basic sense, they refuse to work on better themselves when they do sin. This is even harder for Christians. We know are process of sanctification, the process of becoming less sinful and more holy, yet that doesn’t mean we don’t deal with temptation or sin. That’s where we can get tripped up. We can allow the devil to convince us, “Well, you’re born again and you’re in the process of sanctification, so that thought/feeling must be right.” We must put our guard up. If Judah might have confessed their sin and guilt, God might have spared them from Nebuchadnezzar, but that would have required humility, which Judah did not have. Let us humble ourselves to admit our sin and confess we cannot do anything along.

Second, people need to receive the cure. If you read Jeremiah 17:9 in the New International Version, it reads, “The heart is deceitful and beyond all cure.” I get what they’re doing here. They are attempting to explain that absolute adjective form, which the English Standard Version explains as “desperately.” I don’t like their interpretive move because, simply put, there is a cure. Jeremiah may have given a lot of bad news, but Jeremiah did give some good news. Jereiah got to foresee the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31. Specifically, in Jeremiah 31:33,34, the Lord says, “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” There is a cure, and his name is Jesus. Jesus was both a rebel and a saint. He rebelled against the legalistic religiosity of Pharisees and the Sadducees, and yet he did not break a sing law, staying holy. Christ’s death and resurrection ushered in the New Covenant that Jeremiah foresaw. Instead of a heart bent towards to sin and evil, the New Covenant gives us a heart towards holiness. How is that possible? The prophet Ezekiel, a contemporary of Jeremiah, also saw the New Covenant. In Ezekiel 36:26 God announces that he will give those in the New Covenant a new heart. Only a brand new heart can break this addiction to sin and allow sanctify ourselves. That heart can only come through Jesus. If you haven’t called on Jesus, believe in him, and you will get your new heart.

Third, we must remove all sin in our lives. Sin is destructive, both to the individual and the corporate. If we don’t rid our lives of sin, it will only lead to destructive results. Romans 8:13 says, “For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” I like how John Owens, a Puritan preacher, said it, “Be killing sin or it will be killing you.”

Fourth, what we about the sinful nature of the heart should lead to praise God for his grace and mercy. Now I am getting back to those still struggling with this teaching. Those struggling with this doctrine might be thinking right now, “What about non-profit organizations, like the Red Cross? Are you really trying to convince me that they are evil?” I would not say they are evil, but I will not say that the goodness they create is a goodness that comes from their own heart. I credit that goodness to the grace and mercy of our Lord God. All things good can only come our Heavenly Father (James 1). When we credit goodness to humanity’s own head, heart and hands, we rob God of praise he deserves. Let us praise God bringing goodness down to earth through his grace and mercy, even when it seems like humanity is doing the opposite.

1 John: A Three Ring Circus

Have you ever been to a circus? I haven’t been to a circus since I was a little kid, and I barely remember those. In the past, back in the day (and maybe even today, too), circus tents were circular in shape, and within the circular circus tent was three rings. In these rings, the circus acts were performed, all at the same time. With all the crazy circus events happening at the same time, it’s turned the term “three ring circus” to mean “a situation characterized by confusing, engrossing or amusing activity.” I wouldn’t describe the Bible as the latter definition, or the informal definition. But 1 John does have something similar to the former definition. In 1 John, John seems to running three shows at the same time, yet they are all in the same Biblical “tent” and they all agree with the rest of the Bible, with no contradictions. And as of a matter of fact, there are three in 1 John. But these three are not 3 rings, but 3 theologies.

Before we look at the 3 theologies, let’s once again remind every of the introductory information that we started out with. It might just help us understand the theology John is throwing at us.

THE AUTHOR (WHO): John

THE AUDIENCE (WHOM): Christians in Ephesus (and possibly all Asia Minor)
THE LOCATION (WHERE): Ephesus (and possibly all Asia Minor)
THE DATE (WHEN): 90-91 AD
THE HISTORICAL OCCASION (WHAT): False teachers teaching false theology, such as rejecting Jesus as God/man/Christ, as well as de-valuing the Law and fellowship
THE PURPOSE (WHY): John wrote the book of 1 John to persuade Christians in Ephesus to continue believing that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, and to love God and other people by not sinning against them.
THE STRUCTURE (HOW): A three-theology epistle

As I have mentioned before, a lot of times the structure of the Bible book could be displayed in an outline. But as I have also mentioned, 1 John is notorious for being difficult to outline. It would seem that John is all over the place. But he’s not. Instead, John mentions all 3 theologies in each chapter to display how all these theologies are interwoven and how they all display the character of God. So instead of attempting to outline the epistle, let’s look at the 3 theologies John spends most of his time focusing on, and then see if we can draw any conclusions out of it. The 3 theologies can be titled and categorized as following: doctrinal theology, moral theology, and social theology.

Doctrinal Theology. In Ephesus during the 1^st century, mainly two different types of false teachers arrived. The one was an early form of Gnosticism, and the other was an early form of Docetism. The early form of Gnosticism preached that Jesus was only human and never God. Docetism preached that Jesus was only God and never human. Either way, John points out that both theologies deny that Jesus is the Christ, whether they do so intentionally or not. In 1 John 2:18-28, John uses the term “Father” and “Son” showing that Jesus has the same deity as Yahweh. In 1 John 4:1-6, John declares that Jesus came from God in the flesh. He also declares this an essential, orthodox belief in Christianity. Later on 1 John 4:14-16, John continues to say that it’s the deity of Jesus that makes him the Messiah and the Savior of the world. John concludes the doctrinal theology in 1 John 5:5-12 by stating that eternal life can only be obtained if Jesus is the Son of God. By clearly stating the facts that Jesus is God, human and the Christ, John also swiftly rejects anyone who preaches differently. Those who preach differently are liars (2:21), antichrists (2:22), of the world (4:5), and not of God (4:6). John declares these people not Christian, so true Christians should even listen to them. That is how important the deity and humanity of Christ is to Christianity. Without it, Jesus can’t be the Christ and can’t be the Savior of the world, which would leave humanity doomed.

Moral Theology. False teachers were also coming in proclaiming that since Jesus died on the cross, God no longer cared about sin. So a person could sin as much as they want, and God wouldn’t care. John devotes all of chapter 1 alone to get rid of this theology. In 1 John 1, John calls people who continue to sin liars who don’t know God or the truth. This applies to both the false teachers and all who follow the false teachers. In 1 John 2:12-17, John urges Christians to continue to overcome sin and not return to their old sinful lives. In 1 John 3:1-10, John urges Christians to purify themselves from sin. Those who do continue to sin are lawless (3:4), does not see or know God (3:6), is of the Devil (3:8) and is not born of God (3:10). Once again, this applies both to the false teachers and those who follow the false teachers. John concludes the moral theology of sinlessness in 1 John 5:2-4. In these verses John says the only way to love God is to obey His commandments and not sin. A true believer loves God, so if that believer loves God, he or she will avoid and overcome sin, and not fall into it. God does care about sin because He cares about the well-being of His people.

