Part 123
The probatio (presentation of the case) has three sections: 1:16—21 forms the first. Peter gives two proofs that the message that Jesus will return (v. 16—his 'power and coming') is trustworthy. In doing so Peter cuts to the heart of the dispute because, as we have seen, this future event was central to Peter's understanding of the divine economy, but others denied that Jesus would return (v. 16—'cleverly devised myths'; 3:4), and that judgement would come (2:4-10; 3:5-13). Indeed Peter takes Jesus' coming as synonymous with the eschatological judgement. The first proof is that Peter was an eyewitness to the transfiguration (w. 16—18). This is relevant, in general because it demonstrates that the Christian message is about real events not myths, and in particular because the transfiguration revealed that God does break into the flow of the world (cf. 3:4—7) and that Jesus was God's majestic Son/ Agent. Furthermore, the divine proclamation of his Son on a mountain points to Ps 2:6-7—which goes on to speak of that Son/Agent's role in judgement (cf. Rev 2:26—8; Ps. Sol. 17.22— 4). The connection of the transfiguration to Jesus' coming in judgement is also made in the Synoptic Gospels (esp. Mk 8:38-9:8—although analysis, e.g. by Bauckham (1983), suggests that 2 Peter is independent of the Synoptics).
w. 3—15 form the exordium—the theme of the letter is introduced and the reason for listening to it is highlighted. God has given the addressees the knowledge of God necessary for them to escape from the immoral world surrounding them and enter the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ. However, the time for such an escape has not yet come. In the meantime, two paths are open to those with this knowledge: if they live a righteous life the divine calling will be confirmed; if they do not, they will become forgetful and the knowledge ineffectual, and when the time comes they will not enter the kingdom. The readers should listen carefully because pursuing the correct path is vital, so vital in fact that Peter has put his exhortation in writing so that it will continue to be heard even after his impending death. Crucial to this exhortation is the maintenance of the distinction between the past (v. 3— the 'divine power has given... everything needed'; v. 4—'has given' the promises), the present (w. 5-7—'you must make every effort'; v. 8—'keep you from being ineffective'; v. 9—'is nearsighted and blind, and... forgetful'; v. 10—'be... eager to confirm your call'), and the future (v. 4—'you may escape from the corruption... become participants in the divine nature'; v. 10— 'you will never stumble'', v. n—entry into the... kingdom will be... provided': emphases added). Others were doubting that
The second proof is the 'prophetic message' (i.e. OT) which also speaks of an eschatological denouement (1:19 can be translated as either 'the prophetic message more confirmed'
(i.e. the prophecies are confirmed by the transfiguration) or 'the very reliable prophetic message' (i.e. they are independent confirmation)). Furthermore, these prophecies were truly from God and not man's invention (w. 20-1). The light
(i.e. revelation) provided by the prophetic message is vital but only partial—'a lamp... in a dark place'. Eventually, however, 'the day dawns and the morning star rises' (cf. Test. Levi, 18.3— 4; Num 24:17; Rev 22:16)—the eschatological age will arrive, and bring complete light ('in your hearts', because knowledge of God is in view; cf. i Cor 13:12). '[N]o prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation' (v. 20) appears to focus
1273 2 PETER
freedom (v. 19) from moral restraints (presumably on the basis of Christ's work, cf. i Corinthians) and hence indulged in immoral practices. In fact, however, evil is stronger than they supposed, and they have now become enslaved to it— indeed, they are now in a worse state than before (v. 20, cf. Mt 12:43—5 11 Lk 11:24—6). In their arrogance they have obeyed evil in their lifestyles and so are now slaves of evil (cf. Rom 6:16). The certainty of judgement (linked to the Jesus' coming) is the dominant theme throughout 2 Peter. The attack in ch. 2 suggests that the immorality of Peter's opponents was based on their belief that judgement would not come, hence Peter's insistent response that it surely will. In fact their views may have been more nuanced, for example that the physical world
on the interpretation of prophecy not its origin (cf. 3:16). However, v. 21 clearly deals with the origin of prophecy, and if Peter's opponents rejected prophecy's divine origin they would not be engaged in its interpretation. Coherence is best achieved by taking v. 20 as referring to the way that the prophetic writings themselves are interpretations of the revelations the prophets received. Hence both verses are about the origin of the prophetic writings, both in general (v. 21) and in particular the interpretation given by the prophets of the revelations they received (v. 20). The reference to prophetic interpretation of revelations fits the context of Peter's interpretation of the transfiguration event.
Probatio Part 2 (2:1-22)
(and hence sexual immorality etc.) did not matter. Whatever the reason that the false teachers believed that their actions would not be judged Peter's response is simple—they are 'bringing swift destruction on themselves' (v. i). The word 'swift' here points out the problem with which Peter must deal—no such judgement has actually happened, v. 3 expands this—is their 'condemnation... idle, and their destruction ... asleep'? Hence w. 4—6: a carefully crafted set of three examples that demonstrate that God did, and therefore will, bring judgement. The casting down of the angels (alluded to again in v. 17) and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah can be found in Jude 6—7, while the example of Noah is Peter's own addition (though a common image of judgement, e.g. Mt 24:38-9).
Thus, in the first part of the probatio Peter defends the teaching that Jesus will come in judgement, and as part of this defends prophecy. In the second part (ch. 2) he turns to attack those he calls 'false teachers' (likening them to the 'false prophets' of old) asserting that they will be condemned when the judgement comes. Although w. 1-3 assert that their teaching is false ('false teaching', 'destructive opinions', 'deceptive words') here, and particularly throughout the rest of the chapter, it is their actions that are attacked. Indeed other than that they 'deny the Master' (v. i, cf. Jude 4) and 'promise... freedom' (v. 19) we remain ignorant of their teachings (except for Peter's assertion that it was 'bombastic nonsense', v. 18). What is clear from w. 20—2, however, is that Peter judges that they once knew 'the way of righteousness' but that they have become 'again entangled' and have 'turn[ed] back from the holy commandment' (and indeed, v. 18, are ensnaring others who have 'just escaped' from error).
Probatio Part3 fj.'i-yj
2 Peter 3:1—2 forms an introduction to the third part of the probatio, reminding the addressees who is writing to them in order to re-emphasize the letter's authority before the central issue of 2 Peter is explicitly addressed in w. 3—13: the apparent failure of the promise of Jesus' coming. Many commentators see the use of the future in v. 3 ('scoffers will come') but the present in w. 5-13 as a sign of the letter's pseudonymous origins—the false teachers were in the future for Peter, but in the present for the real author. The switching is then either sloppiness, or the real author's attempt to communicate to his readers that the letter was not actually by Peter. However, it is plausible that Peter himself would have switched between the future and the present. For in v. 2 the OT and Jesus are in view—it is reasonable for Peter to refer to their predictions as 'scoffers will come' (cf. Jude 18), but to use the present tense when discussing the fulfilment of those predictions in his day. Ch. 2 is similar. If pseudonymous, the future in 2:1—3 is fr°m
Two themes dominate the attack. They are immoral: w. 2, 18, 'licentious'; w. 3, 14, 'greed'; w. 3, 14, 15, 18, 'deceptive words' 'entice'; v. 10, 'depraved lust' (cf. Jude 7—8); v. 13, 'revel'
(at Christian community meals? cf. Jude 12, i Cor 11:17-34); w. 13,15, 'doing wrong'; v. 14, 'adultery'. Furthermore, despite their 'ignorance' (w. 12, 16, 22, like animals, even a donkey knows better, cf. the theme of Peter's addressees' knowledge) they are arrogant: v. 10, 'despis[ing] authority' (of God); w. 10n, 'slander[ing] the glorious ones' (spiritual powers, cf. Jude 8, 10, iQH 10:8—here clearly opposed to the angels); v. 13— 'revel[ling] in the daytime'. The language used is colourful, often drawing upon the Jude-like source (particularly in w. 4— 18) although re-editing it. For example, Jude 8-10 argues that since Archangel Michael did not slander the devil (alluding to a contemporary Jewish tradition) the opponents certainly should not. w. 10-12 carry the same argument but have had the particular reference to Michael and the devil removed, obscuring the logic in the process. While the accusations of immorality could simply be part of an overheated polemic, the notion of slandering spiritual powers is unusual enough to suggest that particular practices are in view. w. 19-2 o give the clue—they have been mastered, 'entangled', and 'overpowered' by 'corruption' and are now its' slave s'—their turning back from righteousness to error (w. 20-2) appears not to have been intentional (cf. 1:8-9—'ineffective and unfruitful', 'forgetful of the cleansing of past sins'). Putting together the threads, it appears that underestimating the power of evil
Peter's point of view and the present in 2.10-22 from the real author's. If by Peter, he used the future to call to mind the prophecies that this would happen, and the present when discussing their fulfilment.
