1 John New Testament

John was likely quite young when he started following Christ. Craig Keener holds that most of the disciples were likely teenagers when they met Christ. Moreover, John lives into the 90’s AD to write the book of Revelation (see “Date of Revelation”, which would make more sense if he was young in Jesus’ day (AD 30’s).

John seems like a boisterous personality. For one, Jesus gave him the nickname “Son of Thunder” (Mk. 3:17). This sounds like the nickname you’d give to a gang of bikers—not a teenager! But it seems warranted in John’s case. From the pages of the NT we discover a very bold and sometimes foolish young man, even asking to be Jesus’ right-hand man in the kingdom (Mk. 10:35ff). His writing style is very black and white: love and hate, light and darkness, etc. He seems like the kind of man that meant what he said and said what he meant.

Jesus called John alongside his friends and family: James (his brother), Peter, and Andrew. John owned a fishing business with his brother James and Peter, and Jesus called all three of these men into ministry at the same time (Lk. 5:10). Since these three men had a friendship as business partners, it is interesting to watch them serve together in ministry as well.

John endured much suffering. He endured the death of his brother by King Herod in roughly AD 44 (Acts 12:2, AD 44), and he went on to live at least another 50 years serving Christ. It’s difficult to know which historical traditions have credibility, but from what we read from extrabiblical history, John served and suffering for Christ for decades on end. Toward the end of his life, tradition states that he was boiled in oil and exiled to the Island of Patmos (Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics 36.3.).

As a Galilean fisherman, John was not initially well-educated, but he underwent a dramatic life change after the resurrection (Acts 4:13). He stood up to the authorities with tremendous courage (Acts 4:19), and he led various churches throughout Asia Minor.

Jesus must have really loved and trusted John in a unique way. Jesus included John in his “inner three” best friends (Mk. 5:37), who witnessed the Transfiguration (Mt. 17:1) and prayed with him on the night before he died (Mk. 14:32-34). Moreover, it was to John that Jesus chose to appear to reveal the end of human history (Rev. 1:9; 22:8). Finally, in a very tender moment, Jesus entrusted the care of his mother to John as he hung from the Cross (Jn. 19:26). Surely John was right to call himself “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”

Authorship

We reject the view of scholars like I. Howard Marshall and C.K. Barrett who believe that the so-called Johannine school wrote these letters. We hold the longstanding historical view that John of Zebedee (Mk. 1:19-20) wrote these three letters, as well as the gospel of John and the book of Revelation. Several lines of evidence support this view:

First, the author claims to be an eyewitness of Jesus’ earthly ministry. John writes, “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—² and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—³ what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ” (1 Jn. 1:1-3). This claim doesn’t make the author an eyewitness. However, we shoulder the burden of proof if we deny the claim of the author.

Second, these letters are similar to the gospel of John. Our case for understanding the authorship of these letters hangs together with the gospel of John and the book of Revelation (see “Introduction to John” and “Authorship of Revelation”). Since there is good evidence for believing John wrote the gospel of John and Revelation, we should hold to John’s authorship for these three letters as well. One author records 51 literary parallels between the gospel according to John and 1 John. Other words are unique to this author as well (e.g. paraklētos, monogenēs). This internal evidence argues strongly in favor of the same author. For example, even Marshall agrees with the literary similarly between the Gospel of John and the letters of John—even though he rejects Johannine authorship.

Third, these three letters are similar to one another. When letters disagree with one another, critics claim that this is inductive evidence against similar authorship. Yet when they’re too similar, they claim that this is too suspicious. For instance, C.H. Dodd holds that all three letters of John are too similar to have been written by the same author! This shows inconsistency at a very deep level. Hence, we hold that this is good evidence for similar authorship.

Fourth, the manuscript evidence shows that these letters were in circulation very early. Our earliest sources cite from these letters:

• The oldest Greek manuscripts contain all three letters together. Stott writes, “The first letter is also included in the most ancient versions of the church of the East and the West, namely the Syriac and Latin, although the second and third letters are not found in the Syriac.”

• Papias (AD 110-130) refers to 1 John as already being in circulation. Eusebius records that Papias “used testimonies drawn from the former Epistle of John” (Church History39.17).

