Everyone who hates his fellow Christian is a murderer. On one level it is easy to see how the author could say this; the person who hates his brother is one and the same with the person who murders his brother. Behind the usage here, however, is John 8:44 , the only other occurrence of the Greek word translated murderer ( ἀνθρωποκτόνος , anqrwpoktonos ) in the NT, where the devil is described as a “murderer from the beginning.” John 8:44 refers to the devil’s role in bringing death to Adam and Eve, but even more to his involvement (not directly mentioned in the Genesis account, but elaborated in the intertestamental literature, especially the writings of Philo) in Cain’s murder of his brother Abel. This was the first incident of murder in human history and also the first outward demonstration of the full implications of sin’s entry into the world. Ultimately, then, the devil is behind murder, just as he was behind Cain’s murder of Abel. When the hater kills, he shows himself to be a child of the devil (cf. 1 John 3:10 ). Once again, conduct is the clue to paternity.


References to the fact that Jesus laid down his life using the verb τίθημι ( tiqhmi ) are unique to the Gospel of John (10:11, 15, 17, 18; 13:37, 38; 15:13) and 1 John (only here). From John’s perspective Jesus’ act in giving up his life sacrificially was a voluntary one; Jesus was always completely in control of the situation surrounding his arrest, trials, and crucifixion (see John 10:18 ). There is a parallel with 1 John 2:6 – there, as here, the life of Jesus (during his earthly ministry) becomes the example for believers to follow. This in turn underscores the importance of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry (especially his sacrificial death on the cross), a point of contention between the author and his opponents in 1 John. See 1 John 4:10 for a further parallel.


Once again the verb μένω ( menw ) is used of a spiritual reality (in this case the love of God) which does or does not reside in a person. Although the author uses the indefinite relative whoever ( Grk ὃς δ᾿ ἄν , Jos d ’ an ), it is clear that he has the opponents in view here. This is the only specific moral fault he ever charges the opponents with in the entire letter. It is also clear that the author sees it as impossible that such a person, who refuses to offer help in his brother’s time of need (and thus ‘hates’ his brother rather than ‘loving’ him, cf. 3:15 ) can have any of the love which comes from God residing in him. This person, from the author’s dualistic ‘either/or’ perspective, cannot be a believer. The semantic force of the deliberative rhetorical question, “How can the love of God reside in such a person?”, is therefore a declarative statement about the spiritual condition of the opponents: “The love of God cannot possibly reside in such a person.”


How can the love of God reside in such a person? is a rhetorical question which clearly anticipates a negative answer: The love of God cannot reside in such a person.


The noun truth here has been interpreted in various ways: (1) There are a number of interpreters who understand the final noun in this series, truth ( ἀληθείᾳ , alhqeia ) in an adverbial sense (“truly” or “in sincerity”), describing the way in which believers are to love. If the two pairs of nouns are compared, however, it is hard to see how the second noun with tongue ( γλώσσῃ , glwssh ) in the first pair can have an adverbial sense. (2) It seems better to understand the first noun in each pair as produced by the second noun: Words are produced by the tongue, and the (righteous) deeds with which believers are to love one another are produced by the truth.


The author of 1 John repeatedly attributes the commandments given to believers as given by God the Father, even though in John 13:34-35 it was Jesus who gave the commandment to love one another. 2 John 4-5 also attributes the commandment to love one another directly to the Father. Thus it is clear that God the Father is the subject of the verb gave here in 3:23 .


1 John 4:1-6 . These verses form one of three units within 1 John that almost all interpreters consider a single unit and do not divide up (the other two are 2:12-14 and 15-17 ). The subject matter is so clearly different from the surrounding context that these clearly constitute separate units of thought. Since the Holy Spirit is not the only spirit active in the world, the author needs to qualify for the recipients how to tell if a spirit comes from God. The “test” is the confession in 4:2 .


Test the spirits. Since in the second half of the present verse the author mentions “false prophets” who have “gone out into the world,” it appears highly probable that his concept of testing the spirits is drawn from the OT concept of testing a prophet to see whether he is a false prophet or a true one. The procedure for testing a prophet is found in Deut 13:2-6 and 18:15-22 . An OT prophet was to be tested on the basis of (a) whether or not his predictive prophecies came true ( Deut 18:22 ) and (b) whether or not he advocated idolatry ( Deut 13:1-3 ). In the latter case the people of Israel are warned that even if the prophet should perform an authenticating sign or wonder, his truth or falsity is still to be judged on the basis of his claims, that is, whether or not he advocates idolatry. Here in 1 John the idea of “testing the spirits” comes closer to the second OT example of “testing the prophets” mentioned above. According to 1 John 4:2-3 , the spirits are to be tested on the basis of their christological confession: The person motivated by the Spirit of God will confess Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh , while the person motivated by the spirit of deceit will not confess Jesus and is therefore not from God. This comes close to the idea expressed by Paul in 1 Cor 12:3 where the person speaking charismatic utterances is also to be judged on the basis of his christological confession: “So I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus is cursed,’ and no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit.”