v. 4 states clearly the claim whose refutation underlies the whole letter: Jesus' coming will not happen. 'Ever since the fathers fell asleep' (RSV; sleep = death, cf. i Thess 4:13) shows that the problem was linked to the idea that Jesus would return before the death of the first generation of the church (cf. Mk 9:1; 13:30)—they have now died but Jesus has not come. The importance of this is clear: if the fathers have died and Jesus has not come, then he will never come, and therefore nor will judgement (this immediate connection to
('slander[ing] the glorious ones'), they arrogantly claimed a
I JOHN, 2 JOHN, 3 JOHN 1274
scriptures, cf. 1:19—21) will also come. 'The day.. .will come like a thief (v. 10) is a common NT motif (cf. Mt 24:43; Lk 12:39; J Thgss 5:2J Rgv 3:3J J6:i5) pointing to Jesus' return being unexpected.
judgement fits the context of ch. 2, and the focus on judgement, not Jesus' coming, in w. 5—10). Peter defends the idea that judgement will come in two ways. First (w. 5—7), he points out that the assertion that everything has remained the same since Creation (v. 4) is simply false—God brought destruction on the world in the Flood (cf. 2:5 where the Flood is Peter's addition to the Jude-like source) and he will do it again. Second (w. 8-9), he gives two explanations of the apparent delay. 'With the Lord one day is like a thousand years' (v. 8 cf. Ps 90:4) shows that God's perspective on time is very different from ours (cf. Jubilees 4:30; Sir 18:9—11; 2 Apoc. Bar. 48.12—13; Ps.-Philo, Bib. Ant. 19.13); and the 'delay' is the result of God's mercy in giving time for repentance—a common answer (cf. Rom 2:4; 2 Esd 7:33; Plut. Mor. 549b; perhaps Mk 13:10) to an old problem (cf. Hab 2:3).
Peroratio (3:14-18)
The final five verses form the peroratio: its beginning marked by 'Therefore, beloved' (v. 14; repeated in v. 17 after the 'digression' about Paul), although perhaps 3:11-13 should be included since w. n and 13 are exhortatory. The tone is similar to that of the exordium (1:3—15)—positive encouragement with the hint of warning (v. 17, cf. 1:8-9) as compared with the three stages of the probatio which focused on rebutting the idea that the judgement would not come. The reference to Paul is important for scholars wishing to date the book (see above) and to understand the development of authority in the early church. However, its importance for 2 Peter can be exaggerated: if Peter knew his opponents' beliefs were based on Pauline material he would have developed this argument about Paul far earlier and in more detail. This reference is more of a final flourish—'in addition Paul agrees with all of this, if his words are not twisted'. Exactly which Pauline material is being referred to is not clear, if indeed particular writings are in mind: patience out of mercy suggests Rom 2:4 and 9:22; the opponents' immorality an antinomian reading of Pauline teaching (cf. Rom 3:8; Jas 2:14—26); and the disbelief in the coming judgement an over-realized version of Pauline eschatology similar to that opposed in i Corinthians. The letter's close (v. 18) echoes its opening (1:1-2)—grace, knowledge, and Jesus as Saviour; the final words ('day of eternity') give one last reminder of the theme of the letter: the judgement day will
The future destruction will be by fire (w. 7, 10, 12) in contrast to the Flood (cf. i Enoch, 83:3-5, for the Flood having destroyed the whole world). Judgement through fire was an old Jewish idea (e.g. Mai 4:1) which had developed into a widespread expectation of a universal conflagration (cf. Zeph 1:18; i QH 3:19-36; Jos. Ant. 1.70). Here, despite the reference to universal destruction, judgement is still clearly the focus (v. 7, 'day of judgement... destruction of the godless'; v. 10, 'everything... will be disclosed'; v. n, 'lives of holiness and godliness'). Stoicism spoke of a world conflagration in which everything returned to its constituent elements
(e.g. Cic. Nat. D. 2.118), seemingly a close parallel to w. 10,12. However, the influence of Stoicism should not be exaggerated: here history is pictured as linear, while Stoicism had an endless cycle of destruction and renewal; and the references to 'the elements' should probably be seen as to heavenly bodies / powers (cf. Isa 34:4 LXX; Gal 4:3; Col 2:8, 20; Apoc. Pet. 5; Justin, 2 Apol. 5.2; 2 Clem. 16.3) rather than constituent elements. The reference to the word of God in v. 7 bolsters the assertion that the judgement will come: Creation and the Flood both came by God's word (w. 5, 6); thus undoubtedly the future judgement decreed by his word (i.e. the prophetic
come
R E F E R E N C E
Bauckham, R. J. (1983), Jude, 2 Peter, WBC (Waco, Tex.: Word Books).
79. i John, 2 John, 3 John JUDITH LIEU
stem from the same school, the question of authorship remains an open one.
A. Authorship and Setting. 1. Although 'the Johannine Epistles' are traditionally linked together, only 2 and 3 John name and claim a common authorship, by 'the Elder'; 2 John shares much of its language and ideas with the anonymous i John, but whether this indicates shared authorship or imitation is disputed. Attempts to deny the common authorship of the minor epistles and to see one or other, usually 2 John, as pseudonymous (e.g. Bultmann 1973) have won little assent. From an early date i John was associated with the fourth gospel and both were assigned to John the Apostle (see JN), although there was initially more uncertainty over the two minor epistles (Lieu 1986: 10-18). In recent scholarship the common authorship of the gospel and first epistle has become far less certain, particularly after Dodd (1937), as too has that of the three epistles. While the gospel and the three epistles clearly
2. The majority position which sees the gospel as prior to the three epistles, which follow in their canonical order, has also come under attack; some even reverse the sequence with 2 and 3 John first (Strecker 1989). This debate is inseparable from the—often speculative—reconstruction of the events behind the documents (see Brown 1979). In the absence of external evidence to solve these issues the starting point for interpretation must be the language and thought of the letters themselves.
3. Supposed settings for i John have focused on references to schism (2:18-19) and to those holding false beliefs (4:2-3). Earlier, more confident, identifications of 'the heretics' with known groups within the early church are not supported by the text itself; undoubtedly there is conflict over the understanding of Jesus although the precise nuance is obscure (see further i JN 4:1-6).
1275 I JOHN, 2 JOHN, 3 JOHN
The debating style, 'if we say...', 'whoever says...', and 'whoever...', is not aimed against actual groups who took the positions which are criticized; the negatives (1:6, 8, 10; 2:4, 9, n) are foils to reinforce the positive affirmations (1:7, 9; 2:5, 6, 10), which establish an essential pattern of belief and life. This is combined with, and illustrates, the 'testing' style: 'by this we know...' followed by the 'proof. A similar structure reappears in 3:4-10 and 4:8, 20.
B. Genre. While 2 and 3 John follow the standard length and some of the conventions of contemporary letters, i John is more idiosyncratic. It is self-consciously a written document (2:1,7, T-i—t^, 26; 4:13), but has often been likened to a homily. Although there is an overall argument there is no clear structure, and themes and ideas often reappear in new combinations and contexts. Authoritative address to an audience still called 'children', is mixed with a more co-operative recognition of them as 'brothers and sisters' who 'have knowledge'; there is also a combination of exhortation and statements of assurance. A 'paraenetic letter' is probably the most accurate description of i John.