• Polycarp of Smyrna (AD 130) quotes from the letters of John. Indeed, he cited 2 and 3 John (To the Philippians1-2; cf. 1 John 2:24; 3:8; 4:2-3).

Fifth, early sources affirm that John was the author. Consider a few key texts:

• The Muratorian Canon (AD 180) identifies John the apostle as the author. The Muratorian Canon states, “The fourth of the Gospels, that of John, [one] of the disciples. When his fellow disciple and bishops urged him, he said Fast with me from today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us relate to one another. In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that whilst all were to go over [it], John in his own name should write everything down.… For so he confesses [himself] [in 1 John 1:1] not merely an eye and ear witness, but also a writer of all the marvels of the Lord in order.”

• Irenaeus (AD 180) held that John the apostle was the author of the gospel according to John. He wrote, “Afterward John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, himself published his gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia” (Against Heresies1.1). Later, Irenaeus attributes 1 John to the apostle (Against Heresies 3.16.5, 8).

• Tertullian (AD 200) attributes 1 John to John the apostle. He cites John among the “apostles” and cites 1 John 1:1-4 (Tertullian, Against Praxeas 15). Elsewhere, he cites John among Paul and Peter, and he cites 1 John 4:18 and Revelation 2:10 and Revelation 21:8 (Tertullian, Antidote for the Scorpion’s Sting 12).

• Clement of Alexandria (AD 215) held that John wrote 1 John. He writes, “John, too, manifestly teaches the differences of sins, in his larger Epistle” (citing 1 John 5:16-17, Stromata15.66).

• Hippolytus (AD 235) accepted 1 and 2 John.

• Dionysisus of Alexandria (AD 263) mentions 2 and 3 John as Scripture (Eusebius, Church History25.6-11).

• Origen (AD 250) had a complicated relationship with these letters. Kruger writes, “Although Origen recognized that some had doubts about 2 and 3 John, it appears most in his day regarded the two letters as genuine—including Origen himself.”

It’s true that 2 and 3 John were slowly received by the broader church. However, Akin makes the important observation that “no one ever attributed 2 John and 3 John to anyone other than the apostle John.” Moreover, these are the shortest writings in the NT—being only 245 and 219 words long. Thus, it is quite likely that these books were overlooked “in view of their brevity and comparative unimportance.”

At the same time, the fact that such small letters were even considered at all seems to demonstrate their importance to the early church. As Kruse observes, “The fact that two such brief letters by the elder (2 John and 3 John) have been incorporated in the NT canon is strong evidence for the importance of the author, and possibly indicates that he was ‘the principal authority’ in his circle.”

Why does 2 and 3 John claim to be written by “the elder” or “the presbyter,” rather than by the apostle?

Some scholars hold that there were two John’s in the early church: John the apostle and John the elder. This concept comes from Eusebius, thex church historian (AD 340). Eusebius notes that Papias mentions both John the apostle and “John the elder” (Church History, 3.39.4). Eusebius writes,

Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, attests in writing in the fourth of his books, for five books were composed by him…

If ever anyone came who had carefully followed the presbyters, I inquired as to the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what Aristion and the presbyter [elder] John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not suppose that information from books helped me so much as that from a living and abiding voice. His mentioning the name of John twice is worth noting here. The first of these he reckons along with Peter and James and Matthew and the other Apostles, meaning clearly the Evangelist, but the other John, after expanding his statement, he places outside the number of the Apostles, placing Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter. Thus, by these words is proved the truth of the story of those who have said that two persons in Asia bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus and each of these even today is said to be John’s. We must give attention to this, for it is probable that the second (unless you would prefer the first) saw the Revelation which passes under the name of John. And Papias, who is now being explained by us, confesses that he had received the words of the Apostles from their followers, but says that he himself was a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John.

Were these letters written by another John called “the elder” or “the presbyter”? We think not for several reasons:

For one, while this citation is based on early historical tradition (i.e. Papias), it doesn’t appear until Eusebius (AD 340). How could “John the elder” be such an important man in the early church—even writing Scripture—but he isn’t mentioned in any source for the first 300 years of church history? Such a conspicuous silence is difficult to believe.