Social Theology. Somewhere between the false doctrines, a false social theology had slipped in. False teachers were also preaching that Christians only needed God, so they didn’t need to love other Christians or fellowship with other Christians. John simply states the facts. In 1 John 2:3-11, John says that a Christian cannot love God if a Christian cannot love his or her fellow Christian. In 1 John 3:11-24, John tells his Christian readers that they must follow the good example of love that Jesus provided, and they must not follow the bad example of love, as found in the story of Cain. In 1 John 4:7-13, John states that Christians must love other Christians because it is the sign they are Christian, for God is love. John even ends 1 John 4 by commanding Christians to love another, for anyone who doesn’t is a liar.

So what does this tell us about God? Well, a lot. The doctrinal theology tells us that God is concerned with truth. It also tells us that Jesus, God the Son, is just as much as God as the Father is. The moral theology reminds that God is holy and righteous, and He will not tolerate sin. The social theology teaches us that God is love, and so God expects His people to love one another just as God loves them.

So what does that mean for modern-day Christians in the 21^st century? Well, lucky for us, epistles are as straight-forward as application can get. John wants all Christians to follow all 3 theologies he presented in 1 John. Although it’s not threatened like it was in the earlier centuries, today’s Christian need to believe that Jesus is both God and man. It should be in every church’s faith statement and it should be discussed when evangelizing. Today’s Christians must also not take a liberal view of sin. If God does not tolerate sin, then neither should Christians. Yet at the same time, Christians today should not take a legalistic view of sin, for it does not accurate represent the compassion, mercy and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Even though going to church does not save a person, no one should separate themselves from church. Christians must keep coming together in Christian fellowship and in Christian love. If we do, it can be a powerful testimony to the world around us.

1 John 3: Think, Say, Do

What is sin? As simple as that question may be, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of Christians wouldn’t have a good answer for it. Some might be left speech, while others might give a long and complicated answer, while others might just go off naming as many examples possible. When I worked for Child Evangelism Fellowship, they taught their summer missionaries an easy way to teach children what sin is. The definition would always start, “Sin is anything you think, say or do…” and it would end with a few variations, like, “…that does not please God” or “…makes God sad” or “…breaks God’s law.” I always liked the definition’s beginning because it was holistic with our thoughts, speech and actions. Now think about the opposite. What is righteousness? What is holiness? Once again, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot Christians would be unable to produce a good answer for question. They would either be speechless or give me an answer that is long and more complicated than it needs to be. What if we were to take that definition for sin, turn it around and make it the opposite? What do that do the trick? I think it would. Righteous and holiness is when we think, say and do things that please God, that make God happy and that keep God’s law. I think this does work, and my proof is 1 John 3.

I always like to say our identity defines our actions, or who we are defines what we do. John might be thinking the same thing because he starts of chapter 3 by describing Christians with a title. The title John uses is “children of God.” It means Christians are born of God the Father and they are a part of his family. In the second half of the verse, John puts use to the title to explain why Christians aren’t accepted by the world. Christians, the children of God, are born of God. Those of the world are not born of God. Therefore, they do not recognize God. Thus, anyone who acknowledges God will be rejected by them. In verse 2, John further explains that since God has not been fully revealed, Christians, in a way are not fully revealed yet either. When God does fully reveal Himself, Christians will be revealed fully too. This truth is so strong that when God does fully reveal Himself, and when God fully reveals Christians, we will find out we are so similar to God. John says that Christians should live on the hope of this.

Now we have defined who we are, we can now describe what we do. Since we are children of God, we will not sin. John breaks this down nicely for us. God is righteous and holy, or perfectly sinless. The Devil is evil and sinful, as he was since the beginning of the creation. Those who choose to live righteous life are the children of God, for God is sinless and the children of God are like God. Those who chose to live a sinful life are the children of the Devil because the Devil is an evil sinner and those who sin live the same life the Devil does. Anyone who lives a sinful life is not a child of God, and anyone who lives a righteous life is not a child of the Devil. Well, what is the dividing life? What separates the righteous life from the sinful life? The answer is simple: the Law. The Law defines what righteousness is. Those who live by the Law are living a righteous life. Those who do not live by the Law are living a sinful life.

Actually, it’s interesting that John uses the Greek term anomia, which translates to “lawlessness.” The word only appears 9 times in the Greek New Testament, and the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) only uses it once. The word appears the most in 2 Thessalonians 2, a total of 4 times. In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul uses anomia in a bigger phrase: “the man of lawlessness” or “the lawless one.” Both titles Paul gives the Antichrist (with a Capital A), who will appear during the end times. It’s interesting because John talks about antichrists, but he talks about antichrists (with a lowercase a) just as much, if not more, than the Antichrist (with a Capital A). I think John is linking two ideas here. The antichrists, or those false teachers who are teaching wrongs things about Christ are just as bad as the evil man who will come at the end of time. And those who do not follow the Law are as bad as both the lowercase a antichrists and the Capital A Antichrist. All of them are children of the devil and have nothing to do with God or His people.

Once again, we must be careful not to use this passage to develop a doctrine that makes Christians legalistically follow the Law. John is not saying that once a person becomes a Christian, he or she will never sin again. Not only would a doctrine like that make Christians quickly become legalistic about salvation, but that kind of doctrine would also lead Christians to suffer from lack of assurance in their salvation, as well as give Christians a great increase in guilt. Skim through 1 John 3:4-10. Notice every time John uses the verb “sin,” he also throws in helping verbs before it, like “keeps on,” “continues to” or “goes on,” to keep it in context. These type of help verbs show an action that is on-going, continual or habitual. John is declaring that those who regularly sin, or make sinning a lifestyle, are the ones who are not children of God, but children of the Devil. By declaring this, John is also reducing sin in Christians to just merely accidental or a mistake. When a Christian sins, it is a mistake, or an accident. Those “mistakes” and “accidents” are nothing to fret about, John says in 1 John 3:5. Once again, John reminds his Christian reader that when they do slip up and make a mistake, the death of Jesus atones for it.