In 1:6-7 walking or remaining in the light/darkness is a metaphor for right behaviour; in 2:9—11 it indicates a sphere of living in relation to God and, as a claim implying participation in salvation, requires verification. The terminology is 'Johannine', but unlike Jn 12:35; &12 there is no Christological emphasis. In 2:6 'walk' is a biblical term for 'live/ behave' (Gen 17:1; Ps i, etc.); the choice between two ways also has Jewish and Jewish-Christian parallels (Mt 7:13-14;
ijohn
Did. i. 1-2; 4.14-5.1). In this paragraph, 'knowing' God, 'being in him', and 'abiding in him' are distinctive Johannine expressions of religious experience (cf Jn 17:3, 21—6; 6:56; 15:5-6); there are partial OT (Jer 31:33-4) parallels, and closer ones in intertestamental literature (iQH 11:9). Later parallels in gnostic literature are part of the same religious trend and do not make i John 'gnostic'. 'To know' in Johannine, as in Jewish, thought points more to a relationship than to intellectual apprehension. Although these terms are apparently individualistic, i John always sets them in a corporate context (cf. 2:9—11), and, as here, binds them to obedience.
(1:1—4) The Prologue The 'we' (v. i) who have heard, seen, and touched are never further identified, and elsewhere the author writes as an individual (2:1, 12-14; 5:I3)- Seeing, hearing, and witnessing is the foundation of his argument, but the epistle and the debate about authorship do not suggest that he was an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus or even associated with others who were; all believers can make a similar claim (4:1416), and the 'we' which here contrasts with 'you', the readers, elsewhere includes them.
The object of this perception was not the word incarnate as in John (Jn 1:14), but the neuter 'what was from the beginning'; in 2:7, 24; 3:11 'from the beginning' appeals to the earliest preaching these readers heard, and this, rather than an absolute beginning (contrast Jn 1:1), may be the force here. Although it is 'concerning the word of life', word is defined objectively by what can be proclaimed, while 'life' brings together the past—it 'was revealed'—and the present experience of true believers which is the final purpose of the letter (5:11-13). In contrast to the gospel's prologue, the focus is on the shared experience of believers, in which the certainty of what 'was revealed' in the past, and the sense of a communion which encompasses the divine as well as the human are integral parts (v. 3).
The dualist pattern of light v. darkness, which reappears in 3:4—10, raises the problem of sin (v. 6); does the incompatibility of light with sin mean that those who sin have no possibility of a share in the light, or that those who belong to the light can claim not to sin? Here the solution is the assurance of forgiveness for those who confess their sins. Different images are used to explain forgiveness: that of the blood of Jesus in 1:7 implies a general sacrificial metaphor; in 2:1 Jesus, present with God, is an 'advocate' or intercessor, the word used in Jn 15:26 etc. of the Spirit (parakletos); in 2:2 he is, again present, a hilasmos (cf. 4:10), probably not an 'atoning sacrifice' as in the NRSV, but less technically 'a means of forgiveness' or reconciliation. 'Of the whole world' is an exception to the attitude to the world elsewhere, see i JN 2:15—17. In 1:9 God forgives because 'he is faithful and just', an echo of Ex 34:6; Neh 9:17, etc.
A common tradition of language and ideas best explains the 'similar but different' relationship with Jn 1:1—18; there are also OTroots, particularly in Deutero-Isaiah (e.g. 13343:8-10). (1:5-2:11) Walking in the Light Although disputes about right belief concerning Jesus apparently prompted the letter (2:1822; 4:1—3), the starting-point is the understanding of God (1:5). The argument quickly moves to an internal debate over true and false religious claims and behaviour.
'His commandments' (2:3), identical with 'his word' (v. 5) and with 'the old/new commandment' (w. 7—8), or with 'the message' (3:11), is the command to love one another (3:11; 4:21). 'New' echoes Jesus' institution of this command in Jn 13:34-5 but here is defined eschatologically by the inbreaking of the 'new age'; 'old' refers not to the roots of the command in the OT (Lev 19:18) but to 'the beginning' (cf. 1:1; 2:24), probably not in Jesus' ministry but in their reception of the message (cf. 2 Jn 5). 'One another' or 'a brother' includes only fellow members of the community (NRSV adds an inclusive 'or sister', and in 2:11 interprets 'brother' by 'believer'). At 2:4 the dualism of light v. darkness (i f N 1:5-7) is repeated in truth v. lying (as at 1:6, 10—not 'truthfulness' but an absolute) and love v. hating (2:9—11); this is not just an ethical dualism of opposing moral possibilities but is rooted in the nature of God (see 3:10-15; 4:7-8): in 2:5 'love of God' may be 'for God'
The identification of God with light has Hellenistic parallels, but these do not exclude a Jewish background (Ps 27:1). The complete incompatibility of light and darkness reflects a dualist perspective which developed within Judaism in the intertestamental period and was not unique to the original ('from the beginning') Christian message. In 2:8, n 'darkness' is virtually an independent but negative, opposing force; although 2:11 echoes Isa 6:10, blindness is induced not by God or through preaching but by darkness (contrast Jn 12:40). In i John the interest is not the doctrine of God, but the moral consequence that authentic fellowship with God demands a life equally belonging to 'light'.
I JOHN, 2 JOHN, 3 JOHN 1276
The schism is interpreted through a conventional eschatological scheme familiar to the readers. 'Antichrist', 'opponent of or 'an alternative' Christ (v. 18), is a Johannine coinage (cf. 2 Jn 7) but the idea of a figure personifying the final opposition to God has Jewish roots and is found in other Christian writings (2 Thess 2:3—4). By applying this eschatological scheme to the schism i John excludes the possibility of debate with those who left, justifies the trauma it may have caused, and makes the decision to remain within the community inescapable and certain of imminent vindication (cf. 2:17). In keeping with the whole letter and its dualism, the passage articulates a strong sense of the 'election' (a word not used) of the community: because, contrary to appearance, the schismatics had never 'belonged to us', this confidence need not be undermined. Different images express this 'election': (i) They 'know' (cf. also i JN 2:3): in 2:21 the object is 'truth', not just about the present disagreement but absolutely (cf. 2:4). In 2:20 there are textual variants: either 'you all know' (x B; NRSV) or 'you know all things' (A; C; RV); the absence of an object would be unusual but is well-attested and would have invited alteration. Like the gospel, i John only uses the verb, and not the noun 'knowledge', gnosis (contrast NRSV). (2) 'The anointing', a noun in w. 20 (contrast NRSV) and 27, probably refers to what has been used or received rather than to the process, and is metaphorical rather than a literal rite
(objective) or 'from God' (subjective). The dualism is also eschatological: darkness belongs to that which is coming to an end, light to the future, which in i John's realized eschatology is already dawning. The dualism is developed in 3:4-15; 4:2-6 where it is used to define those who belong to the community against those who do not.
Jesus is important in this section as a means of forgiveness (i JN 2:2) and as a model of'walking' (2:6); i John's use of'he, him' is ambiguous: Jesus or God may be the object of knowledge (2:3—4), l°cus of abiding (2:5—6), and source of the commandment or word (2:3, 5).
(2:12—17) Separation from the World This section forms an interlude of affirmation and reinforcement of the readers' separation from 'the world'. The variation between T am writing' and T write' (= I have written) is stylistic. It is not clear whether 'children', 'fathers', 'young people' refers to three different groups, two groups who together can be addressed as 'little children' (cf. 2:28; 5:21), or the whole community viewed in a conventional threefold division from different perspectives. The latter is most probable as in i John the descriptions ('because ...') are true of all believers. There is no hierarchical structure of the church here. 'Sins are forgiven', cf. 1:7—9. 'Know him who is from the beginning', cf. 2:3; 4:7; 5:20, either God (= the Father, 2:14) or Jesus: the beginning may be 'of time' or as defined by the preaching, cf. 1:1. 'Have conquered/overcome [the same word in Greek] the evil one', cf. 5:4—5: this is a realized eschatology which affirms for the present what properly belongs to God's final triumph over evil. 'Word of God abides', cf. 2:24, 27.