Them refers to the secessionist opponents, called “false prophets” in 4:1 (compare 2:19 ).


Who or what is the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit in 1 John 4:6 ? (1) Some interpreters regard the “spirits” in 4:6 as human spirits. Although 4:1 a is ambiguous and might refer either to human spirits or spiritual beings who influence people, it is clear in the context that (2) the author sees behind the secessionist opponents with their false Christology the spirit of the Antichrist, that is, Satan ( 4:3 b), and behind the true believers of the community to which he is writing, the Spirit of God ( 4:2 ). This is made clear in 4:4 by the reference to the respective spirits as the One who is in you and the one who is in the world .


Although the word translated one and only ( μονογενής , monogenhs ) is often rendered “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [ Luke 7:12, 9:38 ] or a daughter [ Luke 8:42 ]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological bird called the Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac ( Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus alone in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God ( τέκνα θεοῦ , tekna qeou ), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John ( 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18 ).


As explained at 2:2 , inherent in the meaning of the word translated atoning sacrifice ( ἱλασμός , Jilasmos ) is the idea of turning away the divine wrath, so that “propitiation” is the closest English equivalent. God’s love for us is expressed in his sending his Son to be the propitiation (the propitiatory sacrifice) for our sins on the cross. This is an indirect way for the author to allude to one of the main points of his controversy with the opponents: the significance for believers’ salvation of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry, including especially his sacrificial death on the cross. The contemporary English “atoning sacrifice” communicates this idea more effectively.


An allusion to John 1:18 .


The genitive of his Spirit here, like the phrase in 3:24 , probably reflects a partitive nuance, so that the author portrays God as ‘apportioning’ his Spirit to individual believers. This leads to the important observation that the author is not particularly interested in emphasizing (1) the ongoing interior witness of the Holy Spirit (which is what the passage is often understood to mean) but is emphasizing (2) the fact that God has given the Spirit to believers, and it is this fact that gives believers assurance of their relationship to God. In other words, it is the fact that the Holy Spirit has been given to believers, rather than the ongoing interior testimony of the Holy Spirit within the believer, which is the primary source of the believer’s assurance.


The entire phrase fear has to do with punishment may be understood in two slightly different ways: (1) “fear has its own punishment” or (2) “fear has to do with [includes] punishment.” These are not far apart, however, and the real key to understanding the expression lies in the meaning of the word “punishment” ( κόλασις , kolasis ). While it may refer to torture or torment (BDAG 555 s.v. 1 ) there are numerous Koine references involving eternal punishment (2 Macc 4:38; T. Reu. 5:5; T. Gad 7:5) and this is also the use in the only other NT reference, Matt 25:46 . In the present context, where the author has mentioned having confidence in the day of judgment ( 4:17 ), it seems virtually certain that eternal punishment (or fear of it) is what is meant here. The (only) alternative to perfected love, which results in confidence at the day of judgment, is fear, which has to do with the punishment one is afraid of receiving at the judgment. As 4:18 b states, “ the one who fears [punishment] has not been perfected in love .” It is often assumed by interpreters that the opposite to perfected love (which casts out fear) is imperfect love (which still has fear and therefore no assurance). This is possible, but it is not likely, because the author nowhere mentions ‘imperfect’ love, and for him the opposite of ‘perfected’ love appears to be not imperfect love but hate (cf. 4:20 ). In other words, in the antithetical (‘either/or’) categories in which the author presents his arguments, one is either a genuine believer, who becomes ‘perfected’ in love as he resides in love and in a mutually indwelling relationship with God (cf. 4:16 b), or one is not a genuine believer at all, but one who (like the opponents) hates his brother, is a liar, and does not know God at all. This individual should well fear judgment and eternal punishment because in the author’s view that is precisely where such a person is headed.


No object is supplied for the verb love (the author with his propensity for obscurity has left it to the readers to supply the object). The obvious objects that could be supplied from the context are either God himself or other believers (the brethren). It may well be that the author has both in mind at this point; the statement is general enough to cover both alternatives, although the following verse puts more emphasis on love for the brethren.


In 4:20 the author again describes the opponents, who claim to love God. Their failure to show love for their fellow Christians proves their claim to know God to be false: The one who does not love his fellow Christian whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen .


Also loves the child fathered by him. Is the meaning of 5:1 b a general observation or a specific statement about God and Christians? There are three ways in which the second half of 5:1 has been understood: (1) as a general statement, proverbial in nature, applying to any parent: “everyone who loves the father also loves the child fathered by him.” (2) This has also been understood as a statement that is particularly true of one’s own parent: “everyone who loves his own father also loves the (other) children fathered by him (i.e., one’s own brothers and sisters).” (3) This could be understood as a statement which refers particularly to God, in light of the context ( 5:1 a): “everyone who loves God who fathered Christians also loves the Christians who are fathered by God.” Without doubt options (2) and (3) are implications of the statement in its present context, but it seems most probable that the meaning of the statement is more general and proverbial in nature (option 1). This is likely because of the way in which it is introduced by the author with πᾶς ὁ ( pas Jo ) + participle. The author could have been more explicit and said something like, “everyone who loves God also loves God’s children” had he intended option (3) without ambiguity. Yet that, in context, is the ultimate application of the statement, because it ultimately refers to the true Christian who, because he loves God, also loves the brethren, those who are God’s offspring. This is the opposite of 4:20 , where the author asserted that the opponents, who profess to love God but do not love the brethren, cannot really love God because they do not love the brethren.


