Scripture Commentary & Exegesis

1 John 1:6 – Do the Truth

October 16, 2020 By Ben Zornes Leave a Comment

If we say that we have fellowship with Him but walk in darkness we lie and do not the truth.
1 John 1:6

John is concerned about a few errors which have cropped up in the early days of the Christian church. John shows us a wonderful example of the truth that fighting wolves is doctrine in action. The first wolf he fights is that of the Nicolaitans. Their namesake, Nicolas, was––according to the early church father Irenaeus^⁠1––one of the first seven deacons. They believed they could follow God while indulging in all sorts of fleshly and carnal activities; most notably, they practiced ”spouse-sharing”. In Revelation, we’re told the Lord hates the deeds and doctrine of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:6, 15).

So, John in continuing the contrast of light and dark of verse 5 points out that since darkness is not at all in God, it is nonsensical to think that we His children can walk in darkness and still have fellowship with the Light. The Hebrew word for “walk” הלך, carried the idea of one’s manner of life. That sense is continued here in the Greek.

Through the Life manifested in the flesh, Jesus the Christ, we enjoy fellowship with God who is Light. John is teaching that our union with God will result in moral reformation in our “walk” or manner of life. To put it in more systematic theological terms, our justification leads to our sanctification, and to claim that you have fellowship with God while continuing the pursuit of your dark deeds of lust is a lie. We should also note that this lie is presented not doing the truth. An application of this verse is that the truth is something which we should act upon. We should “do the truth” by not walking in darkness, and presuming to also enjoy fellowship with the triune God.

¹Against Heresies – Chapter XXVI.3

1 John 1:5 – God is Light

September 4, 2020 By Ben Zornes Leave a Comment

This then is the promise which we have heard of him and announce unto you, that God is light, and darkness is not at all in Him.
1 John 1:5

John now commences with the body of his joyful message. The word order in Greek is unique and masterfully emphasizes that this message is, i.e. exists.^⁠1 Then he moves on to the content of the announcement. He begins with the first of many contrasts.

This letter contains a series of contrasts: light and dark, truth and lies, love and hate, Christ and Anti-Christ, life and death, born of God and born of the devil, etc. If this epistle were a photo, it would be notable for its high contrast. The darks would be pitch black. The whites would be shining bright.

The first contrast which John introduces is that of light and dark. The apostles received a promise from the Eternal Life which came in the flesh. They heard this promise from Jesus––who is the manifested Life––and now announce it to the world.

God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. Or as I have rendered it to draw out the double negative found in the Greek: ”darkness is not at all in Him.” John is at pains to make plain that God is not a yin-yang. Darkness (I.e. sin, evil) can have no fellowship with God. Christ coming in the flesh is the basis for our fellowship with God (1:3), but God is light, which means that our moral darkness will need to be dealt with.

This raises a problem which John will soon answer: how can sin-darkened man can dwell in God? The starting point to answer that question is this statement of God’s being. He is light. Note too that John is providing foundational language which will moor the church throughout the ages. God is light (1:5). God is love (4:8b). Christ is the eternal life of God manifested in the flesh (1:2). Make no mistake God’s nature and character are foundational for true religion, for true fellowship with God.

¹Kistemaker, James, Epistles of John, Peter, and Jude. Pg. 241

Baptize Those Babies

July 31, 2020 By Ben Zornes Leave a Comment

No Problem Passages

As I was coming around to the paedobaptist position several years ago, many of the arguments I read for it tended to shy away from relying heavily on the household baptisms of Acts 16. Those arguing for the credobaptist position seemed to hold a trump card on those passages with a simple dismissive, “Yeah but, the text doesn’t saaay that there were babies baptized.” It has struck me as odd that these passages are not one of the primary starting points for arguing for the peadobaptist position.

I’d like to show why the household baptisms of Acts 16 really are foundational in setting the precedent for infant baptism. This passage doesn’t need to be avoided in defending the paedobaptist position. It gives clear scriptural warrant for infant baptism.

Abraham’s Story

First off, we must begin by establishing some OT background. The sign of the covenant which was given to Abraham, to signify the promise which God had made to him and to his seed, was the circumcision of all the males of his household. God promised––and throughout Abram’s story reestablished and expanded on that promise––to bless all the nations by Abram’s Seed, and that his descendants would be more numerous than the stars in the heavens and the sand on the shore (Gen. 12:3, Gen. 15:5). This is what Abram believed and what God counted as righteousness to him (Gen. 15:6). After the Ishmael episode of Gen. 16, God comes again to Abram, changes his name to Abraham, and gives the sign of the covenant: the circumcision of his entire household. This was to be performed on every male of Abraham’s household (whether slave, servant, steward, or son); and from then on out, every male child which was born into his house was to receive this covenant sign (Gen. 17:1-14).