Second, Eusebius had a very low view of Papias’ testimony and may have misinterpreted him. Eusebius had a very low view of Papias, claiming that he “was a man of exceedingly small intelligence” (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.13). This could explain why Eusebius thought that another John discipled Papias. After all, Irenaeus claimed that Papias was “a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp” (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.1). But Eusebius wrote, “[Papias] was in no sense a hearer and eyewitness of the holy Apostles’, but only learnt from ‘their pupils’” (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.2). This could explain why Eusebius posits another John.

Third, the Greek grammar doesn’t require that two separate people named John existed. Some scholars argue that the anaphoric article refers to two separate Johns. Not true. Greek expert Daniel Wallace writes, “The anaphoric article is the article denoting previous reference… Practically speaking, labeling an article as anaphoric requires that it have been introduced at most in the same book, preferably in a context not too far removed.”

Fourth, Papias’ two lists of people could have overlap. Papias mentions two groups of people: (1) apostles and (2) disciples. John of Zebedee was both an apostle and a disciple, so it would make sense for Papias to repeat John’s name.

Some ask why John “the presbyter” was singled out with Aristion in the second group if he is the same John from the first group. The most likely explanation is that John was not only (1) an apostle, (2) a disciple, but also (3) still alive. In other words, Papias wasn’t making a distinction between apostles and elders, but between dead witnesses and living witnesses. Carson writes, “The distinction Papias is making, in his two lists, is not between apostles and elders of the next generation, but between first-generation witnesses who have died (what they said) and first-generation witness who are still alive (what they say). Aristion, then, can be linked with John, not because neither is an apostle, but because both are first-generation disciples of the Lord. And this supports the witness of Irenaeus, who says that Papias, not less than Polycarp, was ‘a hearer of John’.”

Fifth, the title of “elder” or “presbyter” shouldn’t diminish John’s apostolic authority. After all, the other seven apostles in this context are also called elders—just like John (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.4; cf. 3.39.7). Moreover, even in the NT documents, Peter calls himself a “fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1), even though he also considers himself to be “an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:1).

While John does address himself as “the elder” in 2 John 1 and 3 John 1, these were very short and personal letters written to close friends. Therefore, in 1 John he addresses the audience as an apostle, whereas in 2 and 3 John, he addresses them as their pastor. Something similar could be going on in Paul’s self-identification as “Paul, the aged” in his letter to Philemon (Phile. 9).

Date

Early church history holds that John of Zebedee served in Ephesus toward the end of his life (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.5; 3.3.4; also see Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.31.2; 5.24.3). Irenaeus (AD 180) writes, “The Church in Ephesus… having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles” (Against Heresies, 3.3.4).

It seems likely that John wrote these letters after his gospel which dates to roughly AD 85 (see “Introduction to John”). John seems to be writing as an older man, calling the believers “little children.” If this is correct, then John most likely wrote these three letters sometime between AD 85 and AD 95. Kruse, Akin, Barker, Johnson, Thompson, and Smalley all hold to this dating. Very few would date the letter earlier. So, while the dating of John’s letters isn’t certain, this is probably pretty close.

Why does John use such black and white language?

We don’t need to take a deep dive into genre analysis to recognize that 1 John is fundamentally different in its form from other NT letters or books. The language is so binary and strong that some of John’s statements feel like a slap in the face. Why is this? And how should we interpret such statements?

Kruse argues that this circular letter was written in a genre (specifically epideictic rhetoric) that used what is called amplification as a way to communicate its message. He lists seven examples that demonstrate amplification in 1 John, but he notes that “virtually every known rhetorical technique for amplification is utilized in 1 John.”

This helps to explain the unique character of John’s letter. For example, John calls anyone who “hates” his brother a “murderer” (1 Jn. 3:15). This strong word has a jarring effect upon the reader, and it strongly delivers the message that hatred is a serious sin. Yet, John’s use of amplification shouldn’t require us to literally equate hatred with taking someone’s life.

The concept of amplification is nothing new. We see similar forms of amplification in Hebrew poetry—what we call “intensification” (see “Understanding Hebrew Poetry”).