The author is once more looking at the situation antithetically (in ‘either/or’ terms) as he sees the readers on the one hand as true believers ( everyone who is fathered by God ) who have overcome the world through their faith, and the opponents on the other as those who have claimed to have a relationship with God but really do not; they belong to the world in spite of their claims.


Conquers the world. Once again, the author’s language is far from clear at this point, and so is his meaning, but the author has used the verb conquers ( νικάω , nikaw ) previously to describe the believer’s victory over the enemy, the evil one himself, in 2:13-14 , and over the secessionist opponents, described as “false prophets” in 4:4 . This suggests that what the author has in mind here is a victory over the opponents, who now belong to the world and speak its language (cf. 4:5 ). In the face of the opponents’ attempts through their false teaching to confuse the readers (true believers) about who it is they are supposed to love, the author assures the readers that loving God and keeping his commandments assures us that we really do love God’s children, and because we have already achieved victory over the world through our faith, keeping God’s commandments is not a difficult matter.


This verse is a parenthesis in John’s argument.


In understanding how “God’s testimony” (added to the three witnesses of 5:8 ) can consist of eternal life it is important to remember the debate between the author and the opponents. It is not the reality of eternal life (whether it exists at all or not) that is being debated here, but rather which side in the debate (the author and his readers or the opponents) possesses it (this is a key point). The letter began with a testimony that “the eternal life” has been revealed ( 1:2 ), and it is consummated here with the reception or acknowledgment of that eternal life as the final testimony. This testimony (which is God’s testimony) consists in eternal life itself, which the author and the readers possess, but the opponents do not. This, for the author, constitutes the final apologetic in his case against the opponents.


The one who has the Son. The expression “to have the Son” in 5:12 means to “possess” him in the sense that he is present in the individual’s life (see 1 John 2:23 for the use of the Greek verb “to have” to indicate possession of a divine reality). From the parallel statement in 5:10 a it is clear that believing in the Son and thus having God’s testimony in one’s self is the same as “having” the Son here in 5:12 a. This is essentially identical to John 3:16 : “that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” In contrast, the negative statement in 5:12 b reflects the author’s evaluation of the opponents: “the one who does not have the Son does not have (eternal) life.” The opponents, in spite of their claims to know God, do not possess (nor have they at any time possessed, cf. 2:19 ) eternal life.


The pronoun This one ( οὗτος , Joutos ) refers to a person, but it is far from clear whether it should be understood as a reference (1) to God the Father or (2) to Jesus Christ. R. E. Brown ( Epistles of John [AB], 625) comments, “I John, which began with an example of stunning grammatical obscurity in the prologue, continues to the end to offer us examples of unclear grammar.” The nearest previous antecedent is Jesus Christ , immediately preceding, but on some occasions when this has been true the pronoun still refers to God (see 1 John 2:3 ). The first predicate which follows This one in 5:20 , the true God , is a description of God the Father used by Jesus in John 17:3 , and was used in the preceding clause of the present verse to refer to God the Father ( him who is true ). Yet the second predicate of This one in 5:20 , eternal life , appears to refer to Jesus, because although the Father possesses “life” ( John 5:26, 6:57 ) just as Jesus does ( John 1:4, 6:57 , 1 John 5:11 ), “life” is never predicated of the Father elsewhere, while it is predicated of Jesus in John 11:25 and 14:6 (a self-predication by Jesus). If This one in 5:20 is understood as referring to Jesus, it forms an inclusion with the prologue, which introduced the reader to “the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.” Thus it appears best to understand the pronoun This one in 5:20 as a reference to Jesus Christ. The christological affirmation which results is striking, but certainly not beyond the capabilities of the author (see John 1:1 and 20:28 ): This One [Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life .


All those who know the truth refers to true Christians who are holding fast to the apostolic Christology in the face of the secessionist opponents described in 1 John.


Living according to the truth ( Grk “walking in [the] truth”). The use of the Greek verb περιπατέω ( peripatew ) to refer to conduct or lifestyle is common in the NT (see 1 John 1:6 , 3 John 3-4 , as well as numerous times in Paul. Here the phrase refers to conduct that results when a person has “truth” residing within, and possibly alludes to the indwelling Spirit of Truth (see 2 John 2 ). In the specific context of 2 John the phrase refers to true Christians who are holding fast to an apostolic Christology in the face of the secessionist opponents’ challenge to orthodoxy.


An allusion to John 13:34-35 , 1 John 2:7-8 .


See 1 John 2:7 .


