FIRST JOHN
Introduction
1 John 1:1-4
INTRODUCTION
As John was writing this letter, the Christian church was facing serious challenges to its very existence. From the start it had faced fierce opposition and persecution from the Jewish synagogue. The Jewish religious leaders had not only killed Jesus but had also hounded His followers after His ascension into heaven.
As serious as this threat from the Jews was, it paled in comparison to a new threat which had recently emerged. A new religion was emerging, Gnosticism. What was so pernicious about it was that in many places it claimed to be Christian, in fact, it claimed to be TRUE CHRISTIANITY. Where it made that claim, it used many of the same terms and ideas Christianity used: Jesus, Savior, Redeemer, salvation, redemption, born again, regeneration, etc. On a superficial level this Gnosticism appeared to be just another way of expressing Christian truth, maybe even another Christian denomination.
How successful was this "new denomination"? It was so successful that from a human standpoint, it almost wiped out Christianity. Whereas the Jewish persecution came from without, this came from within. It was the greatest threat Christianity has ever encountered. Apparently many who originally attached themselves to the church were now abandoning the church and following the Gnostic preachers and teachers.
Now John did not view Gnosticism as another Christian denomination. He viewed it as ANTI-Christian. In this one short letter, the way John addresses this issue gives us Christian insight into
THE CLAIMS OF THE APOSTLES (1:1-4)
According to verses 1 and 2 what did the apostles claim they had heard, seen with their own eyes, and handled with their own hands?
It appears that John is saying that they have witnessed SOMETHING and SOMEONE. What is that something and who is that someone?
How are these 2 related, the Something and the Someone? (In fact Christianity says that you cannot have one without the other.)
This last statement is a major claim of Christianity, that you cannot have one without the other. Jesus made the categorical claim: "I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life; NO ONE can come to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6). Earlier He had claimed that from His innermost being flowed rivers of life-giving water (John 7:38). He didn't say He was A way among many or A truth among many or A life among many; rather He said He was THE way, etc.
Now this kind of talk is not popular these days. People today feel that you should not make absolute claims about anything unless it is taking money away from you to give to me. Recently, our president-elect claimed that he found God through Jesus Christ; however, he believes that there are other ways to God. This is the exact kind of statement that John and the apostles are attacking. They claim that not only is there life in Jesus but life can ONLY be found in Jesus.
It is hard to see how anybody who has been confronted with the claims of Jesus can be saved; however, if a person has never been confronted with the claims of Jesus and yet has veered towards the elements in his life which ARE Christian--love, goodness, righteousness, peace, then the case can be made that they have found life. Why? Because they have responded positively to the only things in their life which were Christian. In fact they probably would have become Christians if somebody had presented to them Jesus in the first place. Peter seems to be affirming just this very principle when he tells Cornelius: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him" (Acts 10:34-35). C. S. Lewis' example of the young Muslim at the end of The Last Battle.
According to verse 3 why did John and the apostles proclaim Jesus to their followers? In other words, who did the apostles want their followers to have fellowship with? (This is another HUGE claim.)
If we have fellowship with these people, who else will we have fellowship with (v. 3)?
Baptists are notorious for belittling everybody other than Jesus in the NT. "Peter and Paul were no better men than you and me." True. "Jesus is the main person in Christianity." No argument there. "Peter and Paul weren't saints we should pray to." The first half wrong and the second half right.
The bottom line is that Peter and Paul and John, etc., were important because they were apostles. According to Paul who were the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20)?
Now Matthew 16:13-18 makes sense. The name "Peter" in Greek means "rock." Instead of reading v. 18 to say "I also say to you that you are Peter," read it more accurately to say, "I also say to you that you are Rock." Now listen to what else Jesus says: "and upon this rock I will build My church." Just who would that rock be, the rock Jesus builds His church upon?
Does this mean Peter or one of the apostles was the first pope? No!!!!!!!!! That IS a huge leap. Rather the apostles were foundational for the church because our knowledge of Jesus comes from them.
We don't pray to them. The apostles can't save us. HOWEVER, all of our knowledge about Jesus and all of the correct interpretation about Jesus comes from these apostles. For the past 2000 years you can't have Jesus without having the apostles. Everything we know about Jesus has come from them: Matthew, Peter, Paul, John, Jude, James, etc.
Unfortunately the Catholics get all bent out of shape over the apostles. They erect huge basilicas over the tombs of the apostles in Rome. They pray to the apostles, etc. We, on the other hand, dismiss the apostles. Both approaches are very sad. The Episcopalians though take a more balanced view. The apostles are not saints to be prayed to; however, they are to be respected as the official spokesmen of Christianity. According to Jesus if we received those He has sent out as apostles, whom have we received (John 13:20)?
If the apostles are going to make this kind of claim, they had better be able to back it up. There is support for their claim.