1 John 1:1-4 Bible Teaching

WELCOME
PRAYER
WORD TO MUSIC
SILENCE

1st John 1.1-4
April 3rd 2016
MEAT

Alright, let read from the Word, 1st John 1:1-4 where John the Beloved says:

1st John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

So here in the first four verses of this epistle John establishes in concrete some facts about the Lord Jesus Christ.

Back to verse 1 where he begins with:

1st John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

Now, I want you to know that we could spend all hour on the first two words of this passage. It’s because John begins with “That which was from the beginning ” instead of “He who” was from the beginning.

It’s not a mistake or opinion due to translation – John chose to open with “that which,” rather than, “He who,” and it has created a small storm over the years as to what He could have possibly been trying to accomplish.

Bible scholar FF Bruce maintained that John was not referring to Jesus but to the Gospel and several others concur.

I don’t because of the context of the rest of the passage – listen again:

1st John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

It is my opinion that John was speaking of the Word’s pre-incarnate state when he begins with “that which,” (which, by the way is in the neuter gender) because if he was speaking directly and exclusively of the human “Jesus” I am almost certain that he would have used what is known as the masculine pronoun making “that which” male.

Instead, using the Neuter gender instead of the masculine he conveys to us something – again in my estimation – that is describing the Word and in this description paints the Word as neuter not masculine.

In other words WE MIGHT SUPPOSE that prior to taking on flesh the Word was not male.

I know this is really radical to even suggest but without a body of flesh and bone was the The Word actually masculine?

I don’t know. In John 1:1 the Word is masculine so in that case we would have to say yes. But here John chose to describe “that which” was from the beginning in the neuter noun form.

It could be, that in the face of trying to dispute the doctrine of the Docetae, that John wanted to begin His description of Jesus (who is from the beginning) in the most NON-HUMAN form as a means to then prove that He in fact did become human or incarnate.

For me all of this makes the most sense.

“That which was from the beginning,”

And then he provides some testimonials to substantiate his description of the Word:

“which we have heard,”
“which we have seen with our eyes,”
“which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled,”
“of the Word of life.”

So it appears that John begins with attempting to prove that He, the Word, was incarnate (with “that which”) and then moves forward to show that “by the proof of the human senses (hearing, seeing, touching) that the Word became flesh, and indisputably dwelled among us.

And he first testifies –

“which we have heard.”

The “we” here must refer to the other apostles or it could refer to any believer alive in that day who could testify of hearing, seeing and touching “that which was from the beginning.”

The claim to have heard Jesus is to claim that He had breath in his lungs, a tongue and mouth to articulate, and a mind to form words.

“That which we have seen.”

By the time of this writing some thirty years had passed since Jesus ascension and so it’s possible that some of the actuality of His earthly ministry were beginning to become obscured.

I read online a board discussion online a few days ago where a bunch of arm-chair Calvinists were discussing my views on the Trinity and one of them, having watched the Inquisition stated:

“McCraney denies the deity of Christ, the three persons of the Godhead, and the most basic of all Christian beliefs – that there is one God of three persons.”

Not one word of that is true – and this critic had JUST watched me articulate as much!

Can you imagine what people were saying about Jesus and his person some thirty years plus after he disappeared?

“That which we have seen with our eyes” is truly an attestation that Jesus was (and is real) – a being that was not a ghost as the docetae claimed.

“that which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled,”

Reiterating the fact that they had seen Him John adds “which we have looked upon” but the reiteration, from the Greek, means more than just seeing Him – its more intensive and emphatic and better means that they had looked on him with desire, or satisfaction, or with the pleasure with which we might look on something that is a beloved object.

And he adds:

“and our hands have handled.”

The Greek term for “handled” here is “SAY-LAF-A-HO” and it is used four times in all of the New Testament.

One of those times will be very familiar to you. It’s found in

Luke 24:36-39 where we read

36 “And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me (SAY-LAF-A-HO), and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”

I cannot help but believe that the very Words of Jesus here echoed in the mind of John as He penned this first epistle.

I can’t help but believe that he was probably aghast at the inference that the Docetae were making that Jesus was merely a Spirit in disguise as a man, and the Spirit reminded him of Jesus very words to them in that upper room.

This last line is probably the best evidence that John puts forth against that claim that Jesus was not in a body of flesh and blood.

I don’t know how much we have to worry or debate with Docetist Gnostics today – it’s almost like if someone wants to believe that Jesus was a ghost there isn’t much we can do to stop them.

But the real added value John’s witness gives us here is the fact that he lays out the reality of Jesus the man but describes Him (yet again) as a man who was, “from the beginning” . . .

