Getting Biblical in Daily Life
Christian Perspective
The Epistles of John hit on tons of Christian issues. Hey, what did you expect from New Testament letters about Jesus?
(1) The elder throws in a couple references to "the last hour" (1 John 2:18). The guy clearly thinks that the world is about to end and Jesus is gonna come back very, very soon.
Hmmm. This book is still part of most mainstream Christian theology to this day…and Christians are still waiting.
(2) John's Epistles also provide some support for the doctrine of the trinity…sort of.
When we talk about the trinity, we just mean the belief that that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all the same person. It's kind of like Fight Club, except you're allowed to talk about it.
Here's the deal: 1 John 5:17 is sometimes called the Comma Johanneum. It doesn't appear in every version of the Bible, but in the King James text it reads: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Though that's a pretty impressive endorsement of the trinity, most scholars think it was a later addition and wasn't an original part of the elder's letter. In fact, most Bibles today don't have it. Take that, ancient-verse-adders.
(3) How else did the elder influence Christian thought for centuries to come? Well, he gave us that charming biblical slam: "antichrist" (1 John 2:18, 22, 4:4, 2 John 1:7).
Christians really took this and ran…sometimes, right off a cliff. Anyone who's anyone been called the antichrist.
- The Protestant Reformers thought the Pope was the antichrist.
- The Sex Pistols called themselves the antichrist.
- Some surveys would have you believe that 25% of Americans think or thought President Obama is the antichrist.
Yowza.
According to the elder, the antichrist is anyone who says they're doing the will of Jesus but isn't. (See: his opponents.) Though lots of folks lump the antichrist in with the beasts in Revelation or the Man of Sin from 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10, the antichrist is its own unique burn.
Lutheran Perspective
Followers of Martin Luther, that guy who started the whole Protestant Reformation thing, sometimes regard 2 John and 3 John (and a couple other Bible books) with suspicion. Luther himself called out these books as "antilegomena," which just meant that they're not as universally accepted as the other New Testament tales. Lutherans still have all three Epistles of John in their Bibles today, but the last two sometimes get some extra shrugs (source).
Luther might have been better off dissing 1 John, which some folks use to argue against his thoughts on sola fide (or "by faith alone"). Basically, Luther argued that believing in Jesus was enough to reach salvation. People didn't have to worry about doing good deeds to get into Heaven; they just had to put their faith in Jesus and all would be swell.
But the elder contradicts this at a few points:
Now by this we may be sure that we know him, if we obey his commandments. Whoever says, "I have come to know him," but does not obey his commandments, is a liar, and in such a person the truth does not exist; but whoever obeys his word, truly in this person the love of God has reached perfection. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says, "I abide in him," ought to walk just as he walked. (1 John 2:3-6)
Let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action. (1 John 3:18)
Sure, faith is important, but actions matter, too. In the end, Luther didn't hold it against the elder, but non-Protestants have never quite forgotten these passages.
Mormon Perspective
Mormons have a kind of subtle, nuanced view of the antichrist. They believe that the antichrist refers to anyone who seems to be Christ-like but is actually trying to bring Jesus down.
The elder would definitely agree.
For Mormons, Lucifer is the ultimate antichrist (no surprise there), but "he has many assistants" (source). Better be on your guard.
Jewish Perspective
Even though the majority of New Testament books are pretty heavy on the Jewish references, John's Epistles have hardly any shout-outs to Hebrew scripture or Jewish tradition. What a goy, that elder.
The only Hebrew Bible namedropping he includes is his one and only reference to Cain and Abel:
We must not be like Cain who was from the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous. (1 John 3:12)
Makes sense, since the community of believers that followed John's Gospel probably weren't ethically Jewish. That just means they wouldn't have been familiar with Hebrew scripture and wouldn't have been moved by arguments made from a Jewish point of view. Jesus and Paul are ultra Jewish by comparison.
On the plus side, since the elder avoids mentioning the Jewish people, he also avoids calling them out as terrible, sinful, Christ-deniers. Sadly, that's what happens in a lot of other New Testament books. Though the elder clearly doesn't have love for anyone who doesn't accept Jesus as the divine Son of God, at least he's not fueling the anti-Semitic fires.
Islamic Perspective
The Qur'an mentions Jesus—he's called 'Iesa in Arabic—around 25 times. Nice namedropping.
But as far as the Epistles of John go, Muslims would probably part ways with the elder on a few key issues. While the elder is pretty clear that Jesus' death is essential to understanding who he is, Muslims don't believe that Jesus was ever crucified at all.
Even though most scholars think the crucifixion is a historical certainty, the Qur'an says that Jesus did not die at the hands of the Romans. Instead, it says that the enemies of Jesus would boast:
"Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him […] Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. (4:157-8)
Muslims don't mean any disrespect by this. It's actually the opposite: they think Jesus is far too great a guy to have been executed. Islamic tradition teaches that Allah just made it look like Jesus died on the cross, even though he actually ascended into heaven unharmed. It's inconsistent with Islamic ideas about God that someone so faithful would be allowed to suffer and die. Of course, the elder doesn't see it that way at all.
One other thing. You know the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit situation that the elder mentions a couple times? Muslims don't agree with that tenet of Christian faith either. They tend to be pretty firm about there being only one God:
Do not say, "Three," desist—It is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. (4:171)
Translation: it's a no-go for the Trinity.
The Qur'an does promise that "those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans [before Prophet Muhammad…] will have their reward with their Lord" (2:62). So maybe there's hope for the elder after all.