The statement This person is the Deceiver and the Antichrist! is a metaphor (metonymy). The author does not mean that each individual is to be identified as the Antichrist. The opponents are compared to the Deceiver (Satan) and the Antichrist since they are accomplishing Satan’s work and preparing the way for the Antichrist.


The things we have worked for probably refers to the pastoral and missionary efforts undertaken by the recipients of the letter in their own community and surrounding communities. This work would be “lost” if the opponents with their false teaching are allowed to proselytize unopposed.


The idea of a reward for Christians who serve faithfully is not common in the Johannine writings, but can be found in Rev 11:18 and 22:12 .


The idiom translated have God means to have a relationship to God as a genuine believer. The phrase has both the Father and the Son later in this verse should be understood the same way.


Do not give him any greeting does not mean to insult the person. It means “do not greet the person as a fellow Christian” (which is impossible anyway since the opponents are not genuine believers in the author’s opinion).


Shares in his evil deeds. Giving a public greeting could be understood by an onlooker to suggest agreement with the (false) teaching of the opponents and is thus prohibited by John.


Presumably the author means he would rather say the additional things he wants to say to the recipients in person rather than by letter ( with paper and ink ).


Little reliable information is available concerning the identity of the person to whom 3 John is addressed. Because the name Gaius was very common in the Roman Empire, it is highly unlikely that the person named here is to be identified with any of the others of the same name associated with Paul ( 1 Cor 1:14 , Rom 16:23 [these two references are probably to the same person]; Acts 19:29 , Acts 20:4 ). A 4th century tradition recorded in the Apostolic Constitutions 7.46.9 (ca. a.d. 370) states that John the Apostle ordained Gaius as bishop of Pergamum, but this is questionable because of the relatively late date. The only certain information about this individual must be obtained from 3 John itself, and there is not a great deal there. It is obvious that this person is well known to the author, but it is not so certain whether they had met personally or not, because the report of Gaius’ conduct toward the brothers is received secondhand by the author (v. 3 ). Nor can it be determined with certainty whether Gaius belonged to the same local church as Diotrephes (v. 9 ), or was himself the leader of another local congregation. It is clear that the author regarded him as orthodox (v. 3 ) and a valuable ally in the controversy with the secessionist opponents and their false Christology discussed at length in 1 John.


Living according to the truth ( Grk “walking in [the] truth”). The use of the Greek verb περιπατέω ( peripatew ) to refer to conduct or lifestyle is common in the NT (see 1 John 1:6 , 2 John 4 , as well as numerous times in Paul. Here the phrase refers to conduct that results when a person has “truth” residing within, and possibly alludes to the indwelling Spirit of Truth (see 2 John 2 ). In the specific context of 3 John the phrase refers to true Christians who are holding fast to an apostolic Christology in the face of the secessionist opponents’ challenge to orthodoxy.


Which church does the author refer to here? The church where Gaius is, the church where the author is, a different local church where the “brothers” are, or the ‘universal’ church, the church at large? Since the suggestion in 3 John 3 is that the “ brothers ” have come and testified in the author’s church about what Gaius has done for them, it seems most likely that the “ church ” mentioned here is also the author’s church, where he is currently located. Other possibilities cannot be ruled out, but seem unnecessarily complicated.


Now the author, after commending Gaius for his faithful service to the traveling missionaries in the past (see 3 John 5 ), now requests additional assistance at the present time ( send them on their way in a manner worthy of God ). Apparently the missionaries are on their way to visit the area where Gaius’ church is located a second time. They had been there once already and had returned with a good report of how Gaius had assisted them. It is entirely possible that they themselves carry with them the present letter as a letter of introduction. Along these lines it has been suggested that Demetrius (see 3 John 12 ) is one of these traveling missionaries, perhaps the leader of the delegation, and the author is formally introducing him to Gaius, since when he was there the last time he was a stranger (v. 5 ) but Gaius assisted him anyway.


The verb gone forth ( ἐξέρχομαι , exercomai ) almost certainly refers to some form of missionary activity. This verb is used of Paul’s travels in Acts 14:20 , and of his setting out on his second missionary journey in Acts 15:40 .


Three possibilities for the identification of ‘The Name’ have been suggested: (1) the name of God, suggested by the unqualified noun with the Greek article. In Rabbinic literature “the Name” is a frequent substitute for the Tetragrammaton YHWH, the name of God, which was too sacred to be pronounced. This would make good logical sense in 3 John, because in the previous verse the author has instructed Gaius to send the missionaries on their way “in a manner worthy of God.” (2) Some have understood “the Name” as the self-designation of the Johannine community, or as a reference to the Christian cause at large, or as a way of designating Christians before the title “Christian” came into common usage. (3) The interpretation favored by most commentators is that this is a reference to Jesus’ name. Paul uses a similar phrase in Rom 1:5 , and in 1 John 2:12 the author wrote, “your sins are forgiven on account of His (Christ’s) name.” John’s Gospel also makes reference to believing “in the name of Jesus” ( John 1:12, 3:18 ).