How Does Proto-Gnosticism Relate to Interpreting this Letter?

Grammatical-historical hermeneutics require the interpreter to understand as much as possible about the author, audience, and their cultural setting. This has never been more vital than interpreting a letter like 1 John. Failure to understand what John is arguing against will confuse the interpreter and lead to a skewed interpretation. We wholeheartedly agree with Colin Kruse when he writes, “Anyone seeking to make sense of the Letters of John needs to have a working hypothesis concerning the events that lie behind them.”

What was the historical and cultural setting for John’s letters? Strong evidence indicates that John was arguing against false teachers who were promoting licentious proto-Gnostic dualism. Both the (1) internal evidence and (2) external evidence support this claim.

(1) Internal evidence

Within the three letters, we see evidence that John was opposing some sort of proto-Gnosticism.

Gnostics denied that Jesus was the Messiah. They divorced the man “Jesus” from the spirit-being called “the Christ.” This would explain why John writes, “Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son” (1 Jn. 2:22).

Gnostics denied the humanity of Jesus and held to Docetism. The Greek word dokeō means “to appear” or “to seem.” Thus, Docetism is the view that God wasn’t truly human in the person of Jesus; rather, He only appeared to be human. This explains why John goes into such detail describing how he “heard” and “saw” and “touched” Jesus (1 Jn. 1:1). He wants his readers to know that Jesus was physical—not a ghost. This also explains why these false teachers were denying that Jesus came “in the flesh” (1 Jn. 4:2).

Gnostics claimed to have secret knowledge. This could explain why John writes, “The anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things” (1 Jn. 2:27). John isn’t rejecting the need for Bible teachers. Rather, he is rejecting the claim that the Gnostics had secret knowledge of Jesus that these believers didn’t know.

Gnostics denied the concept of sin. Because they thought the material world was evil, some Gnostics ran wild with sin. After all, if the physical world is evil, then sin isn’t even a recognizable category. John rejects this view when he writes, “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us… If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us” (1 Jn. 1:8, 10). This could also explain what John means when he describes those who “continue in sin” (1 Jn. 3:4-10).

Gnostics denied the atoning death of Christ. John writes that God gave his testimony about Jesus through his “blood” (1 Jn. 5:6-8). Admittedly, this is a somewhat difficult passage, but most commentators agree that this refers to Jesus’ death on the Cross. Thus, the false teachers must have “denied the importance of Jesus’s atoning death.” This fits with Gnostic teaching that held that the “Christ” (aeon or “spirit-being”) fled the human Jesus of Nazareth while he hung from the Cross.

(2) External evidence

John most likely wrote to churches in Asia Minor. Both Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1.2) and Eusebius (Church History 3.1.1) confirm this. Moreover, since the earliest references to the book come from Polycarp, Papias, and Irenaeus (all leaders in Asia Minor), this is additional evidence that these letters first circulated there. Barker writes, “Asia continues as the clear choice of modern scholars for the place of publication.”

John encountered proto-Gnostic teachers in his ministry. Irenaeus (AD 180) records that a false teacher named Cerinthus fiercely combatted John. This false teacher was a Gnostic Jewish-Christian who lived during the same time as John (AD 100) and in the same area (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.26.1). Cerinthus rejected the virginal conception, and he held that Jesus of Nazareth was merely a human being—even though he was “more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men” (1.26.1). Cerinthus also held that an aeon (a spirit-being called the “Christ”) descended on Jesus’ body and possessed him at his baptism, but this spirit-being abandoned Jesus at his crucifixion. Irenaeus writes, “After his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being” (1.26.1; cf. 3.11.1). John battled so fiercely with Cerinthus that he wouldn’t even occupy the same public places (Against Heresies 3.3.4).

Conclusion

Both the internal and external evidence support the view that John was battling some form of nascent Gnosticism in the church of Ephesus. Hiebert writes, “It is generally agreed that the heresy confronted in 1 John was some form or forms of Gnosticism, but it is unwarranted to identify it with the full-blown Gnosticism of the second century.”