(baptism or unction). The reference need not be to baptism, not mentioned in i John, nor to the Spirit: in v. 20 'the Holy One' may be God or Jesus (cf. Jn 6:69); it is the source of teaching (v. 27) and parallel to 'what you heard' (v. 24). The emphasis is more on received tradition or teaching than on spiritual gifts or on a mystical or ritual 'illumination', and the resemblance to 'gnostic' ideas is only superficial. The term may be a Johannine coinage (chrisma cf. antichristos) in the context of a debate about'the Christ' (v. 22). (3) 'Whatyouhave heard from the beginning' (v. 24): cf. 2:7. Faithfulness to the past proclamation which was probably part of the foundation of the community is more than loyalty to tradition or conservatism. The same language of mutual abiding or indwelling is used of it as of the relationship with 'the Son and the Father' so that it and an intimate relationship with God (and Jesus) are interdependent. Thus the last line of v. 27 is ambiguous: either 'it' (the anointing) or 'he' taught, and the command— probably, although it could be 'you do abide'—is to abide in 'it' or in 'him' (cf. v. 28).
'The world' (w. 15-17) represents all that is opposed to God and to those who belong to God, cf. 3:1, 13; 4:4—5; 5:4—5. 19This is not a gnostic or ascetic anti-materialism but part of the dualistic structure of Johannine thought: the dualism is not absolute since the world is also eschatologically delimited (cf. 2:8); there are hints of a more optimistic view of the world in 2:2; 4:14, although these may be largely conventional formulae. The gospel shares the same predominantly negative view with more marked exceptions (7:7; 15:18-19; 17:9, 14-18, 25; 3:16; 4:42; 8:12). The Johannine community's experience of hostility both from the Jewish community (see Gospel of John) and more generally, together with an initial dualist mindset, has generated this attitude.
The conventionally tripartite 'desire... desire... pride' (v. 16) cannot be precisely defined. An echo of the Gen 3 story is possible, but 'desire' can have more general negative connotations (Num 11:4; Ps 106:14; Gal 5:16; Eph 2:3); 'flesh', 'eyes', and 'riches' (lit. 'life', translated 'goods' in 3:17) are not inherently negative in i John (1:1; 4:2). i John may be using a traditional formula to reinforce the desired separation between the readers and 'the world'. (2:18-27) Reassurance despite Schism This section introduces what has often been seen as the primary purpose of the letter, the recent experience of schism within the community. However, the emphasis is not on those 'who went out' but on maintaining the confidence of the readers, particularly necessary if those who left were in the majority or more obviously successful (4:5). In contrast to the preceding sections the main emphasis is on right belief, and is picked up in 4:1-6.
The schism was over the status of Jesus but the issue is obscure, although cf. 4:2. The denial that 'Jesus is the Christ' (v. 22) could be a denial of his messiahship: the formula is used of early preaching of Jesus as Messiah (Acts 18:5, 28). This view is less likely, not, as often argued, because i John does not imply a Jewish setting, but because the dispute was between those who had been members of the community, not outsiders or apostates. The alternative formulation, 'denying the Son' or 'the Father and the Son', is not the schismatics' but the author's interpretation and acts as a definition of'Christ'. There is no link with the earlier debate over moral issues, although there may be an implicit association in 'liar' (v. 22 cf. 1:10; 2:4) and'those who would [or'do'] deceive' (v. 26 cf. 1:8).
(2:28-3:3) Present Confidence and Future Hope The combination of affirmation and exhortation is repeated in terms of
1277 I JOHN, 2 J O H N , 3 JOHN
1991: 58—65). Freedom from sin belongs in Jewish and Christian thought to the age to come when the realm of God finally excludes all that opposes it, as too does victory over evil (2:13— 14) and over death (3:14); in i John these are so real that they are part of the present and sharing in them equally excludes any part in that opposition. In v. 4 'lawlessness' is not disobedience to the law but the opposition to God in the final age (cf. 2 Thess 2:3, 'the man of lawlessness'). Other early Christian writers also had to struggle with the tension between the certainty of God's victory over sin in Jesus and the continuing reality of sin in Christians' lives (cf. Heb 6:4-8).
present and future eschatology. There is no connection with the reinterpretation of eschatology in 2:18, and here it takes a distinctive Johannine shape. Conformity now is the guarantee and the condition of future conformity, but whether with God or Jesus is not clear.
The continuity from 2:27 and 3:1, 'the world... did not know him', suggests that 'he' in this section is mostly Jesus whose coming (parousia, 2:28), as elsewhere in early Christian tradition, is expected; if so, v. 290 anticipates 3:7 where Jesus
('that one') is again said to be righteous. However, in 2:29 'born of him' must be 'born of God' (cf 3:9; 4:7; 5:1; see below) suggesting that at the beginning of the verse 'he is righteous' also refers to God (so 1:9); in this case, since no change is indicated, God may also be the one who is to be revealed and come in v. 28. In 3:2 the translation 'he is revealed' (NRSV) in context also refers to God: being children of God is the precondition of the greater conformity which will come from 'seeing God' (cf. Mt 5:8). This difficulty in determining whether 'he' refers to God or to Jesus is characteristic of i John's thought. In 3:3 'he is pure' more clearly refers to Jesus: the emphatic 'he' (ektinos) occurs in brief sayings appealing to the example of Jesus (2:6; 3:3*, 5*, 7*, 16; 4:17*); those marked with an asterisk use the present 'is'—Jesus has present significance, either with God (cf. 2:1-2) or within the teaching of the community. 'Confidence' or boldness (2:28) is the assured status of believers in 3:19—22 ('before God'), 4:17—18 ('on the day of judgement') and 5:14; in these passages themes traditionally associated with future judgement serve the present needs of believers in exhortation and assurance.
Jesus ('he'), as the righteous one without sin, is not just a model (but note 'he' in w. 5, 7, ektinos, cf. i JN 3:3), but also belongs to the realm of God's victory. He was 'revealed' in the past (cf. 1:2 of the 'life'), but the verb is used equally of when 'he' will be 'revealed' (2:28, see above); 'to destroy the works of the devil', presumably through his ministry or death although how is not stated, is an eschatological event, traditionally part of God's final victory, but now already effected. 'The devil' (v. 8), mentioned here for the first time, is presumably identical with 'the evil one' in 2:13, 14. In Jn 8:44 the Jews have the devil as their father; i John shares the same tradition of imagery but with a sharper dualism, 'the children of God' v. 'the children of the devil', which is used not in polemical rhetoric as in John but to distinguish two exclusive groups. It is likely that the tradition of Cain in contemporary Jewish thought as the child of the devil lies behind both Jn 8:44 where the devil was a murderer from the beginning, and the more general words of i Jn 3:8 that he 'has been sinning from the beginning'; Cain is explicitly one who murdered in 3:12.
(3:4—10) Sin and Righteousness In one of the most dualist passages in the letter, sin is contrasted with righteousness, love with its failure (or later, hate, 3:13), and the children of God with the children of the devil. The main purpose of these absolute alternatives is to define the community and encourage faithfulness.
Believers as 'children of God' (3:1, 10; 5:2) and as 'born of God' (2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18) is characteristic of the second half of the letter (Lieu 1991: 33-8); there is a dualist contrast only in 3:10 with 'children of the devil' (never 'born of the devil'). There is no specific moment of birth (e.g. conversion, baptism): the stress is on the inalienable relationship with God but is more precise than the broader 'of God' (also 'of the devil, world' etc.). The origins of the idea are not clear; it is found briefly in John (1:12—13 [II:52]> contrast 'birth from above/anew' in Jn 3). OT parallels are weak (Ex 4:22; Deut 32:5-6); Hellenistic ideas of divine begetting or rebirth are later and not dualist; in iQS 3:19—4:26 'children' imagery in a dualist setting is found, but not divine begetting.