Clearly the author does not refer to himself alone by the use of the first person plural pronoun we here, since the issue is support for the traveling missionaries. It stands in contrast to the pagans mentioned in the previous verse, and is thus to be understood as inclusive of all true Christians: the author, Gaius, and all true Christians. All true Christians ought to support the endeavors of these traveling missionaries in their efforts to counteract the heretical teaching of the opponents.


The church mentioned here, which the author says he may visit ( 3 John 10 ) is not the same as the one mentioned in 3 John 6 , to which the author apparently belongs (or of which he is in charge). But what is the relationship of this church in v. 9 to Gaius, to whom the letter is addressed? It is sometimes suggested that Gaius belongs to this church, but that seems unlikely, because the author uses a third-person pronoun to refer to the other members of the church ( among them ). If Gaius were one of these it would have been much more natural to use a second-person pronoun: “Diotrephes, who loves to be first among you .” Thus it seems probable that Gaius belongs to (or is in charge of) one local church while Diotrephes is in another, a church known to Gaius but to which he does not belong.


Diotrephes appears to be an influential person (perhaps the leader) in a local church known to Gaius, but to which Gaius himself does not belong. The description of Diotrephes as one who loves to be first suggests he is arrogant, and his behavior displays this: He refuses to acknowledge the written communication mentioned by the author at the beginning of v. 9 (and thus did not recognize the author’s apostolic authority), and furthermore (v. 10 ) refuses to show any hospitality to the traveling missionaries ( welcome the brothers ) already mentioned by the author. It has been suggested that the description “loves to be first” only indicates that Diotrephes sought prominence or position in this church, and had not yet attained any real authority. But his actions here suggest otherwise: He is able to refuse or ignore the author’s previous written instructions (v. 9 ), and he is able to have other people put out of the church for showing hospitality to the traveling missionaries (v. 10 ).


Because Diotrephes did not recognize the authority of the author, the author will expose his behavior for what it is ( call attention to the deeds he is doing ) if he comes for a visit. These are the charges the author will make against Diotrephes before the church: (1) Diotrephes is engaged in spreading unjustified charges against the author with evil words ; (2) Diotrephes refuses to welcome the brothers (the traveling missionaries) himself; (3) Diotrephes hinders the others in the church who wish to help the missionaries; and (4) Diotrephes expels from the church ( throws them out ) people who aid the missionaries. (Diotrephes himself may not have had supreme authority in the local church to expel these people, but may have been responsible for instigating collective action against them.)


The exhortation do not imitate what is bad but what is good is clearly a reference to Diotrephes’ evil behavior. The author exhorts Gaius (whom he wishes to continue assisting the missionaries) not to follow the negative example of Diotrephes, but to do what is right. Implicitly there may be a contrast between the bad behavior of Diotrephes and the good reputation of Demetrius (mentioned in the following verse); but it seems more likely that Demetrius is himself one of the traveling missionaries (perhaps their leader), rather than the leader of a local congregation who, unlike Diotrephes, has supported the missionaries himself.


The statement The one who does what is bad has not seen God is asyndetic; its abrupt introduction adds emphasis. The statement reiterates the common Johannine theme of behavior as an indication of genuine faith, found in 1 John in 3:6, 10; 4:7, 20 ; and in the Gospel of John in 3:17-21 . By implication, the genuineness of Diotrephes’ faith is called into question, because he has obviously done what is bad (v. 11 b; cf. vv. 9-10 ). In John’s terminology it is clear that the phrase has not seen God is equivalent to “is not a genuine Christian” (see John 3:17-21 and 1 John 3:6, 10; 4:7, 20 ).


Demetrius is apparently someone Gaius would have heard about, but whose character was not known to him. Thus the author is writing to Gaius to attest to Demetrius’ good character. It appears that Demetrius is coming to Gaius’ church and needs hospitality and assistance, so the author is writing to commend him to Gaius and vouch for him. It is difficult to know more about Demetrius with any certainty, but the author is willing to give him a powerful personal endorsement ( We testify to him too ). Demetrius may well have been the leader of a delegation of traveling missionaries, and may even have been the bearer of this letter to Gaius. The writing of letters of introduction to be carried along by representatives or missionaries in NT times is also attested in Paul’s writings ( 1 Cor 16:3 ).


It is possible that the designation friends ( φίλοι , filoi ) indicates that these are personal friends of Gaius who send their greetings, but if this is the case it is somewhat surprising that their names are not mentioned, especially when the author instructs Gaius, Greet the friends there by name . More likely this is an alternative to “brothers” ( ἀδελφοί , adelfoi ) as an early Christian self-designation, especially within the Johannine community. It may have arisen in the Johannine community from Jesus’ teaching in John 15:13-15 , “you are my friends if you do what I command you.”


Although Jude was half-brother of Jesus, he humbly associates himself with James , his full brother. By first calling himself a slave of Jesus Christ , it is evident that he wants no one to place stock in his physical connections. At the same time, he must identify himself further: Since Jude was a common name in the 1st century (two of Jesus’ disciples were so named, including his betrayer), more information was needed, that is to say, brother of James .