In the second half of the chapter, John gives an example of the difference between following the Law and lawlessness. Of course, John uses his favorite example: loving your brother. First, John gives the example of lawlessness in 1 John 3:11-15. The bad example from the Old Testament is Cain. John reveals an important truth to be learned from the famous story found in Genesis 4. Cain’s disobedience to God’s Law on sacrifices led Cain to be jealous of his brother Abel. Cain’s jealousy led to anger, his anger to led to hatred, and his hatred led him to kill his brother Abel. John uses this tension between 2 brothers to show the tension between the Christians, the children of God, and those of the world, the children of the Devil. Those of the world will feel the same feelings toward Christians as the evil Cain felt toward his brother Abel: anger and hatred. This is expected to be of the worldly, but it is not the expectations to Christians, not towards the non-Christian, but especially not towards the fellow Christian. Christians are always supposed to be loving, especially towards other Christians. Those who don’t are just as guilty of murder as Cain is. John is reinforcing what Jesus taught on the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:21,22.

John then gives the good example of following the Law in 1 John 3:16-20. Of course, the good example has to be the only one who was able to follow the Law perfectly on this earth. That is, of course, Jesus Christ. Well how did Jesus Christ love His people, His followers, His brothers? He laid down his life for the people who followed Him, so they could be forgiven of their sins. Therefore, just as Jesus laid down His life for people who believe in Him, so His believers must lay down their lives for fellow believers. John is reinforcing what Jesus taught His disciples in the Upper Room in John 15:13. If Jesus laid down his life for people, so Christians must follow the same lifestyle. Now while John does intend for Christians to take this as literally as possible, John also wants Christians to take this metaphorically, too, for the metaphorical meaning is just as important. The best way to put the metaphorical meaning is to use a term Paul used in Romans 12:1. Christians are called to be living sacrifices. But how do Christians go about doing that? John gives an answer for that in 1 John 3:18. I’m going to put up the verse because I believe the verse is an essential theme to the chapter.

1 John 3:18-
Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

Let’s make sure we are clear on what John is saying. John is not saying to stop loving people in what we say. John is saying, “Don’t just love in what we say.” I think the context might even say, “I know you got loving in speech down, but you need to know more.” Actually, within the phrase, “words or tongue” might have more meaning than you think. In the Greek, John writes, “logō mede glossē,” which literally translate into “word nor tongue.” Now, it is possible that John is simply using two synonyms to add emphasis, but maybe John means more than that. Perhaps John kept in mind that Greek philosophers sometimes thought of logos as a philosophy, or a way of thinking. If that’s the case, John is saying, “Don’t love just in your thoughts and your words, but also love in your actions.” Maybe John is paralleling words and tongue with action and truth. In that context, “tongue” moreso means lying or hypocrisy. If that’s the case, John is saying, “Don’t just love by saying the right thing to do, but actually do it! And when you do it, do it with the right heart and the right attitude, not in hypocrisy.”

You’ve all been in that kind of Sunday School or Bible Study. The leader of the class or the group has presented a Bible passage in a thoughtful and meaningful manner, making lots of observations and interpretations. And now that the lesson has come near its close, the leader announces, “Let’s go around the group and discuss ways we can apply this Biblical message to our lives.” Now I’m going to skip over my usual rant about that being a sign that the leader hasn’t really thought of his own applications, and I’m going to get to the point of what it has to do with 1 John 3:18. Plenty of times, we have all participated in these circles. We’ll listen to many ideas on how to apply Biblical truths, and we might throw in a few of our own ideas, too. But those ideas are never acted on, either by the self or by the others in our group. The minute we walk out the door, those ideas walk out of our mind, and we go back to our normal lives. John tells his readers that it’s good their thinking about those good, loving things to do, and it’s also good that they are discussing among themselves about what is good, what is right and what is loving. But now John wants his readers to take it a step further and act out what they are thinking and what they are discussing. For if they don’t, the results can be nasty. But if they do, the results will be pleasing to God, and maybe even pleasing to other people.

I’ll give you a bad example, an example of how things can go wrong if actions are never carried out. After moving into the city, my friend started looking for churches that he could connect with. On one particular week, my friend went to the nearby Baptist church. First, they had church service. During the church service, he learned that the church’s pastor was on sabbatical for half the year, so they elders had pretty much taken charge, rotating the responsibility of pastor every week. Despite the pastor not speaking, the elder speaking gave a good, meaningful message. Following church was the Sunday school, in which one of the elders led in a small group discussion on how to live out what was preached in the sermon. Once again, the discussion was very thoughtful, and the elder did a good job mediating the discussion. During the fellowship time that followed Sunday school, my friend observed a man talking to an elder. The man was telling the elder that it was discovered that bugs and rodents had infested his apartment complex. All the tenants in the apartment complex had been temporarily evicted in order to bring in exterminators to exterminate all bugs and rodents and to clean the place up, but if the place was damaged beyond repair, the building would be condemned and the tenants would be permanently evicted. The man, with nowhere to go, had checked himself into the nearby homeless shelter because he could not afford to stay in a hotel. After the man explained his situation, the elder simply replied, “Well, I’ll definitely pray for you. I wish I could do more, but since our pastor is on sabbatical, I really can’t do anything about it, but I’ll definitely pray for you.” Of course my friend was furious, so furious that he never returned to the church again. Now he was more furious that the church could operate properly with a pastor, but when he told me this story, I was furious, too, but for different reasons. This church could sit around all day and think and talk about good things to do for the community and for the kingdom of God, yet when it came to living them out, they were unable to! This is what John is trying to end!

Don’t fear, for this is not the case for every Christian fellowship. I have a good example, an example of how Christians can carry out actions. This example may not be a church, but it is a Christian fellowship in the form of a Bible study, and I believe whenever you have a group of Christians coming together in a spiritual manner, you have church, so this is still a good example. The good example comes from a Wednesday night mens’ Bible study I attended when I was in undergrad at Lancaster Bible College. There was an overall leader, but the overall leader wasn’t the one doing all the leadership jobs. He would assign people to assist in leadership roles, and this includes being the speaker. So just like the church in the bad example, speakers would rotate, but all the speakers knew the importance of living out what was being preached, and they even led in doing so. I’ll give a few examples. One week, one of the speakers in the group talked about how fortunate and wealthy American Christians are in comparison to the rest of the world. So right then and there, the leader “adopted” an overseas African child and started passing around a collection plate to pay for this African child’s education. He would continue doing this every week, and every week, people gave. In another week, another leader got up and spoke about how Christian fellowship can be the salt of the earth and a light to the world. Ever since giving that message, he would get together a weekly trip to fellowship at a restaurant off campus in order to shine that light to the nearby community. In yet another week, a third leader got up and talked about serving other people. For every following week, he would get a bunch of guys to do the dorm duties for a whole dorm section once a week. This Bible study didn’t just talk about it, but they acted upon it. This is especially important for a Bible college campus. I will admit that in Bible college, it is easy to talk about what the right doctrine is and what the right application is in class. But when students leave the classroom, students don’t know how to do anything with it except talk about it. This small Bible study was able to get the men of the college to take what they learned in the classroom, to share it to their fellow classmates, and then to join their classmates in acting it out. This is what John is talking about.

