3. Analysis Of 1 John
INTRODUCTION
1. Character and Purpose
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN neither begins nor ends like an epistle. It does not start with any indication of the identity of the writer or of the people whom he addresses,35 nor does it end with personal greetings. In form and content it is a message of encouragement and reassurance, sent to a group of Christians who were perplexed and bewildered by recent happenings in their midst. We cannot be sure whether it was sent to a single church or to several churches in an area. What is reasonably certain is that the recipients lived in some district of the province of Asia, and that shortly before the sending of this message some of their most talented brethren had left them in order to form a new community or communities devoted to a specially attractive line of teaching which was represented as an advance on anything that Christians had been taught thus far. When we say it was especially attractive, we mean that it was especially attractive to people of some intellectual attainment. For the ordinary rank and file of Christians it had less appeal; indeed, it was not intended for them, but rather for an elite of spiritual initiates. It deviated from the teaching which had previously been current among the churches of Asia in theory and practice alike.
In its theory it closely resembled the docetic brand of Gnosticism; in particular, it denied that Jesus Christ had “come in the flesh” (1 John 4:2 f.). In the particular climate of opinion to which this teaching owed its existence, “thoughtful men” could not be expected to believe in the “crude” incarnationalism of the primitive message, and it was a relief to have a restatement of Christianity presented to them which did not compel them to be obscurantists or to keep different areas of knowledge in watertight compartments.
The restating of the gospel is a necessary task which must engage the serious concern of those who wish to commend it to their fellows in each succeeding generation. In the first Christian century no one played a more conspicuous or successful part in re-stating the gospel than John himself did. A comparison of the Synoptic Gospels with the Fourth Gospel makes it plain that in the latter the message of the former has been transposed into a different key. Yet the message which John thus transposes or restates is the same essential message as that of the earlier Evangelists, but presented in an idiom which was more intelligible to Hellenistic readers in the eastern Mediterranean two generations after the saving events had taken place—in an idiom which was calculated to bring out the eternal validity of those events, and which in fact continues even in our day to bring out their eternal validity. There can be a true restatement of the gospel as there can be a false one. Everything depends on whether the essence of the gospel is preserved or lost in the restatement. Since the incarnation of the Son of God is of the abiding essence of the gospel, the Cerinthian restatement or anything of the same general character could not be accepted as truly Christian.
On the practical level these new teachers claimed to have reached such an advanced stage in spiritual experience that they were “beyond good and evil.” They maintained that they had no sin, not in the sense that they had attained moral perfection but in the sense that what might be sin for people at a less mature stage of inner development was no longer sin for the completely “spiritual” man. For him ethical distinctions had ceased to be relevant. Perhaps he called them “merely” ethical distinctions. (Christians stand on the brink of disaster when they begin to modify the adjective “ethical” with the adverb “merely”). The new teaching thus combined a new theology with a new morality.
Neither theology nor morality is necessarily the worse for being “new.” When our Lord began His public ministry in Galilee His hearers recognized that what He brought was “a new teaching” (Mark 1:27); and those who listened to the Sermon on the Mount were aware that they were being presented with a “new morality,” for all our Lord’s claim that He was but reaffirming the essence of the law and the prophets, “for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes” (Matthew 7:29). The question to be asked of all teaching is not “Is it new?” but “Is it true?” When this latter question was put to the new teaching with which John takes issue, the answer was that it was not true. It could not be, for it was at variance with the truth incarnate in Jesus. Far from bringing out the deeper implications of the gospel, it utterly subverted it. No appeal to the principle of complementarity could reconcile the one to the other.
In such a situation it was impossible for those who propagated and embraced the new teaching to continue with those who believed that the old was better. In doctrine and practice alike the two were so incompatible that their respective supporters had to part company. The new teachers led their followers out from the fellowship of those who refused to go along with their teaching. They probably accused those who adhered to the old ways of shutting their eyes to the light, if not of committing the sin against the Holy Spirit.
The Christians who remained in their former fellowship were hard hit and shaken by the secession of these others, and needed to be reassured because the others were so confident that they were right. they talked in such superior terms of their special initiation into the true knowledge that humbler believers might well wonder whether their foundation was so secure as they had thought. Where did the truth lie? Where was eternal life to be found? In their old fellowship, or with the seceders? The seceders probably said, “We’ve got it; you haven’t!” How could it be known which side was right? What were the criteria?
To Christians in this perplexity, then, the First Epistle of John was written. The writer was in the best possible position to state the criteria of truth and life, and to help his readers to see that they, and not the seceders, satisfied these criteria. “I write this,” he says, “to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13).
Here is a man who knows what he is talking about. He knows what the true gospel is, because he was there when it began. He had been a companion of the incarnate Word of Life—had seen Him, heard Him, touched Him. His readers had not had this experience, but he writes to share with them what he and his fellow disciples experienced. Thus “the Elder” (as he was called par excellence in his circle of friends) and his “little children” would rejoice together in the certainty which he possessed already and which, imparted by him to them, would banish their bewilderment and doubt.