Four contrasting couplets built around the pattern 'Everyone who...' may be one of the sources of this section (as first isolated by von Dobschiitz 1907): 2:29/7 + 3:40; 3:6; 3:7/7 + 8a; 3:90 + lob. If so, the dualism of the source has been intensified both by the development of origin from G od or the devil in ioa, and by the perfectionism of gb (see below), and has been modified by the insertion of 8c: there is no longer a timeless opposition between sin and righteousness because of the victory won when 'the Son of God was revealed'.
In 3:9 'God's seed' may be God's offspring who remain 'in him', i.e. God (cf. NRSV fn.), but it is more likely that God's seed remains in 'him', i.e. 'the one who has been born of God': in turning the phrase into the plural, 'those who... in them', the NRSV obscures the ambiguity. It has been suggested that 'seed', perhaps like 'anointing' in 2:20, 27 (cf. i JN 2:20, 27), reflects a gnostic understanding of divine enlightenment and/or was a term used by 'those who went out' (2:19). Nothing explicitly supports this, and while 'seed' could be a reference to God's word (cf. the parable of the sower)—a reference to the spirit seems unlikely—it may continue the allusion to the Genesis story (cf. Gen 3:17; 4:25): God's choice continues not in Cain and those of his ilk but in those who truly carry God's seed which makes them God's children. 'Of God', w. 9—10 (cf. 'of the truth', 3:19) also points to divine origin; the negative is 'of the devil' or 'of the world' (4:6). The
Sin is viewed differently from 1:6—2:2; here it belongs to the negative side and is impossible for anyone 'who abides in him' (v. 6) or who is among those who 'have been born of God' (v. 9). In 5:16-18 the same apparent contradiction is found, first suggesting that believers may sin and that forgiveness for some sins is possible, then repeating the affirmation that 'those who are born of God do not sin' (i JN 5:18). The contrast is not simply between fact and ideal, between believers as sinners before God but sinless 'in Christ', or between individual sins they may commit (1:9) and their removal from the realm of sin. When i John is considering the pastoral needs of the community the need to deal with all that mars that life is paramount; when seeking to affirm and preserve their separation from other values and systems the certainty of the radical change they have experienced becomes overwhelming (Lieu
I JOHN, 2 JOHN, 3 JOHN 1278
fellow believer in need. This is the only hint that differences of class or wealth may have contributed to the schism.
gospel has a wider range of origins' formulae (Jn 8:23; 3:31, etc.).
The passage has concentrated on love among believers; in 3:17 'God's love' may be the love which comes from God and is the source of believers' love, but it might equally mean 'love for God' (cf. 2:5): the only certain evidence of love for God is the more visible love for a fellow believer. (3:18-24) Condemnation and Confidence in God The NRSV paragraphing takes v. 18 with the following verses. Thus practical love is the guarantee of being 'from [= of] the truth' and a source of reassurance before God, even in the face of self-doubt; God's knowledge, superior to such doubt, is a further source of hope. The contrast offered by v. 21 is then only a subjective one: boldness comes from a lack of sense of self-condemnation and not from any real difference in relation to God. An alternative possibility is that God's greater knowledge can only reinforce and add to the condemnation dimly anticipated; this demands not that we 'will reassure our hearts' but 'sternly exhort our hearts' (cf. NEB fn.). The sequence from v. iga becomes clumsy but v. 21 then provides a clear contrast of the happier state of no self-condemnation where boldness is justified and answered. However, v. 18 may be the conclusion to the previous section, so v. 19 starts a new but related issue of the confidence before God (cf. RSV). The introductory 'by this' then anticipates what follows, a pattern found in 2:3, 5 (?); 3:10, 24; 4:13,17 (?): that 'God is greater...' is the source of 'our' knowledge and self-reassurance. The negative alternative would not be possible. As elsewhere (i JN 2:28) condemnation and boldness before God, which properly belong to the future judgement or vindication, are already experienced in the present. Response to prayer, a common theme in NT and Johannine literature (cf Mt 7:7; Jn 14:13; 15:16; 16:23, 26)» is picked up in 5:14-15 as a mark of'boldness'.
3:10/7 forms a climax to the section, expanding the introductory v. 4» in the language used in the intervening verses, and adding a further definition which makes it directly applicable to the situation and concerns of the letter, i John has no other explicit definition of sin than the failure to love one's brother' or fellow believer: the NRSV's 'brothers and sisters' is justifiably inclusive but obscures i John's use of the singular 'brother' (2:10—11; 3:15,17; 4:20—1; the only exception is 3:14). This definition gives some support to the argument that it was the schism, clear evidence of a failure in love, that shaped i John's thought even about sin.
(3:11-17) Community within Love The previous passage is now given a more practical exposition in the attitudes believers experience from others and hold towards each other. Again the primary thrust is to explain and reinforce the community's separation from outsiders and their internal cohesion. In v. n, love of brother is now replaced with love of one another, as also in 3:23; 4:7, n, 12, in each case in exhortation or with reference to the command; this is the distinctive formula of the Johannine tradition (Jn 13:34; 15:12, 17). For i John it is the epitome of the proclamation heard from the beginning (cf 1:5; 2:7; i JN 2:3). The appeal to Cain as the model of a failure in reciprocal love is the only explicit OT reference in the letter, but the range of OT allusions (cf. 2:11) and concepts refute denials of any Jewish background. Here the story of Cain probably lies in the background since 3:8 (cf. i JN 3:8) and continues until 3:15, since Cain was the archetypal murderer (cf. Jn 8:44), or even 3:20 (cf. Gen 4:9—10). Cain is not just one of a number of possible negative examples, neither is the failure to love an unfortunate weakness or lapse: both are expressions of the absolute contrast between God and the devil and between life and death. Cain was of'the evil one' and so were his deeds evil: the same formula is used in Jn 3:19, suggesting common patterns of exegesis and language lie behind both the gospel and letter. Gen 4 gives no clear explanation of God's preference for Abel's sacrifice and only implies it led to Cain's murderous act; i John is like other later readers, Jewish and Christian, who sought to remedy this difficulty (cf. Jos. Ant. 1.2.1; Heb 11:4).
The commandments are God's; the alternation between the plural and the singular in w. 22—4 is characteristic (cf. 2:3—4, 7) but here mutual love (for the formula cf. i JN 3:11) is combined with belief, recalling 2:18—23 an(^ anticipating the move to 4:1—3 where such belief has to be properly articulated. Abiding (v. 24) is in and by God, as most commonly in i John
(contrast Jn 6:56; 15:1-7, but NB i Jn 2:24), and is inseparable from obedience (cf. i JN 1:6—7). The spirit is mentioned for the first time (cf. i JN 2:20, 27; 3:9); despite the NRSV's capital S, i John has a much simpler idea of the spirit than John; in 4:13 it is God's spirit but is not further related to the divine life. These two references bracket the exhortation to 'test the spirits' in 4: i where the NRSV uses 's'.