Christians have it down pat to think about good, right, loving things, and Christians got it down to discuss good, right, loving things. But to actually do, that takes the extra step. Some fail, but others succeed. Might you be stuck in this “thinking and saying” stage, but unable to move into the “doing stage”? Here’s a good hint that might be the sign you’re stuck in that “thinking and saying” stage, but unable to get into the “doing” stage. I’m taking the hint right from the bad example. How many times has your solution to a problem simply been just praying for it? Now don’t get me wrong, praying is a very important part. It confesses to God that we as human beings are weak, and we need an all-powerful God to help us do anything. Yet, at the same time, Christians have allowed prayer to be their excuse to adopt good ol’ American laziness. When Christians say, “I’ll pray for it,” that’s all they want to do, and they hope that God will divinely drop down the answer from heaven which will perfectly solve everything. I really think part of the reason Paul describes the church as the Body of Christ in 1 Corinthians and Ephesians is to make the point that the church, the fellowship of Christians, can be the answer and the solution to the prayer requests. In American society, being called “a tool” is a bad thing, but the truth is that Christians are supposed to be a tool of God. God is omnipotent and all-powerful, and He can do all things, but his preferred method of choice may not always be divine, heavenly or supernatural. It may be done through his people.

So next time you hear someone has lost their job, don’t merely pray for it, but help the person look for a job. If you come upon a person who is going to be evicted from their apartment or house, don’t just pray for the person, but take the person in, and if you can’t, find someone who can. If someone’s car has broken down, don’t only pray for the person, but help find a way to fix it, and in the meantime, help the person commute to where he or she needs to go. It’s true that for severely sick people we do need to solely pray for the person to get better, for we are not all expert doctors. But that doesn’t mean we can’t cook their meals, clean their house and watch their children. These are just a few examples, and I bet there’s a bunch more to go to, but they all have a similar formula. They are all active, and none of them are passive. They take our beliefs and they act them out in our applications. Proverbs, a God-inspired book of the Bible, frowns upon laziness. I bet God makes an even bigger frown when Christians use prayer as their excuse to let laziness slip under the radar.

Both John and I are going to conclude on the same note, and that is the results. 1 John 3:23 says, “And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.” I believe this is John once again summing up the 2 greatest commandments: Love God and love others. How do we love God and love others? In thought, in words and in action. By doing so, we prove we live in the truth of the 2 greatest commandments and we also please God.

1 John 2: Choosing Sides

What comes to mind when you think of “choosing sides”? We choose sides many times in our lives. In childhood, we choose what team to play for in a intermural sport. In adulthood, we choose what team to root for. We choose what politician to vote for and what political party to align ourselves for. And of course, we choose what religion to adopt as our own personal doctrine. In 1 John 2, John is going to make a case to adopt true Christianity.

I’m not going to spend a lot of time on 1 John 2:1-6 because it repeats so much of what was already discussed in 1 John 1. In fact, a lot of scholars believe that 1 John 2:1-6 does belong with 1 John 1. What I am going to look at is the differences and what new things 1 John 2:1-6 brings to light on the subject. The first thing I notice, seen right away in verse 1, is that John wants to make sure the Christians in Ephesus and the rest of Asia Minor takes this to be a legalistic call to holiness. John is not saying it’s alright to sin, but rather, if one does make a mistake and sin, it’s not the end of the world and the end of your salvation. John uses the Greek term hilamos, a term that only found in the epistle of 1 John, and is only used twice. Some literal translations translate it, “propitiation,” but other literal translations will translate it “expiation.” If you know your Christian-ese, you’ll know those words have two different meanings. Propitiation means “God is satisfied with the payment of sins,” but expiation means “God forgives your sins.” Forgiving and being satisfied are two different things, if you think about it. But both of them are the effects of the same cause: Jesus died on the cross and paid for our sins. Thus, this time I will side with dynamic equivalencies who just say “atoning sacrifice.” Whatever the result of the atoning sacrifice, Jesus paid for it, so there is always a way out for sin.

Yet at the same time, John wants to make sure that the pendulum doesn’t swing to the other extreme. Christians can’t say that they believe in Him if they do not follow His commands. Any Christian that does make this claim is a liar because he does not have the truth. John makes it simple to understand in 1 John 2:6. If you are truly a Christian, you will live a life just like Christ. After all, the term “Christian” literally means “little Christ.” Christians are called to be just like Christ. Last time I checked, Jesus lived a perfect life, without sin. Jesus calls His followers to follow His example. But Jesus knows you’re not perfect. Jesus knows you’ll struggle with your sinful nature to do what is right. It circles back around to 1 John 2:1-2. When we do mess up and make mistakes, Jesus forgives.

So by the end of 1 John 2:6, the audience knows John wants Christians to obey God’s commands and Christ’s teachings. But what are these teachings? Could you give us an example, John? John picks the 2nd greatest commandment: to love one another. While Jesus used the term “your neighbor” for the 2nd commandment, John prefers to use the term “your brother.” The difference? While some have suggested that it’s the brotherhood of mankind, most likely “brothers” are fellow Christians. Still, the Christian brothers are among humankind, and the actions and feelings are to be the same. So why not choose the greatest commandment? Think of it as a social, or physical, test. Because God cannot be seen with the eyes, sometimes it’s difficult for humans to show love to God, simply because God cannot be seen. Humans, on the other hand are constantly visible to the human eye. They can be seen. Thus, there is no excuse for forgetting to love them. There is further support for this proof. Jesus said that when anyone does anything to his people, it’s like that person in doing it to Him. To love God’s people is to love God. To love Christians is to love Christ. I also believe that John is declaring if you can’t love the people God created, you can’t love God. If you can’t love the people Jesus has saved, you can’t love Jesus.