The doctrinal basis of the epistle is the common stock of apostolic Christianity, the kerygma (“preaching”) and didache (“teaching”) of which appear here as “the witness” and “the commandment.” The “witness” proclaims the love of God in the sacrifice of Christ; the “commandment” applies the practical implication of the “witness” to the lives of believers.36
Where is eternal life to be found? In the Son of God. “God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who has not the Son of God has not the life” (1 John 5:11 f.). But the Son of God had become incarnate; those who denied His incarnation had not the Son, and therefore could not have that eternal life which was to be found only in Him. It was as simple as that.
John and his readers, who remained faithful to the original teaching and fellowship,37 were in the sphere where eternal life might be enjoyed, because their fellowship was with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. Those who turned their backs on this fellowship turned their backs on eternal life. They might claim to possess it—indeed, they might claim to be in exclusive possession of it—but their claim was vain. They had abandoned the true foundation. So, John exhorts his readers, “let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father” (1 John 2:24).
In these words, John makes a solemn affirmation of the permanent validity of the apostolic witness to Christ. For us, that witness is enshrined in the New Testament writings, our rule of faith and practice. We may transpose, restate, retranslate as much as we will. Only let us see to it that our transposition, restatement and retranslation make the apostolic witness clearer than ever, rather than obscure it or dilute it or turn it into something else. “For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). It is not for nothing that the heading of 1 John in the New English Bible is “Recall to Fundamentals.”
2. Structure and Authorship
Attempts to trace a consecutive argument throughout 1 John have never succeeded. For the convenience of a commentator and his readers, it is possible to present such an analysis of the epistle as is given at the end of this introduction, but this does not imply that the author himself worked to an organized plan. At best we can distinguish three main courses of thought: the first (1:5-2:27), which has two main themes, ethical (walking in light) and Christological (confessing Jesus as the Christ); the second (2:28-4:6), which repeats the ethical and Christological themes with variations; the third (4:7-5:12), where the same two essential themes are presented as love and faith and shown to be inseparable and indispensable products of life in Christ.38
If attempts to trace a consecutive argument have not been successful, attempts to distinguish sources have been even less so. It is plain to the observant reader that we have here passages in homiletic style interspersed with epigrammatic theses, often grouped in antithetic pairs. We may think of the repeated “If we say…” of 1:6 ff., “He who says…” of 2:4 ff., or the four pairs of antitheses in 2:28-3:10.39 Rudolf Bultmann has discerned twenty-six antithetical couplets (closely related in his mind to the “revelation discourses” of the Fourth Gospel), which he regards as the core of the epistle, worked over in homiletic fashion by another author, to whom we owe the epistle in its present form.40 Wolfgang Nauck similarly distinguishes the antithetical core from the revised and enlarged document, but ascribes both parts of the work to the same hand.41 It is unlikely, however, that the antitheses ever existed as a separate document. The author may well have used them in his oral ministry to drive home his message, and incorporates them at appropriate points in this written homily. Source criticism is as barren an exercise in the study of this epistle as it is in the study of the Fourth Gospel.42
The main question of authorship raised by the study of 1 John is whether it is the work of the Fourth Evangelist. To some students of the two compositions no such question arises.43 Thus T. W. Manson, lecturing on Johannine theology, pointed out that this cannot be deduced with certainty from the Fourth Gospel, because of the difficulty of distinguishing the teaching of Jesus from the interpretation of the Evangelist. If we are to “examine the Johannine theology in its relatively pure state,” then “the proper method is to begin with the Epistle and there find what are the leading theological ideas of the author.”44 Many years previously another English writer, John Chapman, went so far as to say that “no sane critic will deny that the Gospel and the first Epistle are from the same pen.”45 In expressing himself thus, he presumably meant to exclude from the category of “sane” critics certain continental scholars who had denied identity of authorship, but his prediction (whether it was intended as such or not) was falsified twenty-six years later when C. H. Dodd—a “sane critic” if ever there was one—presented an argument for diversity of authorship, based partly on vocabulary and style and partly on theological outlook. He found the Epistle to be less Hebraic and Jewish than the Gospel and freer in its adoption of Hellenistic thought-forms and expressions, and in its theology—its doctrine of the atonement and the Paraclete, and especially its eschatology—to be nearer to popular Christianity than is the Gospel. Accordingly he gave up what he acknowledged to be “the unvarying tradition from early times.”46