Implications for interpreting John’s letters

This fact is simply crucial to interpreting this book. Indeed, John tells us that this is one of the reasons for why he is writing: “These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you” (1 Jn. 2:26). We strongly agree with Kruse who writes that these itinerant false teachers “circulated among the churches and propagated their beliefs with a view to winning people over to their understanding of things (1 John 2:26; 4:1-3; 2 John 7).” Many of these travelling teachers were likely former members of the churches (1 Jn. 2:19), and they likely still had a hearing among these Christians. Consequently, John was writing “criteria they could use to evaluate the false claims being made by the secessionists and with which they could also reassure themselves that they were in the truth (1 John 1:5-2:2; 2:3-11; 3:7-10, 14-15; 4:4-6, 7-8, 13-15; 5:13, 18-20).” For a robust explanation of the subject of Gnosticism, see “Gnosticism and the New Testament.”

Does 1 John support Lordship or Free Grace Theology?

Lordship theologians argue that the thesis statement of 1 John comes at the end of the letter when John writes, “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 Jn. 5:13). In their view, the entire letter gives a series of tests for discerning one’s salvation. MacArthur, for example, sees eleven tests in this letter:

1. Have you enjoyed fellowship with Christ and the Father?

2. Are you sensitive to sin?

3. Do you obey God’s word?

4. Do you reject this evil world?

5. Do you eagerly await Christ’s return?

6. Do you see a decreasing pattern of sin in your life?

7. Do you love other Christians?

8. Do you experience answered prayer?

9. Do you experience the ministry of the Holy Spirit?

10. Can you discern between spiritual truth and error?

11. Have you suffered rejection because of your faith?

Free Grace theologians argue that the thesis statement of the letter comes at the beginning when John writes, “What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. ⁴ These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete” (1 Jn. 1:3-4). Consequently, the entire letter is about experiencing closeness and intimacy with Christ.

Lordship theologians agree that 1 John 1:3-4 is also a thesis statement for the letter. However, they argue that this refers to our position in Christ—not our condition. Therefore, they see these opening verses as virtually synonymous with 1 John 5:13. Both purpose statements teach about discerning our salvation.

Navigating the Lordship and Free Grace controversy

While we reject the Lordship reading of 1 John, we don’t whole-heartedly agree with the Free Grace perspective either. How then should we interpret this complex letter? If we clearly identify and articulate why John was writing, the message of the letter comes into focus. John isn’t writing to give Christians a battery of tests to gain (or lose!) their assurance of salvation. Rather, he is writing for three central reasons:

(1) John was writing to refute licentious, proto-Gnostic false teachers

There is too much evidence inside and outside these letters to ignore this major theme. John even tells us, “These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you” (1 Jn. 2:26). How can we ignore such a glaring interpretive clue? Unfortunately, both Lordship and Free Grace interpreters tend to minimize this historical background when interpreting key debated texts.

(2) John was writing to promote spiritual growth—not to determine spiritual birth

John indicates at the outset that the point of his letter is to grow close “fellowship” (koinōnia) with other believers and ultimately with God himself (1 Jn. 1:3). Does “fellowship” refer to salvation? No. We hold that this refers to the quality of our relationship with God—not the existence of our relationship with Him.

For one, it is bewildering to think that John would be “proclaiming” (1 Jn. 1:2) spiritual birth to people he simultaneously affirms to be Christians. If there is any question about this, just consider John’s multiple affirmations throughout chapter 2:

“If anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 Jn. 2:1).

“I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven” (1 Jn. 2:12).

“I have written to you, children, because you know the Father” (1 Jn. 2:13).

“I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it” (1 Jn. 2:21).

Second, in his writings, John uses the expression “eternal life” (zōēn aiōnion) to describe salvation 21 times. Why didn’t John use that expression here if that is what he meant? Furthermore, John refers to being “in Christ” to describe salvation. This is usually captured as being “in Him” (Jn. 1:4; 1 Jn. 2:5; 5:20) or “in Me” (Jn. 15:2). Yet, that’s not what we read here. Instead, John refers to being “with the Father” and “with the Son” (1 Jn. 1:3). This is a conspicuous shift in language from John typical usage.