Meaning a man who came from God.
Meaning a man who was God with us.

The idea of Jesus just being a man, a historical figure is admitted by even the most jaded critics.

A sage or guru or great leader, they say, similar to any spiritual revolutionary.

John makes it clear that He was far, far more. And yet at the same time firmly addresses the docetae fiction that he was not a being in tangible flesh.

We often talk about Jesus as God and how important this is to the make-up of the Lord but here we can see that John is making His human side as vital.

In these first four verses John decides to set the record straight regarding Jesus and his (and the other apostles witness of Him.

As we mentioned last week in all probability part of the reason John wrote this epistle was to confound the doctrine of the Gnostics (in particular the Docetae who were a Gnostic sect) which claimed that God could never have been a man in flesh so therefore Jesus must have been a Ghost or Spirit of some sort who, in going through all the things He did, was merely pretending for the benefit of Man.

John wants his reader to know that it is really important to accept that fact that Jesus was in an actual human body, that it was a body that had to learn like all other humans, that He could and did experience pain and pleasure, that He did suffer on a cross, did experience physical death and that He did rise again from the grave.

It’s interesting because we might allow ourselves the temporary luxury to wonder why this is an important distinction.

Could we be Christians and believe the Docetae doctrines? Apparently not.

There must be something important in the information that John wants his reader to hear and understand.

What could it be? Why would it matter – when it comes to faith in Him – whether He was really a man or a ghost?

As an interesting aside, early church person Ignatius (who was martyred for the faith between 98 AD and 117) gave several ways Docetism was wrong and perhaps knowing how they were wrong will help explain why it matters.

First, (and as we’ve mentioned) Ignatius explains that the Docetae rejected that

Jesus had an actual body.

If you think about this, without an actual body it would be impossible for Jesus to make an actual atonement of blood. And since we know that it is only by the shedding of blood that sin can be forgiven, the absence of a body directly influences Jesus sacrifice for sin.

Where this might seem like a stretch the rejection of the Docetae was probably as much of a means to avoid further deterioration of the faith as it was to reject the actual teachings at that time.

Secondly, Ignatius claimed, in writing, (and this is tied to what I just mentioned) but he said that:

The docetae denied the suffering of Christ. This directly affects the meaning of His passion, the term sacrifice, and passages of scripture (which say things like, “By His strips are you healed.”)

Additionally, they deny the resurrection, which has enormous implications.

Third, Ignatius claimed that because the Docetae deny a body, and therefore an actual passion, they denied the practice of Communion or Eucharist to a Catholic.

Why would there be a celebration or memorial of a sacrifice that was never real in the first place.

Ignatius also wrote that they did not believe in prayer but does not explain why and his final claim what they saw no need to care for widows and orphans.

A final point relative to Ignatius and his writings against the Docetae – he would not mention them by name in hope that they would repent and come back to the fullness of the faith.

So we can see, from Ignatius’ report on the beliefs and practice of the Docetae in his day that their views on Jesus NOT having a physical body certainly affected the way they ultimately lived their faith, and in the least this may be why John the apostle so ardently argued against their spurious teachings.

It is why we, as Christians, openly admit that He was fully God and fully man – and do not hedge on the stance because to hedge is to begin to lean away from what He actually did on our behalf.

At this point John adds, “of the Word of life,” meaning respecting or pertaining to, the Word of life.

The way to read this would then be:

“That which was from the beginning ( which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled) we are speaking of, who is the Word of life.”

OR

“That which was from the beginning is the Word of Life whom we have heard, seen, desires and touched.”

The phrase “the Word of life,” means “the Word in which life resided or which was the source and fountain of life.”

Super interesting because what we have in this first verse might be considered a thematic chiasm.

John opens clearly addressing “that which was from the beginning”

What did John tell us was in the beginning in His Gospel?

The Word, right?

So he essentially says, again, that “in the beginning was the Word,” which directly attests to the divinity of Jesus.

Then he speaks to the fact that the Word became a human being, witnessed by three senses – hearing, sight, and touch –

And THEN he returns to the fact that while they did in fact see and hear and touch Him that this being was

“The Word (and he adds) of Life”

Wait, the Gnostic might say, “you’re trying to tell us that the person you saw, and heard and touched – a human being – was ALSO from the beginning of all things insomuch that you call Him “the Logos of Zoe? The Word of all life?

“yes,” John would reply. And we can say this because this is what John is saying in this first verse.

I don’t want to get into discussions of personhood or being or eternal sonship here regarding the Man Jesus.