No one disputes the remarkably close relation between the two compositions in language and outlook; they clearly come from the same circle or school if not from the same individual. It is not easy to speak dogmatically about the common authorship of two anonymous works which, while exhibiting this close relation, belong to different literary genres. This last fact may account in large measure for the differences in vocabulary and style. As for the theological differences, these have been exaggerated. There is futurist as well as realized eschatology in the Fourth Gospel (cf. John 5:28 f.; 6:39 f., 44; 12:48) and realized as well as futurist eschatology in the Epistle (e.g. the recognition of false teachers as “antichrists” already present in 1 John 2:18). Moreover, the “notable differences between the Gospel and the Epistle turn out to be differences not between the Epistle and the Gospel as a whole, but between the Epistle and certain sections of the Gospel”47—those sections, more specifically, which are characterized by Aramaisms. On the whole, it cannot be said that the arguments for diversity of authorship are sufficient to overthrow the evidence, both internal and external, for common authorship.48
A date towards the end of the first century is most probable.49 This is indicated by the type of heretical teaching against which the readers are put on their guard, and is confirmed by the evidence that the Epistle was known early in the second century—possibly by Ignatius and certainly by Polycarp and Papias.50
3. Analysis of 1 John
1. Prologue (1:1-4)
2. Walking in Light (1:5-2:2)
(a) The character of God (1:5)
(b) Three antithetic tests of life (1:6-2:2)
3. The New Commandment (2:3-17)
(a) The test of obedience (2:3-6)
(b) The test of love (2:7-11)
(c) Encouragement to three age groups (2:12-14)
(d) Warning against the world (2:15-17)
4. The Teaching of Antichrist (2:18-27)
(a) Many antichrists (2:18)
(b) The test of perseverance (2:19)
(c) Distinguishing truth and error (2:20-27)
5. Children of God (2:28-3:24)
(a) The two families (2:28-3:10)
(b) The test of love (3:11-18)
(c) Christian confidence (3. 19-24)
6. The Two Spirits (4:1-6)
7. Walking in Love (4:7-21)
(a) In praise of love (4:7-12)
(b) Perfect love and sound doctrine (4:13-21)
8. The Victory of Faith (5:1-5)
9. The Ground of Assurance (5:6-12)
10. Epilogue (5:13-21)
35 Augustine (Questions on the Gospels ii. 39) gives 1 John the title, “To the Parthians.” This title was first (mistakenly) attached to 2 John, and then in the course of transmission transferred to the beginning of the group of three epistles. See note .
36 See especially C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles (London, 1946), pp. xxvii ff.
37 A detailed examination of the beliefs held in common by John and the readers of his first epistle is made by O. A. Piper, “1 John and the Didache of the Primitive Church.” JBL 66 (1947), pp. 437 ff.
38 Here I follow rather closely W. G. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament (London, 1966), pp. 306 f.
39 See p. .
40 “Analyse des ersten Johannesbriefes,” Festgabe fur A. Julicher (Tübingen, 1927), pp. 138 ff. Later Bultmann argued for the further activity of an ecclesiastical redactor, who added an appendix (5:14-21) and a few other passages propounding the church’s eschatology and doctrine of atonement through the blood of Christ (“Die kirchliche Redaktion des ersten Johannesbriefes,” In memoriam E. Lohmeyer, Stuttgart, 1951, pp. 181 ff.). Most recently, in his commentary, he has confirmed his continued adherence to these views, but supplemented them with the suggestion that 1 John 1:5-2:27 was a preliminary draft, and that the same themes as are handled in it are treated again in the individual literary units making up 2:28-5:12, in a modified and amplified but unconnected fashion (The Johannine Epistles, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 2).
41 Die Tradition und der Charakter des ersten Johannesbriefes (Tübingen, 1957), pp. 1 ff.
42 In The Puzzle of 1 John (London, 1966), J. C. O’Neill argues that the author of the epistle was a member of a Jewish sectarian group who, in common with the majority of his fellow members, came to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. The epistle comprises twelve poetic admonitions belonging to the traditional literature of the group which he enlarged to show that the ideals of the group had been realized in Jesus. Those people whose views are controverted in the epistle are the members of the group who had refused to join in recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. The prologue (1:1-4) is omitted from Dr. O’Neill’s purview for purposes of this analysis.
43 Cf. B. F. Westcott, “The arguments which have been alleged to support the opinion that the Books [the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle] were by different authors, do not seem to me to need serious examination. They could not be urged if the books were not detached from life and criticised without regard to their main characteristics” (The Epistles of St. John, London, 1902, p. xxx, n. 1).
44 On Paul and John (London, 1963), pp. 87 f.
45 John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, 1911), p. 72.
46 “The First Epistle of John and the Fourth Gospel.” BJRL 21 (1937), pp. 129 ff.; cf. also his The Johannine Epistles (London, 1946), pp. xlvii ff. In particular, his conclusions were influenced by the contrast he saw between the realized eschatology of the Gospel and the futurist eschatology of the Epistle.
47 T. W. Manson, On Paul and John, pp. 86 ff.; see also his Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Manchester, 1962), pp. 116 f.
48 Detailed arguments for common authorship, marshalled with C. H. Dodd’s arguments for diversity of authorship in mind, are most cogently presented by W. F. Howard in “The Common Authorship of the Johannine Gospel and Epistles,” JTS 48 (1947), pp. 12 ff., reprinted in The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation4 (London, 1955), pp. 282 ff.
49 The same approximate date is indicated for the Gospel, but which of the two was earlier or later cannot be determined.
50 See p. .