1 John 2:12-14 parallels three groups: “dear children,” “fathers” and “young men.” The three people groups are not paralleled just once, but twice. Now these three people groups are not equal. In fact, the second and the third people groups are subcategories of the first group. “Dear children” refers to all Christians. In this context, it would be the Christians in Asia Minor that John is disciplining. “Dear children” splits into two subcategories: “fathers” and “young men.” On one level, this can be taken the most literally as physical age. “Fathers” would be the older members of the church, while “young men” are the younger members of the church. On another level, this can be taken metaphorically as spiritual age. “Fathers” would be those spiritually matured in the faith, while “young men” are the newborn Christians. And you can tell it fits both ways. For “fathers,” both times John says that the fathers “have known him who is from the beginning.” Once again, I think John has a double meaning for the phrase “from the beginning” (John likes doing that). Obviously, “him who is from the beginning” is Jesus. Jesus is from the begging because He is the Word who gave life. These fathers knew Jesus, the one who is from the beginning, since the beginning of His ministry. The fathers know Jesus from the beginning since they are old enough to remember His ministry. Since they have been with Jesus from the beginning of His ministry, they have spiritually matured well. For the young men, both times it says they “have overcome the evil one.” Despite being new to the faith, John reminds the new believers that even though they are not fully spiritually mature, they already made a big step in accepting Jesus. By accepting Jesus, they have rejected the Devil and overcome him.

John continues the idea of overcoming into 1 John 2:15-17. This time, it’s the world. It’s also a continuation of John’s teaching to obey Christ’s teachings and God’s commands. Any love towards the world and its ways is breaking God’s commands and hatred towards God. Parallel 1 John 2:15-17 to John 16. John 16 also talks about not loving the world. More specifically, in John 16, Jesus tells his disciples that the world will hate him because they love Jesus. The dichotomy draws a sharp divide. A person either loves God and hates the world, or hates God and loves the world. There is no middle ground. For, as John says in verse 16, everything that comes from the world is from God. Those who side with the world will receive the same fate as the world, but those who side with God will receive the same fate as God. Just as the world passes away, so the followers of the world will also pass away. Just as Christ lives forever, so the Christians will also live forever.

Why is John so concerned about the following the truth, loving your brothers, and rejecting the world? The time is coming. John calls it the “last hour.” It’s quite possible John did take this eschatological. Most of the 1st century apostles believed Jesus would return before they died or would return before 100 A.D. While it is true that 2000 years have passed and the end has not come upon us yet, the last hour does hint at how quickly and how soon the end can come. It also reveals that the world is in the last stretch. No new revelation is coming. You have all the information you need to know. Now either accept Jesus or reject Jesus. This is the last chance.

For John, the biggest sign the last hour was near was the appearance of “antichrists.” In 1 John 2:18, John starts talking about “antichrists.” In verse 18, John says something along the lines of, “You’ve heard about the Antichrist, but let me tell you about antichrists.” Notice the difference between Antichrist with a capital A and antichrists with a lowercase a. Through other apostles, such as Paul, churches have already been receiving prophecy about the end times. One of them was that a man would set himself up to be the Christ, but in fact be quite the opposite, an Antichrist. The term “Antichrist” indeed means “false Christ.” John is telling his reader, “You don’t have to wait for the end of the world to see the Antichrist, as already antichrists are popping up around the world. Just as Christians are “little Christs,” so antichrists are little versions of the Antichrist. These men are like false teachers and false prophets, but they are worse, for they are false Christs. 1 John 2:18-19 paints a creepy picture for us. It’s like these men sneaked into the Christians, as if they are hard to point out.

Yet, this sentence serves as a double meaning. It is also an introduction on how to spot on these antichrists from the Christians among you. First, as found in verse 19, when antichrists are among Christians, they won’t really fit in. Their teachings will be much different from true Christian leaders. They will be the minority. They will be the odd man out. Second, as seen in verse 20, they will not know the truth. Well how are Christians to know what is the truth and what is not? The Holy Spirit! The Holy Spirit has anointed has His people, the Christians, with the truth. John seems pretty confident about this, for John says in verse 21 he writes because his readers know the truth and they should be able to distinguish truth from lies. An antichrist’s preaching will be far from the truth. They will be lies. Third, in 1 John 2:22, John says that an antichrist will deny that Jesus is the Christ. Fourth, following up in the next verse over, John further says that antichrists will deny the Father and the Son, which is probably a denial of the trinity. Both of these are closely interlinked. I remind you to go back to the historical context. False teachers, like Gnosticism and Docetism, are teaching that Jesus wasn’t God. Thus, they are also denying the trinity. John confronts this belief by reminding everyone of Christ’s teachings in John 14. The only way to get to God is through Jesus. The only way to see God is to see Jesus. To deny Jesus His deity is to deny God. The Father and the Son are so interlinked that one cannot exist without the other. John furthermore adds that if Jesus is not God, then Jesus is not the Christ. Those who deny Jesus is God deny Jesus is Christ. And if Jesus is not the Christ, then all humanity is screwed.

John wraps up 1 John 2 by stating that his purpose for writing this chapter (this section, really, since John didn’t write chapter numbers) is to simply make the Christians aware that there are people out there who are attempting to bring Christians astray. John provides an easy and simple solution to avoid the false teachings of false teachers: stick to the teaching that was taught from the beginning of Christ’s ministry. Nothing has changed since, so if anyone teaches something new that disagrees with Christ’s teachings, it is a false teaching to be discarded. And if anyone teaches these false teachings, he is a false teacher and an antichrist. But on the flip side, all who do good are righteous Christians. Their example is to be followed. Such example would be loving your brothers and sisters in Christ.

In 1 John 2, John draws a sharply divides Christ and Christians from antichrists and the world. The division is so sharp there is a deep and wide chasm between the two. They are complete opposites. Therefore, there is no middle ground for a person to stand on. A person must decide on following Christ and becoming a Christian or following an antichrist into the ways of the world. John helps his reader through this decision. Those who choose Christ remain in the truth, while those of the world lie to themselves. Those who chose the world will be doomed like the world is doomed, but those who choose Jesus will live eternally like Jesus does. I pray that everyone, both Christians and non-Christians make the right choice and choose the right side.

1 John 0: An Introduction

I’ll admit there was a reason I chose to do my devotional commentary on the Gospel of John, and if you know me well, you’ll probably be able to figure out easily. Yes, I chose it because the Gospel of John was the Bible quizzing material for the year. I wanted to study the quizzing material like the rest of the quizzers, but I wanted to study it more in-depth than just writing questions. It did come in hand elsewhere, though. At the same time, I took New Testament Theology class in graduate school. For the class, I had to write on the theology of a New Testament author. Naturally, I chose John. But to write on John, I couldn’t just read and write on the Gospel of John. I also had to read and write on John’s 3 epistles and Revelation. I did read it all, and I found I enjoyed reading 1 John just as much as the Gospel of John. In fact, in a way, I saw 1 John as a commentary on the theology in the Gospel of John because a lot of the theological themes in 1 John are similar to the theological themes in the Gospel of John. So I wouldn’t be doing justice if I were to leave out 1 John into our discussion. So without further ado, I present to you a devotional commentary on 1 John.