The sign signified that God would bless all nations by Abraham’s Seed. The sign established an eternal covenant between God and Abraham and his seed, that they would possess the land and He would be their God. Paul insists that the singular of “in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed (Gen. 22:18)” refers to Christ (Gal. 3:16). In other words, Christ received the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham, and now in Christ God continues that promise by blessing all nations with the Gospel of His Son’s universal reign of planet earth. The earth belongs to Christ, and He is now administering His reign of justice and peace. His reign shall bless the whole world, and of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end.

As you can see, paedobaptism cannot be extricated from its postmillennial context. As an autobiographical aside, for me it was the postmillennial vision which captured my imagination first, and its best friend paedobaptism came obediently along as well. It was also around this time that my first child was born, and I remember as I held her in my arms, thinking something like, “Darn it, I’m a paedobaptist.”

Now, Back to Acts

Since we’re Christians who believe the Bible, let’s look carefully at the text which presents the household baptisms of Acts 16. First we need to set the textual stage. What important episode preceded these accounts of entire households being baptized?

The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:4-5).

What happened there? To summarize, Jewish and Gentile believers were trying to iron out the sign of the covenant. Was it circumcision as given to Abraham and fulfilled in Christ (as the sect of the Pharisees were insisting––Acts 15:5), or was it now exclusively baptism as given by Christ to the whole world? If the former, then Paul and the Gentile believers were concerned about the yoke being placed on Gentile believers in coming to Christ. Were they really “in”?

After “much disputing (Acts 15:7)” , the Apostles Peter and James deliver the verdict. The Jerusalem Council, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, decreed “to lay upon [the Gentile believers] no greater burden” than abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols, eating blood, things strangled, and fornication (Acts 15:28-29). In short, circumcision was not necessary for these Gentile believers. They were “in” in full. They were counted as stars in the constellations of Abraham’s faith. They were grains of sand on the seashore of the people of God. By the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ the believing Gentiles were as saved as the believing Jews (Acts. 15:11). God had already made it clear to Peter that the Lord intended to take out of the Gentiles a people for His name (Acts 15:14).

Immediately after is Paul’s dispute with Barnabas (Acts 15:36-41), which centered on John Mark, who was likely sympathetic to the Judaizer/circumcision argument. Paul is about to take the Apostles’ letters to the Gentile believers, informing them of the good news that circumcision was not required, and he refuses to bring along someone (John Mark) who could likely be contentious about the circumcision issue. Paul and Barnabas separate and Silas goes with Paul instead.

But just because God likes to mess up our categories, Acts 16 kicks off with Paul, of all people, circumcising the young man Timothy because his mother was a Jewess (Acts 16:1-3). While at first blush this might seem like we’re dealing with a different Paul, this is actually an important component to the whole issue I’m defending here. Paul had no issue with giving the sign of circumcision to a young half-jewish boy, because he had been born into a covenant home. Timothy should have been circumcised as an infant on the eighth day. This having not been done, Paul––seeing the gifting which God had placed on Timothy (1 Tim. 4:14)––circumcised Timothy so that he’d have no impediment to ministry amongst the Jewish community of his hometown of Lystra.

Again, this is all setting the stage for the disputed household baptisms later in this chapter. but notice that a circumcision based on the household’s covenantal status starts this chapter.

Get Them Gentiles Wet

As Paul proceeds on his missionary venture, he preaches the Gospel to some women by the riverside (Acts. 16:13); one of whom was a wealthy woman named Lydia. She attended to the gospel which Paul preached (Acts 16:14), and then the consequence of her faith was the baptism of her entire household (Acts 16:15).

Shortly thereafter, Paul lands himself in trouble, as he is wont to do. To abbreviate the story, after being thrown in the slammer, and being delivered by the Lord sending a midnight earthquake, Paul preaches the Gospel to the Philippian jailer: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house (Acts 16:31).” The jailer brings them to his home, and “he and all his” were baptized straightway (Acts 16:32-33).

A Tale of Three Households

This chapter has three households receiving a covenant sign. The first is a Jewish home being put in order by ensuring that the son received the covenant sign. The next two are Gentile households (very likely including slaves and children) receiving the covenant sign of baptism, in accordance with what the Jerusalem Council had recently decreed. Paul administers circumcision in one household, followed by baptism in the next two.