I want to simply use how scripture describes him to us. And here (coupled with what John says in his gospel) what became Jesus the Man was from the beginning of all things

The Word of God, translated from the Greek term logos.

Listen to how I say this – logos is the name is given to him who afterward became flesh, meaning the Messiah.

Prior to being named Yeshua as a babe, in the beginning, John chooses to name or refer to him as logos.

Whatever is meant by it, therefore, is fully applicable to the one who became the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

“In the beginning existed the logos.”

Now, where the English says, “In the beginning was the Word,” the Greek for was is the imperfect of “eimi” which does not give us any idea as to origin – it simply means “continuous existence.”

A much different verb (“egeneto”) is used, however in verse 14 when John writes:

“and the Word became flesh” giving us “the beginning of the Logos in flesh!”

Also, we have to note that John appealed to an ancient Greek term in logos when he chose to assign it to preincarnate Jesus.

It comes from “legô,” which is an old word in Homer that means, “to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion.”

Logos is as commonly used as “reason” as it is for “speech.”

Heraclitus used logos for (listen) “the principle which controls the universe.”

Are we to think that the principle which controls the universe became flesh – absolutely. I do, at least.

The Stoics employed logos to mean “the soul of the world” (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used “spermatikos logos” for the life giving, generative principle in nature.”

The Hebrew “memra” was used in the Targums to depict the Wisdom of God ( as in Proverbs 8).

To us, looking at scripture, we have taken Logos and suggest that

Words are the way we communicate our will; by which we convey our thoughts and express our desires, wants, dreams and opinions and that Jesus, the Son of God is called “the Word,” because he is the medium by which God promulgates his will and issues his commandments.

So when we read in the Old Testament that “God said,” (spoke – used words) and “it was by His speaking that all things came into being,” we now say that God, through Jesus – His Word – God created all things.”

From the LDS point of view this looks like God in an anthropomorphic body, sitting on a throne, commanding His Son Jesus to go out and put the world together.

Because of the history of the term logos I tend to see it as God speaking, by the Words of His mouth all things came to be, and those words, which are truly the source of all life – that were living words – became flesh, and dwelled among us.

It is of note to remember that the term logos was in use before the time of John.

It was used in the Chaldee translation of the Old Testament.

For example Isaiah 45:12, in our translation reads:

“I have made the earth, and created man upon it.”

But the Chaldee translation reads:

“I, by my word, have made,”

Again, in our Isaiah 48:13 we read:

“Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth.”

But in the Chaldee, “By my word I have founded the earth.”

It’s this way in a number of other places.

Additionally, Word (or mimra in the Hebrew) was used by the Jews and given application to the Messiah.

In their writings God’s defense of the Jewish nation were said to be by, “”the Word of God.”

Therefore in their Targum on Deuteronomy 26:17-18 it says,

“Ye have appointed THE WORD OF GOD a king over you this day, that he may be your God.”

It is not surprising then that John would take “Logos” and assign it to “Jesus in reference to his becoming the Teacher or Instructor of mankind” and “the medium of communication between God and man.”

I am personally and fully aware that most Christians today see incarnate Jesus as a mere physical form of his pre-incarnate spiritual self.

I am also aware how my personal views (which differ with this stance) upset those who see Jesus in these terms.

But in light of all of these things, plus the teaching that God is One, I cannot help but see Jesus as God’s actual living words made flesh.

The Words of God are not like our words – His Words are life giving. They are living verbs. They are powerful light and force which have always been with Him. These is what I see filling the human flesh of the Man/Savior Jesus Christ.

If I’m wrong may God forgive me.

Having called “that which was from the beginning,” “the Word of Life,” John continues with what is close to a reiteration in verse 2 and says:

2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

The Chiastic formula, once again is apparent here in verse 2. Do you see it?
A B A

For the Life was manifested
(We have)
Seen it
Bear witness,
And show you
That eternal life was manifested to us.

This is VERY Hebrew way of writing. And in it John says:

“For the life was manifested.”

What life? The Word of Life mentioned in verse 1. God’s Words that give and generate life – it was manifested or made visible to Man.

God is invisible. God is Spirit. God is a consuming fire of Love. But His Word of Life was manifested.
The Greek translated manifested is “FANEROO” and it means, appeared.

Appeared how? In flesh. And so John says:

He that was the source of life was made known to men by the incarnation. He appeared among us and we saw him and heard him. Though originally with God, and dwelling with him, (according to John 1:1-2) He came forth and appeared among men.

In what manner?

Romans 1:3 says, “Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.”

We read in Galatians 4:4 “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.”