The analogy set within its dualist scheme explains the hostility the community has been experiencing; what form this 'hate' takes is not described and there is no explicit mention of persecution (contrast Jn 15:18-20). The world is that which opposes God (cf. 2:15; i JN 2:15); in 4:3-5 it is the realm of the antichrist and it responds to those who have left the community. The explanation would be reassuring if the community was in a minority and those who had split from it appeared rather more successful. However, the main use of the analogy is to reinforce the demand for love within the community. Such love proves and is the condition for their not belonging to the Cain/murderer/evil-one side of the division. In the light of 3:10 (cf. i JN 3:10/7) it might seem that the best expression of love was not to join the schism, but the 'Johannine' appeal to the example of Jesus' ('he' = ekeinos) self-sacrifice (cf. Jn 15:13), makes it broader. Yet literal selfsacrifice may not be meant, for the only application is the readiness to share one's 'goods' or life (cf. i JN 2:16) with a
(4:1—6) True and False Confession This passage links with 2:18-19 (cf- 'antichrist') and has often been seen as the key to the letter: former members of the community rejected right confession of Jesus and left, perhaps achieving missionary success (v. 5) and provoking a threat to the confidence and stability of the community. Their identity has been much debated.The schism is interpreted in the light of eschatological tradition as in 2:18; 'false prophets' also reflects this (cf. Mt 24:11, 24) and does not mean they were 'charismatics'. 'Testing the spirits' belongs to eschatological decision and is not discernment of spiritual gifts (i Cor 12:10; 14): the more general 'spirits' in the introduction to the passage is reduced
1279 I JOHN, 2 JOHN, 3 JOHN
The focus is on the primacy of God's love (i.e. 'love of God', 4:9,12); although grammatically this could mean love for God or love from God (cf. 2:5), the primary emphasis is on love from God which even if expressed in the past act was for us. Yet 'his love' in v. 12 may by extension be the love which originates from God but is expressed by believers towards others; it is unlikely that 'love from God' would be dependent for its full reception on believers' reciprocal love. However, believers may also have love for God, although not as the primary expression of love (v. 10), nor as a claim to be made independently of love for 'a brother or sister' (w. 20-1).
by its end to the alternatives, spirit of truth or of error. A conflict between the spirit of truth and the spirit of error, both as cosmic forces and as forces within people, is also found at Qumran (iQS 3:13-4:26) without any 'charismatic' setting; John's non-dualistic 'spirit of truth' is different (Jn 14:7; 15:26; 16:13). Th£ contrast belongs to i John's dualism and emphasis on 'truth', but 'error' is also an eschatological theme (Mk 13:22). The conflict is also between the community and 'the world', between God and 'the world' (cf i JN 2:15), from whom each has its origin ('from', cf. i JN 3:9), and also between those who respond to either side: there is no neutral third party, i John's thought is deterministic: response does not merely result in being 'of God' or 'of the world' but is generated by it as a pre-existing state. This determinism is complementary to the realized eschatology: their victory is already complete. The greater one who is in them is God, the one in the world might either be the antichrist as in v. 3 or an allusion to the devil.
That God 'sent his Son' (w. 9, 10, 14) is the traditional terminology of the Johannine tradition, as also is the epithet 'only' (Jn 3:16; 1:14, 18); while it may imply pre-existence, 'sending' can merely stress authority and representation, an important distinction for the gospel but not the main issue for i John with its lack of theological reflection. 'Saviour of the world' is also a Johannine epithet (Jn 4:42), and does little to soften the largely negative attitude to the world in the letter
Confession of Jesus is the hallmark of the spirits. Those/the spirit who fail/s to confess Jesus (v. 3) cannot be unbelievers since these were never within the community (contrast 2:19), but erstwhile members. The alternative reading, 'does away with' or 'deprives of power/significance' (Vulgate and some patristic evidence including Irenaeus) may have originated as an attempt to clarify their error; if original its ambiguity led to the simpler alternative. The positive confession is not 'that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh' (so NRSV, emphasis added), which would require a different grammatical construction; this makes improbable earlier interpretations which saw the schism as a denial of Jesus' true humanity
(cf. i JN 2:15-17). The world is only the arena of the sending and not the recipient of God's love and the offer of life (v. 9, contrast Jn 3:16); it is 'for our sins' that he was a means of dealing with sin (better than 'atoning sacrifice'), perhaps also a traditional formula (cf. i Jn 2:2).
'We have seen... do testify.. .have known and believe' (w. 14—16) is also characteristically Johannine (Jn 1:14; 3:11; 6:69; 20:29) and includes all believers even though not original eyewitnesses (cf. i JN 1:1-3). Th£ apparent objectivity is balanced by the more 'subjective' reciprocal abiding by/in God which is made evident by the gift of his spirit (cf. i JN 3:24). Both are bounded by the conditions of love for one another (v. 12) and of right confession (v. 15). 'Jesus is the Son of God' is the right confession for the first time here (cf. 5:5), but has been anticipated by 'confessing/denying the son' in 2:22—3; there is no difference from 'Jesus is the Christ' (2:22; 5:1; cf. 4:2). 'Son of God' is not a messianic title for i John but indicates the inseparable relationship between Father and Son; although God is the focus of much of i John's thought, God has been and is known only through his action in the Son: although God cannot be seen, that as Father he sent the Son can be (w. 12, 14).
(docetism, cf. IDE i. 860), or as a theory that the union between the divine Christ and human Jesus was temporary and did not include his death (often associated with Cerinthus, the traditional opponent of John, cf. ABD i. 885). It is a confession of'Jesus Christ (as) the one who has come in the flesh' (my tr), although the nuance intended by this is not clear. 'Flesh' is not a major concern in this letter (cf. only 2:16); in the Johannine tradition it can be both ambivalent (Jn 3:6; 8:15) and central (Jn 1:14; 6:51—6). i John's broader interest in Jesus does not help interpretation; he is model, victor over the devil, a means of dealing with sin in past and present, son of, and inseparable from, the Father; i Jn 5:6 adds further precision but is even more obscure (i j N 5:6). Jesus Christ's having come in flesh is partly an antithesis to the false prophets having come out into the world; it is no less real but of directly opposing significance. The schismatics did not invest Jesus with the significance the author does, but the latter's love of contrast and concern to avoid real debate with alternative ideas exclude any certain recovery of their views. (4:7-21) Abiding in Love The thought returns to the life of the community, interlacing assurance with exhortation, centred on the theme of love which moves inseparably both between God and believers and amongst believers themselves. However, the need for right belief is part of this web: the past sending of the Son is both the evidence of God's love and the continuing norm of right belief and union. Love for one another (cf. i JN 3:11) is rooted only at the end of the passage (v. 21) in 'the command', here closer to the 'synoptic' combination of love of God and love of fellow (Lk 10:27).
That 'God is love' (w. 9, 16) is not a statement about the 'divinity' of love or an abstract definition of God: it is God as experienced. Equally, 'abiding in love' is not a mystical experience but combines faithfulness to the manifestation of God's love in the Son and showing love to a fellow believer, v. 7 does not mean that anyone who loves is born of God (cf. i JN 3:9) but that love is their necessary characteristic. 'The day of judgement' (v. 17) recalls a more traditional eschatology (cf. Mt 10:15; II:22> 24) where 'boldness' (cf. i JN 2:28; 3:21) and fear belong; here it is only the ultimate context of believers' conformity to Jesus (= he, cf. i JN 3:3) in the present and the purpose or full expression—the relation between 'in this' and 'that' is obscure—of the present total flowering of love.
(5:1—5)Victory through Faith This section acts as a bridge between the preceding focus on love and the emphasis on the total certainty centred on right belief in 5:6-13. Right belief in Jesus as the Christ (cf. i JN 2:22), like love, is the mark ofthe one born of God (5:1 || 4:7, cf. i JN 3:9). Here this just defines
I JOHN, 2 JOHN, 3 JOHN 1280
a specific moment but views his sending as a completed whole. (5) Some cross-reference to Jn 19:34 is possible, although the order is reversed, but the obscurity of that passage does not clarify this. The formula may have been more familiar to Johannine Christians.
the one to be loved as only the one who holds the right faith: love of the begetter (God) entails love of the one begotten: NRSV 'parent/child' obscures the symmetry. This does imply that love of God has some primacy; contrary to 4:19-21, v. 2 suggests that the proof of love for fellow believers is love and obedience to God, which in practice are identical. The commandments (pi.) means nothing more than the commandment (sing.) (4:21, cf i JN 2:3); love of God is love for God ('objective genitive'; contrast 4:9 cf. 2:5, 4:21).