If you remember me correctly, you’ll know I’m a literalist…of sorts. I’m not a literalist in the sense I try to take a Bible verse and put in a timeless, spaceless bubble to make a timeless truth out of it. Actually, I sharply disagree with that method. I don’t know if there is a term for me. If there isn’t, I’ll make up a term: “contextual literalist.” I believe the most literally way to understand the Bible is to understand it in its context, especially the historical and cultural context. After all, the Bible was written in a timeless, spaceless bubble, but in history and in culture. The context will include, the author, the audience, the date, the location, the historical occasion and the purpose. So before we dive into any of the material, let’s look at the introductory information. We’ll start with the author, for that’s the most obvious (although it’s not as obvious as it seems). Next, we’ll go over the setting, with the location and the date. The setting will bring light to audience, and all 4 of these pieces will bring light to the historical occasion and the purpose, and the purpose will explain how the letter is structured.

THE AUTHOR WHO wrote the book was John, just like the title of the book tells us. But there are quite a few Johns in the Bible. No, this is not John, also known as Mark. The only book John Mark wrote is the Gospel of Mark. No, this is not John, the father of Peter. No, this is not the John in Acts 4:8 who is in the family of the high priests. And this is definitely not John the Baptist, the son of Zechariah, the second cousin of Jesus. This is John, the son of Zebedee, the first cousin of Jesus. And with that last statement, you got two facts about his family history. Let me throw in a third: his brother was James (and there’s 4 men named James in the Bible, but that’s a different discussion for a different day). John started out his life in the family trade of fishing with his father Zebedee and his brother James. Everyone knows John and James were disciples of Jesus, but not everyone remembers that John and James were first disciples of John the Baptist. Being disciples of John the Baptist, they were probably baptized by John the Baptist and they probably listened carefully to his preaching about repentance and the coming Messiah. Yet their following wasn’t too serious, as it seems like they followed him on the side and stayed focus on their job trade. This seems also true of being disciples to Jesus. When John points the two of them out to Jesus Christ in John 1, they follow him a bit and even acknowledged Jesus as a Rabbi, but then they went back to fishing. It wasn’t until Matthew 4 that Jesus needs to call them to follow to get through their thick skulls to stay with him longer. John, along with his brother James and Peter, were among the 3 disciples in the inner circle of disciples, who were the closest of Jesus, perhaps because they were the first ones called to be disciples. They got to see special events, like the raising of Jairus’s daughter, the transfiguration, and they got to be closer to Jesus in Gethsemane. This inner circle of 3 will stay tight until the end. When we see John in Acts, he’ll always be with Peter.

I will briefly mention here that while John is the traditional author of the book, and the author widely accepted by conservative scholars, not everyone agrees that John, or more specifically, “John the disciple/apostle” is the author of the book. Why? Most scholars believe that 1 John, 2 John and 3 John are all written by the same person, for all have the same writing styles. 1 John has not signature, but 2 John and 3 John are signed “The Elder” with no name. Now the conservative scholars will tell you that John the Disciple/Apostle became known as John the Elder later in the senior citizen days of his life. But liberal scholars will disagree, and they will point you to another source. This source is a letter, one that dates to the 2nd or 3rd century AD. The author of the letter claims to be a disciple, or a student, of John the Elder. The author then writes that his mentor, John the Elder, was a disciple, or a student, of John the Apostle. One of the lines in the letter says something along the lines of, “I asked my mentor, John the Elder, what it was like to be mentored by John the Apostle.” Liberal scholars conclude that John the Elder and John the Apostle were two different people. While John the Apostle may have written either the Gospel of John or Revelation (or both), the 3 epistles were written by John the Elder. What do I have to say about that? As you will find other conservative scholars saying, there were many Johns around that time, for John was a common name. On top of that, the title “elder” was a common title to any old, wise leader in the church. So it’s very possible and very likely that both men, John the Apostle, and John the Disciple of John the Apostle, both had the title “elder” and were both called “John the elder.” I can say I am certain John the Apostle wrote the 3 epistles because I believe the writing styles and theological themes of the 3 epistles match up with the Gospel of John and Revelation of John. So without a doubt, I am sure John the Apostle is the author of the 3 Epistles. If John the disciple of John the Apostle was involved, at the most, he might have dictated what John the Apostle said.

THE DATE WHEN the book was written is in relation to the Gospel of John. Clearly 1 John is written after the Gospel of John. The themes in 1 John are found in the Gospel of John. John assumes that the reader has already heard and understood what John has talked about in his Gospel. What John is out to do is to present new, different information on the same theological themes. In a way, 1 John can be seen as a commentary to the Gospel of John, but more about that in the structure. The point is the structure can reveal the date. 1 John has to come after the Gospel of John. The broad range for the Gospel of John’s date is 85-95 AD. The specific range for the Gospel would be 85-90 AD. If the Gospel of John is between 85-90 AD, then 1 John has to be between 90-95 AD. For simplicity’s sake, the date will be 90-91 AD.

THE LOCATION WHERE 1 John was written was Ephesus. Ephesus is a key location. Ephesus is located in on the coast of Asia Minor, which is modern-day Turkey. Being on the coast, Ephesus had ports for ships, making it a busy place for commerce. Not only were the seas an excellent way to reach Ephesus, but the rivers were also large enough for boats. A sailor could get to Ephesus either be sea or by river. Ephesus also had a main Roman road going through it, increasing the commerce. Between the ports and the roads, Ephesus was a really busy place. It always had people coming in and out of it. In fact, by the 1st century AD, Ephesus was most likely the 4th biggest city in the Roman Empire! What a wonderful place it would be to build a church and spread the Gospel message! Well, that’s exactly what happened. Paul began a church in Ephesus. He would minister many times, both by visits and by letters. He would also send those who studied under him, like Timothy and Tychicus. But that’s Paul, Timothy and Tychicus. How did John get there? Well, truth to be told, we don’t really know. It’s only tradition from the early church fathers that tells us so. But we have no reason to the church fathers’ tradition because it is very likely John is there. Revelation not only helps demonstrate why Paul was in Ephesus but it will also display proof why Ephesus is the right location setting for John’s 3 Epistles. Look at the 7 churches John writes 7 letters to. Now look on a map of 1st century Asia Minor and locate these churches (simply Google Image search “1st century Asia Minor Map” or “7 Churches in Revelation map” if you don’t have the map available in a book). You’ll notice that the follow a nice curved path on the major Roman road[s]. This is why I mentioned the trade routes going through Ephesus. One of those roads was the mail route, and the mail route begins in Ephesus. Because of such, Ephesus became a capital of the Asia Minor region of the Roman Empire. So it’s quite possible while the setting where the epistles are being written is in Ephesus, the letters could be going out all the other 6 cities mentioned in Revelation. With that in mind…