Also dispelling the Docetae the Writer of Hebrews says:

Hebrews 2:14-15 “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.”

Again,
Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

And
1st Timothy 3:16
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

Emphasizing Him manifesting in a material body John adds:

“And we have seen” (“it” is not in the original mss).”

“And bear witness”

“And shew unto you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us.”

Of course John is reiterating the fact that they were first-hand witnesses of Him, in the flesh – that He was manifested to them.

But notice how John puts it:

“We bear witness and shew unto you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us.”

He refers to Jesus, the human, as “that eternal life.”

That ETERNAL LIFE.

In John’s Gospel we remember that prior to His passion Jesus said to the apostles:

John 14:4 “And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.”
5 Thomas saith unto him, “Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?”
6 Jesus saith unto him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.”

The implications of all this is really quite hefty.

God Spoke His Word, which was with Him from the beginning, and the Logos, what Heraclitus said was “the principle which controls the universe,”and what Marcus Aurelius said was “the life giving, generative principle in nature,” and all things existed or came into being or were given life, and Jesus, speaking to Thomas tells Him directly:

“I am the way, the truth, and the Life!”

When God speaks life happens, His Words do NOT return void, and His Word is eternal – they do not change nor do they cease to exist.

When the Word of God became flesh He was The Life. The Word made flesh was the Life, or as John says:

“We bear witness and shew unto you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us.”

Wow.
(beat)
“God . . . with us.”
“Eternal life . . . with us.”
John says:

“manifested unto us.”

Think about the implication of this if you can. God’s Word.

In the beginning with God.
“and the Word was God”
By which all things were formed and created.
Irrevocable.
Never go away.
Never return void.
Literally living and alive and life-giving.
They became flesh.
Revealing, teaching, exemplifying the invisible God.
He is the life, the way, the truth!
And now we read them!
Ingest them.

And then, again, at verse three, John writes (again in the neuter gender):

3 “That which” we have seen and heard declare we unto you, (and he gives the reason that he has taken the time to declare that which they had seen, and heard and touched)

“that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.”

He calls attention to all the testimony which he had borne to them on the subject, in order to counteract the errors which seem to have begun to slip in.

Why does He do this? He tells us –

“That you may have fellowship with us.”

“With those of us who actually saw Him, conversed with Him, touched Him.”

His plea and hope seemed to be that all who considered his words would hold to the exact same belief, hope, and joy that he had, arising from the fact that the Son of God had become incarnate and that he had appeared among them and they witnessed it.

Note that John does not seem to infer that having such knowledge is unavailable to those who have not seen, heard or touched Jesus physically.

He is speaking to an audience who would NOT have such an experience and yet he says that he is writing his witness with the hope that they could have with them.

To “have fellowship,” means to have something – really anything – in common with others; to partake of it; to share it one with another.

What drove John is what drives believers today in sharing Jesus – that we might have the same koinonia with them, that with another individual we might relish the joy of knowing Jesus and God who sent Him.

This is the joy that we share, the basis of true fellowship. Knowledge of God the Father and His Son whom He has sent.

Unity is founded on this knowing, on the reality of God and His Son, on the fact that we commonly call them God.

And then John adds an important qualifier, saying:

“and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.”

Let’s wrap today up with this line.

I would suggest that the more we have in common with each other that excluded the persons of God and His Son that the “less” true fellowship that exists between us – meaning the less fellowship that will carry on to the life hereafter.

But when human fellowship is based on a common communion with the Father and the Son this is fellowship indeed.

That is what the word translated fellowship means here – communion, translated from the Greek word, Koinonia, where we get our English term, coitus, meaning intercourse.

When we are intimately connected by spiritual union with God and His Son, this, in other words, is true fellowship for it is based on eternal relationships, on them and the things of the Spirit, and cements relations on levels much stronger than fellowship in the flesh.

We note that our fellowship is both with the Father and the Son, as the Son, having become one of us, serves as our link to the living but invisible God.

Through the Son, and our communion with Him we have communion with the Father . . . and each other.

John wraps these introductory verses up with:

4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

The closest thing we have to what John is describing and hoping for all who read and receive in our flesh is sexual union based in love.

Jesus said in John 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

Knowing God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent through Spiritual koinonia is life eternal, the very term John described the Word of Life.

To know another most intimately in this life is most often through physical koinonia.

John is telling his reader that there is a relationship available to all, a relationship one oneness and unity and total spiritual communion, through Jesus Christ and God.

To partake in it is to have joy – a joy that can be full, spiritually.

This is a remarkable introduction to John’s 1st Epistle – full of witness, promise and hope.

Q and A

Meeting for play.