The spirit both has some priority over the other two terms as the witness, and is joined with them as equal terms in a single witness. It would be wrong to limit the witness of the spirit to a single moment in the life of Jesus or of the church defined by 'water' or 'blood'. Elsewhere in i John the spirit is part of individual or corporate experience (3:23; 4:1, 13), but there is not a single 'doctrine' of the spirit. The three witnesses who are a unity led to a trinitarian reference ('the Johannine comma') being inserted in the text, which was accepted by the translators of the AV (cf. NRSV fn.); it is not part of the original text of i John. 'Human testimony' is not identified with that of spirit, water, and blood, or with any specific witness (such as John the Baptist, cf. Jn 5:32—5), but is only mentioned to emphasize the contrast with the testimony of God. God's testimony does not refer to a particular event or moment but reasserts the absolute certainty that God has acted in Jesus and thus established Jesus as son. It might be expected that eternal life would be the consequence of the testimony or of accepting it; i John's thought is so tightly intermeshed that life instead becomes the content of the testimony; equally, believing or not believing, i.e. accepting or rejecting the testimony, is the condition of experiencing life.
The neuter 'whatever' (v. 4) rather than 'whoever' is odd but has Johannine parallels (Jn 6:37, 39; 17:24 (not NRSV)) and looks at them as a totality. Victory over the world is an eschatological reality already present in the realized imagery of birth from God (cf. 4:4). This could suggest a passive determinism, and to avoid this 4/7 defines the source of victory as 'faith'; only here in i John, 'faith' must mean not the subjective emotion but right faith as immediately defined, v. 5 defines that faith in terms of the individual who professes the faith that Jesus is the Son of God (cf. i JN 4:15); the verse forms an indusio with the parallel confession in v. i but also leads into the following section. (5:6-12) The Witnesses to the Son The confession of Jesus as Son of God is now further elaborated and given a secure foundation with God as guarantor, and therefore is the sine qua non of any true relationship with God. Although the passage is often treated as polemical alongside 2:18-23 and 4:1—6, here there is no reference to opponents, to the antichrist, or to right and wrong confession or denial. 'Believing' and 'witness' in i John are always used of the community and its identity. Thus the passage should not be used to identify the schismatics. Belief in Jesus as Son of God is that he 'came' both by water and the blood: the stress is on both, but chiefly on 'blood', and does not mean that some believed thathe came by 'the water only'. It is unlikely that the change from 'by' to
Thus life, which was a key to the opening of the letter (1:2), is also the key as it reaches a preliminary climax. Life is by definition 'eternal' life, not a quantitative longevity but a quality. 'Objectively' manifested as the inspiration of the letter, its assured possession is also the letter's purpose. Yet this is not missionary but pastoral, for those who believe.
(5:13—21) Exhortation to Sinlessness Although 5:13 could be read as a conclusion, it is not. 5:14—21 have often been seen as an appendix, perhaps added later, by a different author, possibly after the model of the appendix to John, ch. 21, with which, however, it shares little in common. There is no convincing linguistic or textual evidence for this view, and these verses should be seen as the true conclusion of the letter, v. 13 acts as a transition, closing the earlier passage, and forming a basis for what follows.
'with' is significant, and both prepositions are ambiguous with the verb 'to come'. The meaning of the assertion has been widely debated with no final consensus; there are various possibilities: (i) According to ancient ideas the combination may refer to real human conception; it is not certain that this would have been self-evident and the double stress would be unusual. (2) Most commonly 'water' has been seen as a reference to baptism; that Jesus' divine sonship effectively started with his baptism was held by some early Christians but seems unlikely within the Johannine tradition. 'Blood' as a parallel event would then have to be the crucifixion, certainly an essential moment in his mission. However, 'came by' and 'blood' would be obscure ways of expressing this. (3) Because water and blood become witnesses in the present and not just the past in w. 7-8, some have seen a reference to baptism and eucharist, founded in the events of Jesus' ministry and continuing vehicles of his presence. A eucharistic reference seems unlikely in blood on its own (cf. Jn 6:53—6), and is out of character with the letter's lack of sacramental or liturgical references. (4) In 1:7 'blood' indicates the sacrificial nature of Jesus' death in dealing with sins in the present; although not otherwise used in the letter, water is also a symbol of cleansing, and is an important image in the Gospel of spiritual renewal. This would fit the letter's concern for Jesus' present efficacy, particularly in relation to sin. 'Came' need not denote
'Boldness' (cf. 2:28; 3:21; 4:17) here has present and not eschatological reference (see i JN 2:28); as in 3:21 it is expressed in confidence in prayer, which is sure both of being heard and of being answered. The issue is given specific reference in intercessory prayer. Intercession (v. 16) is not general but specifically for a fellow believer who is found sinning, i John has treated sin both as a present reality (1:7-2:2) and as an impossibility (3:4-10) for believers (cf. i JN 3:6, 9, 14). This passage introduces a contrast between sins whose end is death and those not so defined, although this contrast cannot necessarily be used to explain the earlier contradiction. Intercession for 'non-terminal' sin is proper and will be answered. The NRSV's 'God will give life' is supplying a subject to the ambiguous 's/he will give life'; equally possible is that the one praying, by winning forgiveness, gives life to the erstwhile sinner.
The identity of the sin whose end is death has been much debated. Not relevant is the OT's distinction between witting
I28l I JOHN, 2 J O H N , 3 JOHN
ing ('A' to 'B'), an initial expression of joy (v. 40), hopes of a personal visit, more highly valued than written communication, and a closing exchange of greetings are all conventional. The opening greeting has been considerably expanded in characteristic Johannine language, with a heavy emphasis on 'truth', which is almost objectified, but also becomes a formulaic 'in truth': 'truth' is used eleven times in the two letters, possibly because it was under threat but perhaps because it had become a conventional normative term. 'Love', 'truth', 'abides' are all Johannine terms, as is 'joy... be completed' in v. 13 (Jn 15:11; i Jn 1:4). The greeting is not the conventional Greek one (Jas 1:1), but a development of the Pauline 'grace and peace to you'; here 'mercy' is added (cf. i Tim 1:2), giving a more Judaic tone, and the implied wish of the Pauline form has become a confident assertion, 'will be'. Unusually, neither the author nor the recipient are given personal names. The identity of'the elder' has been debated since the early circulation of the letters: some early traditions refer to an 'elder John' at Ephesus, whether or not identical with the Apostle being disputed (Eusebius, Hist. Ecd. 3.39.4). As a technical epithet it is unlikely to refer to an elder in a local church since this was a collegiate office; evidence of'elders' as a group with a wider-ranging authority based on links with early Jesus traditions or charisma is disputed. It may have been a significant term within the Johannine circle. (See further Lieu 1986: 52—64.) 'The elect lady' is now usually seen as a reference to a local church in the OTand NT tradition of referring to Jerusalem as a woman (Isa 54; Bar 4-5; Gal 4:21-7; Rev 21:1; cf. i Pet 5:13); in v. 13 her 'elect sister' will be another congregation, while 'the children' are members of the community. There is no evidence that secrecy because of persecution demanded such allusiveness, which is consistent with the more abstract tone of the whole letter. Although earlier views that individual women were intended have lost favour, that these churches were headed and met in the household (cf. 'house' in v. 10) of a woman leader is possible. (4-6) Obedience to the Tradition An initial expression of joy is conventional in contemporary letters. By implication it introduces the theme of potential dissent which dominates the letters, although 'some' need not mean there were others less obedient. 'Walking in ['the' is not expressed in 2 Jn 4; 3 Jn 2] truth' is peculiar to the two minor letters (2 Jn 4, cf. 6; 3 Jn 3, 4): it differs from the metaphorical 'walking in the light' of i John (i JN 1:6—7), an(^ could mean 'walking' = '(behaving) sincerely', but more probably belongs to the formulaic use of'truth' in these letters (2 JN 1-3,12-13 ab°ve)-
and unwitting sins (Num 15.22-31), nor probably Mark's sin against the Holy Spirit (Mk 3:29). Other early Christian writers have difficulty in understanding sin among believers, particularly where a strongly realized eschatology makes the blessings of the kingdom, which must include sinlessness, present realities (cf. i f N 3:4—10). i John's solution reflects this dilemma and probably means that 'terminal sin' is the wilful self-exclusion from those blessings, i.e. separation from the community and rejection of the faith that leads to life (5:12).