THE AUDIENCE WHOM John was originally writing to would be the Church in Ephesus or the Christians in Ephesus. You can use either one; they are one and the same. If I were to make a famous saying that would be quoted over and over again, it would be this: “Church is the plural for Christian.” So the Christians in Ephesus are the Church in Ephesus. But keep in mind what I wrote above. Just like Ephesus is the capital of Asia Minor, in a way the Church in Ephesus was a “capital church” in Asia Minor. And just like the news/mail would start in Ephesus and move along the mail route to other important cities in Asia Minor, it’s very possible, and very likely that this letter started in Ephesus, and then migrated to other cities and towns in Asia Minor, such as Symrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Phiadelphia, and Laodicea. Thus one could easily say that the original intended audience is the churches in Asia Minor or the Christians in Asia Minor. But for simplicity’s sake, we’ll stick to the Christians in Ephesus.

Alright, already there are 4 pieces of introductory matters we have at hand: John is the author, the date is 90-91 AD, the location is Ephesus in Asia Minor, and the audience is the church in Ephesus (possibly expanding to the churches in Asia Minor). Those 4 pieces are crucial in setting up the setting for the historical occasion and the purpose. So without further ado, let’s set up the historical occasion and the purpose.

THE HISTORICAL OCCASION is WHAT was happening with the people in the setting that caused the author (John) to write the book, or as in this case, the letter. It hasn’t changed much since the Gospel of John. Altogether, it’s false teachers. There are two main camps of false teachers: early forms of Gnosticism and early forms of Docetism (I say “early forms” because these cultic religions haven’t fully developed their beliefs, so they are slightly different in the earlier stages than in the later stages). Early Gnosticism was saying that Jesus was only human and Jesus was never God. The early Docetism was saying that Jesus was only God and never really human. He only appeared to be human while on earth (thus, the name “Docetism,” coming from the Greek word dokeo, meaning “it seems”). Both Gnosticism and Docetism were denying that Jesus was the Christ. It’s not certain if these groups were explicitly teaching that Jesus wasn’t the Christ, but as John will show us, the only way for Jesus to be the Christ is for Jesus to be both God and human, so anyone who only preaches one side is declaring Jesus was not the Christ. These incorrect teachings on doctrine were effecting the application on behavior. These false teachers were teaching that people who believed in Jesus did not need did not need Christian fellowship, did not need other people in their lives, even they didn’t need to love other people, both the Christians and the non-Christians. They were also teaching that since Jesus died on the cross to atone for sin, God does not care about sin anymore, since the price has been paid. Therefore, it didn’t matter how much or how little a person sinned because the sin was paid for. Obviously, Gnosticism denying Jesus was human and Docetism denying Jesus was God was already confusing the Ephesians because they contradicted themselves, but even the behavioral application was confusing because even if the false teachers agreed on that, it was contradictory to what the true Apostles were teaching. Confusion like this can easily lead to doubts, and doubts can lead someone to fall away from the faith. John doesn’t want the Ephesian Christians, nor any Christians in Asia Minor, to convert to either Gnosticism or Docetism. In fact, John wants them to avoid it all together. John also doesn’t want unsteady or shaky beliefs. So John needs to teach the right doctrine to the Church in Ephesus, as well as the churches in Asia Minor.

I want to make a quick aside to say that even though the historical occasion is for the audience 2,000 years ago, it could easily been the same historical occasion for the 2000s century. It’s not so much the doctrinal false teachings. Most Christians (and these are all the true Christians) will teach that Jesus is both God and man. Those that don’t are quickly denoted as Christian cults or different religions. Rather, the historical occasion stays true in the behavioral application sense. Of the 2, the biggest one would be that God doesn’t care about our sins. The best example I can give is from my Xanga page. For those who do not remember, Xanga was the popular social networking/blogging website before MySpace and Facebook. One day, I wrote in my banner (the best equivalent I can give you is the status on Facebook), “Can there be too much of a good thing? Can too much of a good thing be a bad thing?” Within a week, some random stranger from far away (how she found my Xanga site will always be a mystery to me) commented on my banner, saying it was true, citing the example that drinking too much water can be harmful to a person’s body. But I digress, for this is not the point. Curious to who this person was or even to figure out how she found me, I went to her Xanga site. On her banner, she had written, “Sex is a sin, but sin is forgiven, so let’s begin!” Now I could go on a long rant on how this is incorrect, on how sex isn’t a sin but rather the misuse of sex is a sin, but that’s not the point either. The point is that there is a belief floating around my generation and the next generation that Christ’s atoning death on the cross paid for sin, so therefore Jesus becomes like a hippie who allows you experiment with different sins, and allows you to keep the sins you like. They believe that since sin is forgiven, we can sin because it will ultimately be forgiven. It’s like you are about to sin, but then you have a quick, sudden jolt of guilt for sinning. You ponder to yourself, “Should I really be doing this?” but then you say to yourself, “It’s OK, Jesus will forgive me afterwards” and then go through with it! Let me tell you, you won’t get past the first chapter of 1 John if you hold on to this belief.

Although not as prevalent as the prior application belief, another one slowly and steadily beginning to float around modern Christianity is the denial of love or fellowship with other people, both Christian and non-Christian. This belief stems out of Christianity’s most recent correction to ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the church. The universal church has finally got it into their minds and their parishioners’ minds that going to church or being a member of a church (church here means more like a building or a systematic assembly) does not bring salvation to a person. This is good, for this is true. The problem is, however, that it has caused the pendulum to swing in the opposite extreme. Now all of a sudden Christian church parishioners are abandoning church (once again, referring to the building or service), Sunday School, small groups, Bible studies, and/or prayer meetings. Why? Well, since salvation does not come from church, and since most spiritual disciplines can be done by the person’s own self (at least, so they claim), there is no need to fellowship with Christians. It may sound crazy, but I do think that some Christians truly believe this, whether they explicitly state it or not. For example, a few years ago I worked with a ministry that focused primarily on evangelism, but also did a little bit of discipleship for those that they evangelized to and were newly saved. Their top 4 disciples for spiritual growth were (I believe I have them in proper order, too): reading and obeying your Bible, prayer, confession of sin, and witnessing/evangelizing to other non-Christians. Nowhere in the top 4 is any form of Christian fellowship. Going to church did rank as 5th on their list for spiritual discipline, but notice I said “Going to church” and not “Christian fellowship.” Their reason to go to church was so a person can learn more about God and worship him there, not to fellowship with other Christians. Although church is a means of learning about God and worshipping God, fellowship with other Christians is just as important for church as worship and learning. Without fellowship, church would missing a big part of it. This also can be dangerous. How it can be dangerous? I’ve noticed that a lot of people who believe that church is not necessary and have separated themselves from church become quite prideful, believing that what they are doing is better than the Christian attending church. This selfish pride can easily lead to a lack of love towards other Christians. John is going to show his readers how big of a piece would be missing in the Christian’s life without fellowship or love of other Christians.