Third, John only uses the term “fellowship” (koinōnia) four times in his writings—all of which occur in this section (1 Jn. 1:3-7). Therefore, the immediate context should govern our interpretation. In context, John uses the term “fellowship” to refer to the quality of our relationships with fellow Christians (“one another”), not the existence or non-existence of these relationships. He writes, “If we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:7). This language of “fellowship” in contrast to John’s description of false believers who “went out from us” and “were not really of us” (1 Jn. 2:19).

Fourth, at the end of this section (1:4-2:2), John gives us his own commentary on what he wrote. He states, “I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin” (1 Jn. 2:1). Once again, this is the language of spiritual growth—not spiritual birth.

Fifth, John further states that the purpose of his letter is for him to have “joy” (1 Jn. 1:4). What does he mean by this? Surely, this refers to the happiness of seeing people growing spiritually. Once again, John’s own words serve as our best interpreter. Elsewhere, John writes, “I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth” (3 Jn. 4; cf. 2 Jn. 12).

(3) John was writing to give these Christians confidence—not tests

Lordship theologians claim that John is giving his readers “tests” by which they can know if they have a true assurance of salvation. But where do we read any language about being “tested” or “testing ourselves” in 1 John? This language simply doesn’t exist. Instead, we read about having “confidence” in our salvation or “knowing” (not doubting) that we possess salvation. For instance, John writes,

“By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. ⁴ The one who says, ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; ⁵ but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him” (1 Jn. 2:3-5).

“Abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming” (1 Jn. 2:28).

“If our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God” (1 Jn. 3:21).

“By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment” (1 Jn. 4:17).

It’s true that John gives ways to discern false teachers (see point number 1 above). But is he encouraging introspection on behalf of people he affirms to be Christians? No. John gives us ways to gain subjective confidence of our salvation—not ways to doubt whether we are true believers. God’s promises are true regardless of our feelings or psychological certainty. But when we love others, God gives us additional subjective confidence that we know Him personally (see 1 Jn. 2:3-5). Yet, this gift of subjective confidence only works in one direction. It shouldn’t be applied to lead toward doubt and uncertainty.

Lordship theologians compare the quality of love in our lives to a “test” that needs to be passed. If we have love, we pass the test and can have confidence in our salvation. However, if we lack love, we fail the test, and we should wonder if we ever came to Christ in the first place. In our view, we’ve already received an A+ on the “test.” That part is settled. However, God wants to give additional “knowledge” and “confidence,” almost like receiving “extra credit” on top of a perfect score. After all, God’s promises to us are 100% infallible and inerrant, and we can anchor our lives on them. However, we experience additional confidence when we love others (1 Jn. 2:3-5).

Consider another illustration. There are two ways to know the temperature outside. One is to look at a thermometer hanging outside your window, and the other is to step outside and feel the sun on your skin. The first way is technological and more objective, while the second is experiential and more subjective. Both are valid ways of knowing the temperature. However, if a person lacked access to the experience of walking outside, they would still know the temperature by reading the thermometer.

Now imagine if someone said, “Since you didn’t go outside and experience the weather, that serves as evidence that you really don’t know the temperature.” Do you see the problem? Experiential evidence works positively to support your knowledge, but it doesn’t work negatively to doubt your clear reading of the thermometer.

Some days we are mean, crabby, and downright selfish. When this happens, we lack the experiential confidence of knowing Christ. Yet just because we lack this experience, we can always fall back on God’s promises which never change. Then, when we repent of our selfishness and begin to love others again, we can look forward to regaining an experiential confidence once again.

When we love others, this adds to our confidence, but the presence of sin and selfishness shouldn’t subtract from our confidence. Lordship theologians err on this crucial point. They think that these ways of building confidence in our salvation are actually ways of testing (or even doubting) our salvation.

Conclusion

These three main contentions will drive our interpretation of this letter. We reached these conclusions through an inductive study of the letter—not through placing a systematic grid over the text. This is likely why we fit into neither the traditional Lordship view nor with the traditional Free Grace view (even though we are very sympathetic to Free Grace theology). We think that explaining our methodology at the outset will help the reader understand our conclusions in our exegesis below.