The dilemma is underlined (v. 18) by the immediate repetition of the perfectionism of ch. 3, that sin, unqualified, is not possible for the one born of God. This time the source of assurance is the protection of the one who was born of God; this is Jesus, only here so described, and not a reference to the believer who protects him/herself: the tense of the verb 'was born' is different (contrast 'are born'). Thus the dualism is maintained of the evil one v. Jesus.
This dualist framework is repeated, setting the world and the evil one on one side, God and 'we' as God's children on the other. The transforming agent of this dualism is the Son of God (cf. 3:8-10); here the focus of his activity is not the evil one/devil but the revelation of the true one.
w. 18—20 are carefully constructed with three affirmations 'we know that'; the first two are dualist, the third expands beyond the 'objective' assertion to a personal affirmation, 'and we are...' In all this God is only mentioned derivatively ('of God') or indirectly ('the true one'). The final assertion 'This one is...', better than NRSV's unemphatic 'He', forms a climax on its own, but its antecedent is unclear, (i) '[God] = the true one... is the true God' has a loose parallel in Jn 17:3, but is tautologous and a poor climax. (2) 'his Son Jesus Christ... is the true God' is grammatically more natural, but Jesus is nowhere else in i John identified with or as God, although cf. Jn 20:28 (but NB 'my') and 1:18. i Jn 1:2 does make a close connection between Jesus and eternal life as manifested and experienced: as a climax to i John's argument this would be dramatic but would it be too startling? In practice the final climax is v. 21, but there is little agreement what it means or why it is the last word. Some have attempted to interpret 'idols' metaphorically of false beliefs, of those who held such ideas, of deceptive conceptions of God or Jesus, or of sin. Although there are some parallels to this in Qumran, most ancient usage indicates that unless context or modification suggests otherwise, 'idols' are meant literally. The term was a Jewish one for the pagan gods, both for their representations and for the gods themselves without clear distinction. Nothing in the letter supports the idea that the Johannine Christians were under pressure to acknowledge pagan gods during persecution. Turning from idols was a popular way of describing conversion to both Judaism and Christianity (i Thess 1:9), a conceptual context which would fit other aspects of i John. This may be a final reminder of a conversion call, which the author hopes the readers will reinterpret in their new setting.
The appeal to the command and its form of mutual love is a Johannine norm (i JN 2:3; 3:11): the NRSV's 'let us love' may rather be a definition 'that we love'. Here it explicitly originates from 'the Father', in contrast to the ambiguous i John 'him' (i Jn 2:4; 3:23) and to John where Jesus gives the command (13:34; 15:12); whereas in John the command is new, and in i John both new and old (i Jn 2:7-8), here it is not new but one had 'from the beginning'. As in i John (i f N 2:3) this refers to their original hearing of the message. There is certainly a tradition link and possibly a literary link between the three descriptions, but the sequence is debated; the priority of the gospel formulation is often assumed but need not be the
2 John
(1—3, 12—13) Epistolary Framework The brevity of the letter and its epistolary formulae are reminiscent of letters of the period surviving on papyrus. An opening third person greet-
case.
I JOHN, 2 JOHN, 3 JOHN 1282
has been suggested, but it may convey the idea of 'leading forward'.
The almost tautologous identification of love and the command, so thatthe content of one is the other (cf i Jn 5:2—3, i f N 5:1—2), leads to the ambiguity of v. 6; the closing 'that you are to walk in it' (the NRSV's 'you must...' is clever but grammatically unconvincing) could refer either to the command or to love.
The prohibition in w. 10—n provides the focus of the letter; what precedes gives a context and is not intended to be overprecise. The warning is against any who presumably claim to be Christians but fail to conform to the Johannine norm. Appropriate treatment of visiting believers, particularly 'missionaries', was a significant concern for the early church where hospitality was a virtue (Heb 13:2), and the teaching and leadership they brought could be either vital or threatening for small, scattered communities (see Rev 2:2; Did. 11-13). 2 John's harsh refusal both of hospitality and of any acknowledgement has echoes in Ignatius' attitude towards those he views as heretics of the most poisonous kind (Ign. Eph. 7.1). Older and contemporary parallels to such avoidance are found in 'sects' who have a strong sense of their own election and of their separation from 'the world', which they seek to maintain. This mentality also explains the equation of one offering a greeting with those s/he greets. This prohibition was later appealed to in the early church not only for the correct response to 'heretics' but also in the debate over rebaptism of schismatics, a situation alien to its original one. In fact it remains a matter of dispute whether there was an original specific situation, similar and perhaps anticipatory to that which inspired i John (see 2 JN 4-6), or whether the letter is using Johannine language and traditions in a formulaic way in order to establish a clear self-identity, perhaps in a beleagured or minority situation.
(7—11) Warnings The appeal to tradition in formulaic Johannine language in w. 4—6 is a foundation for the central section and its harsh directives. The language gives a sense of extreme urgency with a combination of warnings and sharp imperatives. A relationship with i John, especially 2:18—23; 4:I~6 is obvious, but the temporal sequence of the two letters is disputed: a minority see 2 John as an immediate response, while i John is more reflective, while others see the language of 2 John as derivative from i John, with its harsh measures as evidence of a hardening of attitudes.
The language of deceiver(s) and antichrist is shared with i John and sets the crisis in an eschatological framework (see i JN 2:18—27); 2 J°hn does not call them 'false prophets'. Although the formula echoes i Jn 4:1, they are not said to have left the community (contrast i Jn 2:19) but 'are abroad in the world'. In contrast to i Jn 4:2-3 only the negative confession is articulated, and it is directly attributed to the 'deceiver and antichrist'. The confession is distinguished from the positive form in i Jn 4:2 by the position of'in flesh' following and not preceding the verb, and more importantly because the verb is not in the past (perfect) but in the present: 'Jesus Christ coming in flesh' (contrast NRSV). Technically this could mean that a future coming in flesh by Jesus is being denied (so
3 John
Strecker 1989); although there are parallels to this belief in early Christianity, it does not fit well in a Johannine context. A theological nuance of the abiding significance of Jesus' coming would not be expressed in this way. It would be wrong to dismiss the form as grammatical carelessness. A likely explanation is that the formulation, taken from i Jn 4:2, has been modified by the gospel's description of Jesus as 'the one coming [who is to come] into the world' (Jn 6:14): the author is more interested in the negation of traditional Johannine teaching than in its precise articulation. Particular individuals or groups rejecting this confession therefore cannot be identified.
(i—2, 13—15) Epistolary Framework Like 2 John, 3 John uses some of the epistolary conventions of its age, particularly in the closing: this includes greetings to and from 'friends' 'by name' and means the epithet was not particularly 'Johannine', nor that they were few in number. The prayer for the health of the recipient is also conventional, and the initial 'concerning all things' (my tr.) is similar but not identical to the opening formulae used from the end of the first century CE. However, it lacks any form of greeting, an absence most typical of official letters, but has at the end a Semitic conventional 'peace to you'. The links with 2 John, including the formula 'whom I love in truth', point to the elder's style, if they are not evidence of imitation by one or the other (so Bultmann 1973). While the author remains anonymous, 'the elder' (cf. 2 JN 1:1), the recipient is 'Gaius', a Roman and probably Gentile name; despite attempts in the early church to identify him with others of the same name, nothing is known of him except what is implied by the letter. The same is true of the other named figures, Diotrephes and Demetrius. However, these indicate a very specific occasion for the letter and have invited equally specific interpretations of the events now lost to us.