The adverb once for all ( ἅπαξ , Japax ) seems to indicate that the doctrinal convictions of the early church had been substantially codified. That is to say, Jude could appeal to written documents of the Christian faith in his arguments with the false teachers. Most likely, these documents were the letters of Paul and perhaps one or more gospels. First and Second Peter may also have been among the documents Jude has in mind (see also the note on the phrase entrusted to the saints in this verse).


I now feel compelled instead…saints. Apparently news of some crisis has reached Jude, prompting him to write a different letter than what he had originally planned. A plausible scenario (assuming authenticity of 2 Peter or at least that there are authentic Petrine snippets in it) is that after Peter’s death, Jude intended to write to the same Gentile readers that Peter had written to (essentially, Paul’s churches). Jude starts by affirming that the gospel the Gentiles had received from Paul was the same as the one the Jewish Christians had received from the other apostles ( our common salvation ). But in the midst of writing this letter, Jude felt that the present crisis deserved another, shorter piece. The crisis, as the letter reveals, is that the false teachers whom Peter prophesied have now infiltrated the church. The letter of Jude is thus an ad hoc letter, intended to confirm the truth of Peter’s letter and encourage the saints to ground their faith in the written documents of the nascent church, rather than listen to the twisted gospel of the false teachers. In large measure, the letter of Jude illustrates the necessity of clinging to the authority of scripture as opposed to those who claim to be prophets.


א A B C 0251 33 81 323 1241 1739 al co) lack θεόν ; the shorter reading is thus preferred on both internal and external grounds. The Greek term for Master ( δεσπότης , despoths ) is the same term the author of 2 Peter used ( 2 Pet 2:1 ) to describe his Lord when he prophesied about these false teachers. Since δεσπότης is used only ten times in the NT, the verbal connection between these two books at this juncture is striking. This is especially so since both Peter and Jude speak of these false teachers as denying the Master (both using the same verb). The basic difference is that Peter is looking to the future, while Jude is arguing that these false teachers are here now.


33 81 623 2344 Ï vg). What seems best able to explain the various placements of the adverb is that scribes were uncomfortable with ἅπαξ referring to the readers’ knowledge, feeling it was more appropriate to the theological significance of “saved” ( σώσας , swsas ). In this translation, Jude is stressing that the readers have been informed once for all of the OT illustrations he is about to mention. Where would they get this information? Most likely from having read 2 Peter. Earlier Jude used the same adverb to indicate that these believers had a written record of the faith. This seems to be his implication here, too. Thus, for the second time Jude is appealing to the written documents of the early church as authoritative as opposed to the messages of the false teachers. As the 1st century began to draw to a close, the early church found itself increasingly dependent on the letters and gospels of the apostles and their associates. Once those apostles died, false apostles and false teachers sprang up, like wolves in sheep’s clothing (cf. Acts 20:29-30 ). To combat this, some of the latest books of the NT stressed the authority of what had been written (so Hebrews, Jude, Ephesians, 1 John). Although these writers anticipated the return of the Lord, they also braced their audiences for a delay of the parousia (the second coming of Christ) by suggesting that when they were gone the NT documents should guide them.


665 915 2298 eth Cyr Hier Bede}. As difficult as the reading ᾿Ιησοῦς is, in light of v. 4 and in light of the progress of revelation (Jude being one of the last books in the NT to be composed), it is wholly appropriate. The construction our Master and Lord, Jesus Christ in v. 4 follows Granville Sharp’s rule (see note on Lord ). The construction strongly implies the deity of Christ. This is followed by a statement that Jesus was involved in the salvation (and later judgment) of the Hebrews. He is thus to be identified with the Lord God, Yahweh. Verse 5 , then, simply fleshes out what is implicit in v. 4 .


There is an interesting play on words used in this verse. Because the angels did not keep their proper place, Jesus has kept them chained up in another place. The same verb keep is used in v. 1 to describe believers’ status before God and Christ.


In 2 Pet 2:4 a less common word for chains is used.


The glorious ones refers to angelic beings rather than mere human beings, just as in 2 Pet 2:10 (on which this passage apparently depends). Whether the angelic beings are good or evil, however, is difficult to tell (hence, the translation is left ambiguous). However, both in 2 Pet 2:11 and here, in Jude 9 , the wicked angels seem to be in view (for not even Michael insults them).


According to Jewish intertestamental literature (such as 1 En. 20), Michael was one of seven archangels.


1243 1846 al ), influenced by the parallel in 2 Pet 2:13 , read ἀπάταις ( apatai" , “deceptions”) for ἀγάπαις ( agapai" , “love-feasts”) in v. 12 . However, ἀγάπαις has much stronger and earlier support and should therefore be considered original. The danger of the false teachers at the love feasts would be especially pernicious, for the love feasts of the early church involved the Lord’s Supper, worship, and instruction.