THE PURPOSE is WHY the author wrote the book. When looking for the purpose, the first clue would be to look for a verse that would explicitly state a purpose or explicitly state why the author wrote. 8 times in 5 different verses John writes something along the lines of “I write to you” or “I write this/these things,” most of which are in chapter 2. But the one, the only one, that is not in chapter 2 is in chapter 5, and I feel confident that this verse is the purpose statement. Why? Just compare it to the Gospel! John waited until near the end of his Gospel to write the purpose statement, so it would make sense John would wait near the end of his epistle to state his purpose. The other reason I like the purpose statement found 1 John 5 is that it parallels the purpose statement of the Gospel of John very well. If you look both of them, you’ll see they parallel each other. Take a look…

John 20:31-
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

1 John 5:13-
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

I took the liberty of bolding the similar words. The most obvious and explicit seen differences is that 1 John 5:13 does not say Christ, nor does it even use the name Jesus. But by the time you get to 1 John 5:13, the reader has no doubts that John is talking about Jesus and John is proving that Jesus is the Christ. Also, you may notice a slight shift. In the Gospel of John, John writes that the reader may believe (or continue to believe) Jesus is the Son of god. In the Epistle of 1 John, John says he writes to those who already believe Jesus is the Son of God. Yet both times the end result is the salvific knowledge that brings about eternal life. Therefore, I see John doing the same thing in the Epistle of 1 John. John is trying to get his Christian believers to continue believing what they are believing, and not changing their beliefs to agree with the false teachers. John wants the Christians in Asia Minor to believe that Jesus is both God and man. John wants the Christians in Asia Minor to love one another and fellowship with God in a sinless lifestyle.

John wrote the book of 1 John to persuade Christians in Ephesus to continue believing that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, and to love God and other people by not sinning against them.

THE STRUCTURE is HOW John wrote his epistle to get his purpose across. How does John address that Jesus is God, Man and the Christ? How does John teach the importance of holiness, fellowship and love? At this time, I would talk about outlines and writing styles. 1 John is infamous for not being easy to outline. So we’ll wait to outline 1 John until we’ve read it all. Instead, let’s look at the writing styles John will choose.

First of all, what is will strike this epistle as weird is that it’s not epistle-like. Maybe I’ve been tossing around a word that is unknown to you, so let me define it. An epistle is a letter, simply put. In the Greco-Roman world of the 1st century, people wrote letters differently. A letter would usually start with the “from line,” or a line stating who the letter was written by. The next line would be the “to line,” or a line stating whom the letter was written to. The third line would be some kind of greeting. It could be as simple as “Greetings!” or be a little more complicated, like “Grace and peace be to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Then the body of the letter would start. The first paragraph is a personal opening that would give a prayer of thankfulness and would also praise the recipients for their good condition and what they are doing correctly. Then the rest of body of the letter would commence. The letter would finish out by giving a personal farewell. Once again, the author will praise the audience for the good people they are and then will extend specific greetings with specific exhortations and specific commands. This is typically how Greco-Roman letters went, and this is typically how New Testament epistles went.

But take a look at 1 John. Anyone will notice that 1 John is not like the typical epistle or the epistle described above. 1 John does not a “from line” that states the author’s name. 1 John does not have a “to line” that states the recipients’ names. That third line, the greeting line, is missing. The author does not address the recipients with a greeting line of any sorts. Expanding on that idea, the body of the letter does not have any kind of opening of prayer or thanksgiving. The letter dives right into the material. On the other end, the epistle of 1 John does not have any personal, individual remarks at the end. The closest we get to personal remarks is the last line in 1 John 5, where John says in verse 21, “Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.” Even this seems thrown in a random. We’ll talk more about it when we get there, but the point is that it lacks the typical ending for an epistle. With all this against the epistle, some have suggested that 1 John should be seen less as an epistle and more as a sermon, like the book of Hebrews. Yet I’m not read to throw this book out of the window as an epistle. While it is true that there is no opening and closing personal remarks, that doesn’t mean this epistle is not personal. John does seem to be personal with this letter. John’s commands are serious because he is concerned about the spiritual well-being of the people. His pleas are emotional and heart-wrenching for the same reasons. He even calls his readrs by affectionate names, such as “friends,” “brothers” and “children.” John seems to have a personal connection with his readers, a personal connection that can only be found in an epistle.

While there may be little proof that 1 John is an epistle in its form, it can easily be shown in its function and its features. The function of most epistles was to give instruction for both doctrine (what to think) and application (what to do). 1 John gives both theology and practical ways to live out that theology. How does John present this theology? He uses argument. No, this is not argument like yelling, screaming and fighting. This is argument as in using evidence and claims to prove that his theology is correct. The evidence can come from logic, reason, history, culture, geography, philosophy, religion, etc. John will use these evidences, and they will come in handy.

On that note, remember the historical occasion. John does want to demonstrate that following the false teachings of the false teachers are wrong. But John is not going to be as direct as you think. John will neither give a defense nor give a counter-attack. John will not attack the false teachers’ teachings or attack the false teachers personally. John will not even simply defend himself or his teachings. John will simply present the real truth, the gospel. Then, by the end of the letter, John will simply ask rhetorically, “After hearing the truth, whose teachings are right, mine or the teachers who disagree with me [aka the false teachers]?” The evidence will be too strong, and any reader will be forced to acknowledge that John and the other apostles are the true teachers of the truth, while any others are false teachers.

Now that we have all the introductory information, we are ready to trek into 1 John, chapter by chapter. My goal is that this will be a devotional commentary that will serve both evangelism purposes and discipleship purposes. If after 21 chapters of the Gospel of John, you are still not convinced that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, I hope that by the end of the 5 chapters of 1 John, you will be convinced, and you will come to a saving faith that leads to eternal life. If you do already believe in Jesus as Christ and God, I hope that 1 John will teach you how to take your belief and practically live it out. I will do my best to point both of these out. I pray that by the end of my devotional commentary, I have either have new Christians or stronger Christians.