Theology and Practice

I’ve been studying 1-3 John quite a bit recently. It’s taken until today for one very important link to be forged in my mind. That link is this:

Wrong understanding of the person of Christ
leads to wrong understanding of the teaching of Christ.

This finally became clear in my mind because of the word “because” (ὁτι) at the start of 2 John 7. Because of that word there is, there must be, a link between John’s teaching that Xians should obey Jesus commands (which they heard from him “from the beginning”) and the teaching of the false teachers.

The false teachers’ (FTs) teaching denies that “Jesus comes in the flesh”. Whatever we understand this to mean, it is clear that it is a christological issue related to the incarnation. The FTs are subscribing to unorthodox (i.e. heretical) Christology.

The implications, according to John, are serious – i.e. wrong Christology leads to wrong action. If we, as the FTs were doing, deny or detract from the real incarnation of Jesus Christ; that is, if we deny his earthly existence, his earthly body, we will also deny and detract and ignore his earthly teaching.

If the person of Jesus is of no significance, why would we listen to or obey his teaching.

This has big implications throughout 1-3 John. Much of John’s teaching related to the practical implications of wrong christology.

Christ and Sin are Totally Opposed

I blogged previously (here) about a parallel structure in 1 John 3:3-10. Since I spotted it it has been plaguing my mind as I struggled to work out the meaning of the passage. I think I’ve got some answers.

These verses (esp. vv6 and 9) have caused many exegetical problems regarding the presence of sin in a Xian. I’m not happy with the Perfection/Holiness/Wesleyan interpretation as that seems to contradict 1 John 1:8-10 and 2:1-2; let alone the rest of Scripture; and it creates a two-tier Christianity. So there must be some other explanation for the absoluteness of John’s phrases.

I believe the answer lies in understanding the two parallel sections: v4 // v8a and v5 // v8b.

v4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
v8b Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning.

v5 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
v8b The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.

The first key is to understand that (contrary to the NIV) John is not talking about law as a moral code in v4, rather he is talking about this concept of ‘lawlessness’. The noun ‘law’ is not used; rather the noun ἁνομια (‘lawlessness’, from which we get out word ‘anomoly’). This concept of lawlessness is best described by Paul in 2 Thes 2:1-12. The ‘man of lawlessness’ seems to be the same character as John’s Antichrist – that is, one who is utterly opposed to Christ, and seeks power and worship for himself. John has already explained (2:18) that as well as one big-bad-Antichrist, there will are (are) lots of little mini-me anitchrists who embody the same opposition to Christ. John’s point then is this: sin = lawlessness = opposition to Christ.

The parallel thought in v8a is much clearer: sin is of the devil which, obviously, means sin is opposed to Christ.

Now, v5 explains that Christ came to take away sin. The point, I believe, is not that Christ is acting as our substitute or propitiation (he has already made that clear in 1:6, 9; 2:1-2). Rather John is simply pointing out that Christ came to take away sin; therefore by implication Christ is opposed to sin.

Similarly, the parallel thought in v8b is clear: Christ came do destroy the work of the devil; therefore Christ is opposed to the devil and Christ is opposed to sin.

Put all these four verses together and it is clear that John’s emphasis is that Sin and Christ are totally opposed. Sin is opposed to Christ. Christ is opposed to sin.

Once we understand John’s teaching about sin and Christ, we can start to understand his teaching about sin and the believer. Having demonstrated to clearly that sin and Christ are so absoltely opposed what must his application be: that Xians (those who claim fellowship with Christ) must also be totally opposed to sin. He cannot say, without diluting his point, that Xians must ‘try not to sin’. If sin and Xp are as opposed as he claims, then Xians must also be totally opposed to sin.

To sin, then, is to become both an Antichrist and a Satanist. That is what John is saying. His application, then, must be that Xians do not sin. Christians do not sin because sin is totally opposed to Christ.

To me, that makes good sense of the passage in context but avoids contradicting John and the rest of the bible.

Christians do not sin because sin is totally opposed to Christ.