The imagery portraying the false teachers as autumn trees without fruit has to do with their lack of productivity. Recall the statement to the same effect by Jesus in Matt 7:16-20 , in which false prophets will be known by their fruits. Like waterless clouds full of false hope, these trees do not yield any harvest even though it is expected.


The imagery of a star seems to fit the nautical theme that Jude is developing. Stars were of course the guides to sailors at night, just as teachers are responsible to lead the flock through a benighted world. But false teachers, as wayward stars , are not fixed and hence offer unreliable, even disastrous guidance. They are thus both the dangerous reefs on which the ships could be destroyed and the false guides, leading them into these rocks. There is a special irony that these lights will be snuffed out, reserved for the darkest depths of eternal darkness .


An apparent quotation from 1 En. 1:9. There is some doubt as to whether Jude is actually quoting from the text of 1 Enoch; the text here in Jude differs in some respects from the extant text of this pseudepigraphic book. It is sometimes suggested that Jude may instead have been quoting from oral tradition which had roots older than the written text.


Enchanting folks ( Grk “awing faces”) refers to the fact that the speeches of these false teachers are powerful and seductive.


This verse parallels 2 Pet 3:2 both conceptually and in much of the verbiage. There is one important difference, however: In 2 Pet 3:2 the prophets and apostles speak; here, just the apostles speak. This makes good sense if Jude is using 2 Peter as his main source and is urging his readers to go back to the authoritative writings, both OT and now especially NT.


The imagery here suggests that the things close to the sinners are contaminated by them, presumably during the process of sinning.


The time refers to the time when the things prophesied would happen.


The Greek term translated witness can mean both “witness” and “martyr.”


An allusion to Dan 7:13 .


An allusion to Zech 12:10 .


These lines are placed in parentheses because they form an aside to the main argument.


On seven stars in his right hand see 1:16 .


The Nicolaitans were a sect (sometimes associated with Nicolaus, one of the seven original deacons in the church in Jerusalem according to Acts 6:5 ) that apparently taught that Christians could engage in immoral behavior with impunity.


A synagogue was a place for Jewish prayer and worship, with recognized leadership (e.g., Mt 4:23 , Mk 1:21 , Lk 4:15 , Jn 6:59 ).


On the sharp double-edged sword see 1:16 .


See Num 22-24; 31:16 .


Jezebel was the name of King Ahab’s idolatrous and wicked queen in 1 Kgs 16:31; 18:1-5; 19:1-3; 21:5-24 . It is probable that the individual named here was analogous to her prototype in idolatry and immoral behavior, since those are the items singled out for mention.


To commit sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. Note the conclusions of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:29 , which specifically prohibits Gentile Christians from engaging in these activities.


This pronoun and the following one are plural in the Greek text.


That is, the teaching of Jezebel (v. 20 ).


A quotation from Ps 2:9 (with the line introducing the quotation containing a partial allusion to Ps 2:8 ). See also Rev 12:5, 19:15 .


See the note on synagogue in 2:9 .


Your crown refers to a wreath consisting either of foliage or of precious metals formed to resemble foliage and worn as a symbol of honor, victory, or as a badge of high office – ‘wreath, crown’ (L&N 6.192).


This description of the city of my God is parenthetical, explaining further the previous phrase and interrupting the list of “new names” given here.


Laodicea was near two other towns, each of which had a unique water source. To the north was Hierapolis which had a natural hot spring, often used for medicinal purposes. To the east was Colossae which had cold, pure waters. In contrast to these towns, Laodicea had no permanent supply of good water. Efforts to pipe water to the city from nearby springs were successful, but it would arrive lukewarm. The metaphor in the text is not meant to relate spiritual fervor to temperature. This would mean that Laodicea would be commended for being spiritually cold, but it is unlikely that Jesus would commend this. Instead, the metaphor condemns Laodicea for not providing spiritual healing (being hot) or spiritual refreshment (being cold) to those around them. It is a condemnation of their lack of works and lack of witness.


The city of Laodicea had a famous medical school and exported a powder (called a “Phrygian powder”) that was widely used as an eye salve . It was applied to the eyes in the form of a paste the consistency of dough (the Greek term for the salve here, κολλούριον , kollourion [Latin collyrium ], is a diminutive form of the word for a long roll of bread).


The phrase speaking to me like a trumpet refers back to Rev 1:10 .


Carnelian was a semiprecious gemstone, usually red in color (L&N 2.36).


See the note on the word crown in Rev 3:11 .


Some interpret the seven spirits of God as angelic beings, while others see them as a reference to the sevenfold ministry of the Holy Spirit.


The relative pronoun which is masculine, referring back to the eyes rather than to the horns .


See the note on the phrase the seven spirits of God in Rev 4:5 .


This interpretive comment by the author forms a parenthesis in the narrative.


A balance scale would have been a rod held by a rope in the middle with pans attached to both ends for measuring.


An allusion to Isa 25:8 .


A golden censer was a bowl in which incense was burned. The imagery suggests the OT role of the priest.