Remember Abraham. God gives him a promise, and then a covenant sign of the promise (i.e. circumcision), and then the story tells us that what follows is Abraham’s obedience to circumcise his entire household (Gen. 18:23-27). So, when the Apostles determined that believing Gentiles need not receive the sign of circumcision, we are immediately confronted with, whaddya know, households. One is a Jewish home, where a Jewish boy has not received the sign of the covenant given to Abraham. This home was a godly home, and in this matter, Paul saw to it that they obeyed what God had commanded His people, the Jews. In the next two households, Paul and Silas do not hesitate to baptize entire households so that they too might be obedient to all that Christ had commanded (Mt. 28:18-20).

Notice that the Jerusalem Council didn’t decree that Jewish believers should desist from circumcising their children, and in fact Paul’s circumcising Timothy would indicate that sons and daughters of Jewish believers should not think of themselves as on the outside looking in. But what we have is that Jewish households who believe in Jesus as the Christ and Gentile households which believe in Jesus as the Christ are members of Abraham’s household of faith. Paul administers a covenantal sign to a Jewish boy who should have been circumcised in infancy; and then proceeds to administer the covenant sign (just like Abraham had done in obedience to God’s command) to entire households.

Smoking Gun

The complaint that is raised against using these passages as a defense of the practice of household baptism is that infants are not expressly mentioned. To such arguments peadobaptists all too often acquiesce, and scurry over to other passages. All of those passages certainly support the argument for infant baptism (1 Cor. 10:1-2, Eph. 6:1, Acts 2:39, etc.). But Acts 16 is a smoking gun. The bullet may not be there, but that ringing in your ears and that tang of smoke you smell is the bullet that went flying out yonder.

Yes, the explicit description of the Apostle baptizing babies is not present. But to complain of such an absence in light of the narrative’s structure is like complaining that Tolkein neglected to describe who all was present when Aragorn led his army to the Black Gate.

The Apostles’ decreed that Gentile believers (children of Abraham by faith) need not receive the OT sign of the covenant (i.e. circumcision). In obedience and application of this decree Paul goes out and applies covenantal signs to three households. In the two Gentile households of Lydia and the Phillipian Jailer (and earlier with Cornelius in Acts 10) we have echoes of Abraham’s call, reception of the covenant sign, and then obedience in applying it to the entire household. All of this is done in the light of the decree of the Apostles’ council in Jerusalem: Gentile believers need not receive the Abrahamic covenantal sign (circumcision). But like Abraham, they should bring themselves and their whole household to walk in obedience to the Lord of heaven and earth.

Thus, as we are told of the Phillipian Jailer’s household, he and all of his were baptized, and then they shared a family meal with Paul and Silas with rejoicing, and “believing in God with all his house (Acts 16:34).” We’re not told whether every last member was fully tracking with what was going on, but we are told that this former pagan was now enjoying a Christian feast and brought his whole household along with him in receiving this sign that he belonged at Abraham’s table, he belonged in Abraham’s house, and his whole family could come too because they were baptized into Christ Jesus whose Gospel proclaims: “whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (1 Jn. 5:1).”

One Thread

Again, this is not the complete argument for paedobaptism. My point here is that the story being told in the Old Testament story of Abraham is the same story which is recapitulated in Acts 16. The story of God bringing individuals, families, cities, and nations from the four corners of the world into His kingdom. Acts 16 is just one thread in the argument for paedobaptism, but it is a thread which need not be avoided just because somebody teased us presbyterians about it one time. It is a story of God sending an Apostle to set households in order by obedient faith in what the covenant signs signify.

1 John 1:4 – Silos Full of Joy

July 17, 2020 By Ben Zornes Leave a Comment

And these things we write unto you so that your joy may be completely full.
1 John 1:4

We come to the purpose statement of this epistle. This purpose statement is glorious in its simplicity, and yet there are deep fathoms here. John has hard things yet to address; he has anti-christs to warn against, he has comfort which needs to be given, he has complex theological/philosophical ideas to explain, and he has sin to rebuke. But he doesn’t front-load any of that. Rather, he reminds his readers that everything which is written to them is intended to make their joy full.

He expands on this purpose statement in the closing sentences of his epistle, and there he says that he has written that they “may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God (1 Jn. 5:13 KJV).” In order to fill their cups brimful with joy, their joy must be tethered to the Eternal Life which comes through faith in the name of the Son of God. Which is the main melody which is recapitulated throughout this letter.

So, John is not interested in just making them circumstantially happy. Rather, he explains that all he is going to write unto them is to the end that they may be in a state of being supremely joyful. He writes these things so that their joy might be complete, overflowing, spilling over, and with a cherry on top.

