July 7, 2012 – 1 John 1 – 2

Not a reflection on what is written, but a question to all those that think because it says Christ had brothers, Mary was not a perpetual virgin, when it says the new commandment is love “his brother”, does that mean only my biological brother.  What about my sister, cousin, neighbor, enemy.  Just wondered what thoughts were on that. 

Another issue people bring up with Catholics is the “call no man father”, but we have priest we call fathers.  Who is John writing to when he says “I am writing to you, fathers”.  (2:13)  And it is lower case fathers, distinguished from verse 14 when it says “because you know the Father”.  Who is John writing to if Christ commanded to call no man father, unless Christ was talking about God the Father and commanding against idolatry.

2:15 “If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”  Here is the idea of trying to fill the hole in our heart that is made for God with worldly things put into Scripture.  If we fill that hole with what is not God, God cannot be in it.  We also see that what the world calls love, such as sensual lust, is not from God.  I like how it describes it as sensual “lust” not being from God, because God did make acts that are sensual and they are good and confirming and can be used to build a relationship.  It is when they are deformed into something that is lustful that they become sinful.  The marital act is made to be pleasurable, God made it so.  But if it is not done in with the commitment of marriage to reinforce it, with the Grace of God to fulfill it, with the openness to allow God into it, it becomes something only done for lust and physical pleasure.  A lustful act, done between to married people, can still be wrong.  Marriage does not give the right to either party to begin lusting after physical pleasure alone. 

I know I went on and on about Truth and Authority when John’s Gospel talked on that, but here it is again.  John talks about those that were with them, but left. (so much for once saved, always saved)  Where were these verses when Luther made his departure.  You would think someone that was so learned, and I admit that he was scholarly, would have gone over these verses a couple of times in his education.  What did he think John was talking about when he said some left and John’s teaching about not following them.  “you do [know the truth], and because every lie it alien to the truth”.  (2:21) 

I admit that I am confused by 2:27.  “As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him.”  I can see how this could be used to say that we do not need a religious authority but have all of God’s knowledge and interpretation inside us and given to us by God.  If this were the only verse in the Bible that you read, I could understand that.  But it is not.  This must be read in the context of the rest of the Bible.  Not only the rest of the Bible, but the rest of the Chapter that it is in.  John just got done talking about those that were teaching differently and not to follow them.  And he is teaching them not to listen or that they don’t need teachers.  If you interpret this verse as saying we do not need a religious authority, the verse itself has no authority.  You don’t need to listen to John’s teaching anymore than any other teacher.  You can interpret things on your own.  There is no way to interpret this verse to mean religion is not necessary.