Wormwood refers to a particularly bitter herb with medicinal value. According to L&N 3.21, “The English term wormwood is derived from the use of the plant as a medicine to kill intestinal worms.” This remark about the star’s name is parenthetical in nature.


Both the Hebrew Abaddon and the Greek Apollyon mean “Destroyer.”


The colors of the riders’ breastplates parallel the three plagues of fire, smoke, and sulfur in v. 18 .


The holy city appears to be a reference to Jerusalem. See also Luke 21:24 .


This description is parenthetical in nature.


Sun … moon … stars . This imagery is frequently identified with the nation Israel because of Joseph’s dream in .


The archangel Michael had a special role in protecting the nation of Israel in the OT ( Dan 10:13, 21; 12:1 ; see also Jude 9 ).


They did not love their lives. See Matt 16:25 ; Luke 17:33 ; John 12:25 .


א A and the rest of the ms tradition} . There is apparently no reason for the scribe of C to intentionally omit the phrase, and the fact that the word “time” ( καιρὸν καὶ καιρούς , kairon kai kairou" ) appears twice before may indicate a scribal oversight. The parallel statement in Rev 12:6 suggests that the phrase a time, times, and half a time equals 1,260 days (three and a half years of 360 days each).


puts the plural in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity. Whether this means a single name on all seven heads or seven names, one on each head, is not clear.


This second beast is identified in Rev 16:13 as “the false prophet.”


The fall of Babylon the great city is described in detail in Rev 18:2-24 .


The winepress was stomped. See Isa 63:3 , where Messiah does this alone (usually several individuals would join in the process).


See Rev 4:6 where the sea of glass was mentioned previously.


Because you alone are holy. In the Greek text the sentence literally reads “because alone holy.” Three points can be made in connection with John’s language here: (1) Omitting the second person, singular verb “you are” lays stress on the attribute of God’s holiness. (2) The juxtaposition of alone with holy stresses the unique nature of God’s holiness and complete “otherness” in relationship to his creation. It is not just moral purity which is involved in the use of the term holy , though it certainly includes that. It is also the pervasive OT idea that although God is deeply involved in the governing of his creation, he is to be regarded as separate and distinct from it. (3) John’s use of the term holy is also intriguing since it is the term ὅσιος ( Josios ) and not the more common NT term ἅγιος ( Jagios ). The former term evokes images of Christ’s messianic status in early Christian preaching. Both Peter in Acts 2:27 and Paul in Acts 13:35 apply Psalm 16:10 (LXX) to Jesus, referring to him as the “holy one” ( ὅσιος ). It is also the key term in Acts 13:34 ( Isa 55:3 [LXX]) where it refers to the “holy blessings” (i.e., forgiveness and justification) brought about through Jesus in fulfillment of Davidic promise. Thus, in Rev 15:3-4 , when John refers to God as “holy,” using the term ὅσιος in a context where the emphasis is on both God and Christ, there might be an implicit connection between divinity and the Messiah. This is bolstered by the fact that the Lamb is referred to in other contexts as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (cf. 1:5; 17:14; 19:16 and perhaps 11:15 ; G. K. Beale, Revelation [NIGTC], 796-97).


According to the next verse, these three unclean spirits are spirits of demons.


These lines are parenthetical, forming an aside to the narrative. The speaker here is the Lord Jesus Christ himself rather than the narrator. Many interpreters have seen this verse as so abrupt that it could not be an original part of the work, but the author has used such asides before ( 1:7; 14:13 ) and the suddenness here (on the eve of Armageddon) is completely parallel to Jesus’ warning in Mark 13:15-16 and parallels.


Every island fled away and no mountains could be found. Major geographical and topographical changes will accompany the Day of the Lord.


Thrown down is a play on both the words and the action. The angel’s action with the stone illustrates the kind of sudden violent force with which the city will be overthrown.


This phrase is treated as a parenthetical explanation by the author.


He stomps the winepress. See Isa 63:3 , where Messiah does this alone (usually several individuals would join in the process), and Rev 14:20 .


This statement appears to be a parenthetical comment by the author.


The battle with Gog and Magog is described in the OT in Ezek 38:1-39:20 .


Here Death is personified (cf. 1 Cor 15:55 ).


Agate (also called chalcedony) is a semiprecious stone usually milky or gray in color (L&N 2.32).


Onyx (also called sardonyx) is a semiprecious stone that comes in various colors (L&N 2.35).


Carnelian is a semiprecious gemstone, usually red in color (L&N 2.36).


Chrysolite refers to either quartz or topaz, golden yellow in color (L&N 2.37).


Beryl is a semiprecious stone, usually blue-green or green in color (L&N 2.38).


Chrysoprase is a greenish type of quartz (L&N 2.40).


Jacinth is a semiprecious stone, probably blue in color (also called “hyacinth,” but that translation is not used here because of possible confusion with the flower of the same name). See L&N 2.41.


These lines are parenthetical, forming an aside to the narrative. The speaker here is the Lord Jesus Christ himself rather than the narrator.