The Greek word which I translate here as “completely full” is πεπληρωμένη; another time this exact inflection of the word is used is when Jesus tells the disciples to “ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full (Jn. 16:24).” There the joy is full by asking of the Father in Jesus name. Here our joy is full by receiving the words which John proclaims. Putting those two passages together we see that the believer’s joy is made full by praying to the Father in Jesus and hearing from the Father of Jesus.

1 John 1:3 – Invitation to Fellowship

May 28, 2020 By Ben Zornes Leave a Comment

That which we have seen and heard, report we to you, in order that you too might have fellowship with us and moreover, our fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
1 John 1:3

This verse introduces one of the major themes of John’s epistle. That theme is that the manifested Word which John was a witness of (i.e. had seen and heard, vs. 1-2) is being reported to them in order that they might have fellowship with both the witnesses of the Word made Flesh, and with the Father and His Christ.

Note how John has gradually linked the Word (logos) with eternal life (zoe) and now makes explicit what has been implicit. The Word of Life made manifest is none other than Jesus Christ. But another claim is made here, that of Christ’s sonship. We also see how for John, theology and philosophy are servants to fellowship, not vice versa.

John’s readers were confronted with a perceived problem regarding Jesus’ relationship to God. John gets right to the point: Jesus was the Christ and was the Son of the Father, and was the Word, and was the Life, and was there from the beginning. And none of that is contradictory. Very simply, he leaves no wiggle room to heretical notions of Christ’s humanity or divinity.

But notice too the vital tone of familial relation (i.e. Father to Son). John will revisit multiple times in this epistle the importance of fellowship with God (through Christ), and the resulting fellowship we enjoy with our brother. The letter’s purpose statement in this verse (and the next) is presented as an invitation to the readers to enjoy union (fellowship) with the Father and His Son. This is both a safeguard against the heresies which the early church was tempted by, and a boon of encouragement in the persecution and distresses they faced.

1 John 1:2 – Life Manifested

May 21, 2020 By Ben Zornes Leave a Comment

And the Life was manifested and we have seen it and we bear witness and show unto you that eternal Life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us.
1 John 1:2

Continuing his assertion, John insists on the manifestation of the Life. More than a solitary witness, he includes a group of witnesses (presumably referring to the entire apostolic witness). Because they had seen the Life manifested, they were now compelled to bear witness and proclaim these glad tidings. The term “bear witness” (μαρτυρέω martyreo) will recur throughout this epistle, and we should remember how this theme of bearing witness crops up throughout John’s Gospel and his Apocalyptic vision (Jn 1:8, 5:31, 18:37, Rev. 1:2, 22:20). John has ascended the witness stand to testify to events which he had been a spectator of.

The next verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν apaggellō) is a striking one in that it is related to the word angel/messenger. It means to bring tidings. We should think of the angels bringing glad tidings of the Savior of the World born in the stable. John, a man, is now taking on the task that in the Old Testament had generally been reserved for angels. He is proclaiming, heralding, bringing tidings of the manifestation of the eternal Life. Man is being brought into the Life of God by the manifestation of the Life which was with the Father. Here we also have the basis for later formulations of Trinitarian doctrine. The Word of Life was separate from the Father, but was with the Father. John is putting Jesus’ own words––“I and the Father are One”––in the philosophical terms of the first century.

1 John 1:1 – A Cosmic Epistle

May 14, 2020 By Ben Zornes Leave a Comment

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.
1 John 1:1

The construction of the introductory phrase is unmistakably linked to Genesis, as well as John’s Gospel account. This anchors the current events (which John will address later) to cosmic events. In other words, protology and eschatology and everything between revolves around this Word of Life. The Greek has a definite article before beginning, which carries an important theological implication. John is not talking about “a” beginning, but about the cosmic beginning.

But though he is speaking in big cosmological/philosophical terms (i.e. arche, logos, zoe), he is standing up as a witness (more on that in later verses) to having heard, seen, beheld, and touched this Word of Life. He states that the “we” (he and the other apostles/witnesses) had indeed heard and seen the Word of Life.

The tense and mood here are helpful in that John is emphatic that this has taken place, not that it is something that might take place, or that he is opining for. While the “hearing” and “seeing” are in the perfect tense, the “looking upon” and the “handling” are in the aorist tense. This strengthens John’s evidence in emphasizing both a punctiliar aspect to these events, while simultaneously pointing towards the ongoing nature of the Apostles’ relationship with the Word of Life. The tense also keeps these verbs from being so broad as to remain in the realm of theoretical pipe dreams. John is standing up as a witness to cosmological events which were experienced by tangible––and indeed ongoing––interaction with a person: this Word of Life.