God is love

D.v. I'm preaching on 1 Jn 4 on Sunday AM.

I remember thinking about this once but I can't remember what I thought!

Is God's love more essential to him than his other attributes (virtues or dispositions)?

John also tells us that "God is light", of course.

Could we say "God is holiness", "God is justice", "God is wisdom", "God is wrath" etc.?

I guess we need to dig out our notes on the essence and attributes of God, eternality and divine simplicity and so on.

God's love is clearly fundamental to his Trinitarian life in a way that wrath is not.

True Love

God willing I'm preaching on Sunday morning, which is, of course, St Valentine's Day. I've published the title "True Love" and decided on 1 John 4:7-21 as the reading.

It might go something like:

The Bible as the greatest love story ever: the romance of God and his people

(1) God's love
(2) Our love for God
(3) Our love for one another

Any pointers, tips, resources, links to sermons, quotes, gags, illustrations etc. most welcome.

1 John Bible Study Notes & Commentaries

Here are some notes for homegroup leaders on 1 John (in a Word document).

I've used:

Nathan Buttery, How to be sure: the Good Book Guide to 1 John (The Good Book Company, 2006)

and:

John Stott, Epistles of John Tyndale New Testament Commentary (IVP, 1964)

and bits of:


David Jackman, The Message of John's Letters The Bible Speaks Today Series (IVP, 1988).

I barely opened:

I Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1978)

and:

Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John Pillar New Testament (Eerdmans / Apollos, 2000)

Jesus the Real One

Another good moment from Stott:

... Jesus called Himself the 'true' or 'real' [ale_the_s] Bread and Vine (Jn. vi. 32, xv. 1), as opposed to the baker's bread and the farmer's vine which are shadows of which He is the substance (and not vice versa)...

on 1 John 5:20 in Epistles of John, Tyndale NT Comm., IVP, 1964, p195

The water and the blood

Toiling away on 1 John for homegroup notes.

There are various theories about what John means by “the water and the blood” in 1 John 5v6-7.

According to John Stott, Luther and Calvin took the water and the blood as references to baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Augustine saw a reference to the water and the blood that flowed from Jesus pierced side after his death (John 19:34-35).

According to John Stott, the most satisfactory reading (which goes back to Tertullian) is to take “water as referring to the baptism of Jesus, at which He was declared the Son and commissioned and empowered for his work, and blood to His death, in which His work was finished.” (p178). The false teachers John is opposing may have held that Jesus was an ordinary man on whom the “Christ” descended at his baptism and departed before the cross. John is thus insisting on the reality of the incarnation and especially of the death of the Christ.

Interpretative maximalists might like to know that Stott is somewhat sympathetic to some place for the other readings:

Having accepted that the primary reference of this verse is to the historical events of the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus, it is not impossible that it also contains secondary allusions, since the past events remain present witnesses (8). 'Water and blood', which occur together in some of the Levitical rituals, are intelligible symbols of 'purification and redemption' (Plummer). ... To these aspects of salvation [justification and sanctification] Jesus himself had referred in the discourses which John recorded in chapters iii, iv and vii ('water') and vi ('blood') of his Gospel. Perhaps John also saw them set forth once in the issue of blood and water from the side of the Crucified, and even regularly in the two sacraments. (p179)

Epistles of John, Tyndale NT Comm., IVP, 1964, pp177-179